Price tag of Iran war becomes new flashpoint in US debate over Israel

As criticism of Israel continues to grow across the American political spectrum, opponents of both Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and President Donald Trump have found a new line of attack: the staggering financial cost of the war with Iran.

With midterm congressional elections looming in November, critics argue that the conflict failed to leave the United States, Israel, America’s Gulf Arab allies, or the broader Middle East in a better position than before the fighting began.

Now, estimates of the war’s economic toll are adding fuel to an already heated debate over America’s support for Israel and its role in the conflict.

The Wall Street Journal reported last Thursday that the U.S. Department of Defense is telling lawmakers on Capitol Hill that it will need $80 billion to cover costs associated with the conflict.

This comes on top of estimates by Moody’s Analytics, the New York-based credit ratings agency, that the war has cost the U.S. economy around $132 billion through higher prices for refined petroleum products, particularly gasoline, as well as fertilizer and other goods.

The $80 billion supplemental funding request has not been confirmed by the White House or the Pentagon. If validated, however, it would represent a dramatic increase from the $25 billion figure the Pentagon estimated in April would be needed to pay for the war.

The mounting costs have become a major talking point for critics who have accused Netanyahu of “dragging” the United States into the conflict since its first day. Those accusations persist despite President Trump’s own social media posts during the Ayatollah regime’s crackdown on anti-government protesters in January, including a direct message to demonstrators that “help is on the way.”

What many now view as a largely forgotten part of the road to war has become a point of contention in the U.S.-Israel relationship.

In an analysis published in late March, Institute for National Security Studies researchers Theodore Sasson and Avishay Ben Sasson-Gordis wrote that “The war with Iran has intensified debate in the United States over Israel’s role in American foreign policy and the future of the US–Israel relationship.”

They argued that the conflict could accelerate “growing partisan polarization, declining support for Israel among Democrats and younger Americans, and the emergence of dissenting voices within the Republican coalition.”

The result, they warned, is that “These dynamics risk shifting the US–Israel relationship from a largely bipartisan consensus to a contested domestic political issue.”

One of the most prominent examples of that shift has come from Tucker Carlson, a highly influential voice on the American Right, who announced he was leaving the Republican Party because of its continued support for Israel despite his efforts to persuade party leaders to change course.

The financial burden of the war has also drawn criticism from foreign policy analysts.

Max Boot, a defense and foreign policy analyst at the Council on Foreign Relations, wrote last week as details emerged regarding the 14-point memorandum of understanding intended to guide negotiations between U.S. and Iranian diplomats that “one thing can already be said with confidence: The war was not worth the high price paid for it.”

“There is, first, the human cost,” he continued. “The U.S. lost thirteen troops in the conflict, while Iran lost over 3,375 people, including 170 killed in what was likely a Tomahawk missile strike on a girls’ school. Twenty-six people who were also killed in Iran’s missile and drone attacks on Israel, and dozens more in various Gulf states. At least two thousand people have been killed in Lebanon, where Israel has mounted a major offensive in response to Hezbollah attacks.”

Boot also lamented the war’s economic costs and the burden placed on American consumers. He raised concerns about the conflict’s broader impact on other countries—particularly those in the developing world—and questioned what long-term consequences the war could have for America’s diplomatic standing.