Should we bomb Iran to save money?
While Robb, Ross and Makovsky provide an interesting account of the economic impact of inaction, they give little attention to the economic cost of action, merely noting that “the disruption of oil flows would have significant economic repercussions.” It is impossible to know exactly what the economic impact of war would be—much depends on how both sides choose targets and tactics, and how successful their efforts are. But it is likely that oil would quickly spike to two hundred dollars per barrel and remain elevated for the duration of the war. With the United States consuming between eighteen and nineteen million barrels of oil per day, massive price increases can easily suck billions of dollars a week out of the economy.
If a conflict were to continue for an extended period—a decision that might be made in Tehran, not in Washington—this could easily tip the country into a recession. A slowed American economy would provide lower revenues to the federal government just as it launched its third consecutive debt-funded war; halfhearted efforts to achieve a balanced and sustainable budget would face new difficulties. The impact on Europe’s ongoing economic crisis could be worse and faltering growth in China and India would also be hit.
Living with an Iranian bomb brings new and serious risks. Yet military action might not reduce any of them, and it will certainly come at a steep price of its own. “Inaction” is expensive. It is just not clear that any of the proposed alternatives are cheaper.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
There are better reasons to bomb Iran.
novaculus on December 28, 2012 at 4:10 PM
I didn’t click through to the article, but it was either written by a liberal keynesian or a neocon keynesian, and it’s absolutely stupid.
War is a terrible thing where real people die. War also is the ultimate form of destruction of resources and costs the peoples waging war substantially not only in direct costs, but in opportunity costs and indirect costs.
How about we let israel deal with Iran, and any role we have is in the background? Or, we can go back to the pre-1970s default method of fighting wars, and issue war bonds that only US citizens can buy. We’ll see how much the US people support war.
Timin203 on December 28, 2012 at 4:30 PM
We could always just NUKE them, twice, from orbit. You really need to be sure.
astonerii on December 28, 2012 at 4:36 PM
Let’s try it. If it works we can do the same thing in DC.
countrybumpkin on December 28, 2012 at 4:57 PM
I see Hot Air is back to their daily routine of propagandizing war with Iran. In case you didn’t know Hot Air, invariably war results in people getting killed. I would like for anyone at Hot Air to explain what have the people of Iran done that makes you all want to kill them? The person who murdered people at Sandy Hook was insane when committed the act of mass murder. Hot Air is advocating for the mass murder of Iranians and they seem to have absolutely no remorse about it. Have you no shame Hot Air?
antifederalist on December 28, 2012 at 5:28 PM
And what has the people of Iran done to you that justifies killing scores of them with a nuclear weapon? The murderer at Sandy Hook killed 26 people. You seem to be looking at killing 26 million people.
antifederalist on December 28, 2012 at 5:31 PM
You’re bloviating.
26 million people?
In your opinion, what is an acceptable number of civilian deaths in order to disrupt the terrorist state of Iran and it’s march towards nuclear weapons, using conventional means?
Mimzey on December 28, 2012 at 5:42 PM
When is murder acceptable to you? How many US civilian deaths would be acceptable since the US government already possesses and has used nuclear weapons? Zero. Therefore, No Iranian citizen should have to die for a weapon they don’t have or have ever used. And the US has no moral authority to sentence other people to death for a weapon they don’t possess that the US has used.
antifederalist on December 28, 2012 at 6:01 PM
Good old conservative mass murder tendencies.
lester on December 28, 2012 at 6:46 PM
You’re bloviating.
I mentioned (in my question to you, which remained unanswered) in an “eliminate the threat” of deadly action.. action with a long standing and proven history of killing innocent citizens, how many people not involved in the direct murderous actions are acceptable in a action of protecting the innocents in the area and beyond?
Again, if you missed the implication, I’m talking about conventional means.
Mimzey on December 28, 2012 at 6:53 PM
A threat of violence or a response to an actual attack? Threats can be contained. Unless they are staging for an attack of the US then there is no justification preemptively attack Iran.
antifederalist on December 28, 2012 at 7:09 PM
You try and make that sound like a law of physics..”a threat can be contained”. Not always, or actually, rarely.
Once an aggressor has reached your standard of staging an attack etc.
The US has an obligation to protect its allies. Iran has threatened and supplied deadly weapons with deadly results on numerous occasions. If fact, I think it is a defining characteristic of the regime. Can you provide any other distinctive characteristics of the Iranian Mullah society?
I can’t help but think that you find any preemptive actions to be somehow morally “wrong”.
Was it morally wrong to defeat the Germans in WW2? They didn’t attck us. In order to win the war we bombed Dresden. Dresden was a city with mostly civilians in it. Dresden didn’t attck us.
Mimzey on December 28, 2012 at 9:14 PM