Unpacking The Cost Of The War On Iran

This message comes from Total Line and More.

College Basketball's biggest tournament is here

and watch parties are underway.

Shop Total Line and More in-store or online

to get ready today.

Spirits not sold in Virginia and North Carolina.

Drink responsibly, be 21.

Hi, it's Jen.

Just a quick heads up before we start the show.

The news moves fast and things may have changed

by the time you hear this episode.

So stay up to date with all the latest

by listening to your local NPR station

and visiting NPR.org.

It's been 13 days since the U.S. initiated Operation Epic Fury

without congressional approval.

The first 100 hours of the U.S. led strikes

on Iran cost around $3.7 billion,

that's according to estimates from the Center

for Strategic and International Studies.

When asked about how long the war may last,

President Trump has sent mixed signals.

We're winning very decisively.

We're way ahead of schedule.

We've already won in many ways, but we haven't won enough.

We could call it a tremendous success right now

as we leave here.

I could call it, or we could go further.

And we're going to go further.

But without a congressional declaration of war

and a spending package to back it up,

how is the Pentagon paying for its military campaign

in Iran?

The Pentagon hasn't yet shared an estimate

of how much the operation will cost.

But some GOP lawmakers estimate the Pentagon

is spending as much as $2 billion a day on the war,

that's according to reporting from Politico.

And the cost goes beyond drones, missiles, and fighter jets.

People are also facing higher energy bills

and gas prices at home as the fighting in the Middle East

drives up the price of oil.

The war and its impact on the U.S. economy

could spell trouble for the GOP come midterms.

I'm Jen White.

You're listening to The One-A podcast.

Today, we explore the costs of the war, militarily,

economically, and politically.

Stay with us.

This message comes from Comcast.

Nothing brings people together quite like team USA

at the Olympic Winter Games.

From NBC Universal's iconic storytelling

to the innovative technology across Xfinity and Peacock,

Comcast brings the Olympic Games home to America,

sharing every moment with millions.

When Team USA steps on to the world stage,

people are not just watching, they're cheering together.

This winter, everyone's on the same team.

Comcast, proud partner of Team USA.

Let's get back to our conversation

about the cost of the U.S. and Israel's war against Iran.

Joining us from Massachusetts is Heidi Peltier.

She's a senior researcher at the Thomas J. Watson Jr. School

of International and Public Affairs at Brown University.

She's also the director of programs

at Brown's Costs of War Project.

Heidi, welcome to the program.

Thanks so much for having me.

And also with us is Matthew Zitland.

He's a correspondent at Heat Map News.

Matthew, it's always great to have you.

Thanks so much.

So Heidi, the estimates for how much the Pentagon

is spending on the war in Iran range pretty widely

from about $870 million a day to more than $2 billion.

When we talk about military spending, what does that include?

Well, the estimates we heard from the Pentagon

in the first few days of war, at first,

were close to $6 billion.

And that was just for the cost of some precision munitions.

So Tomahawk missiles and some other missiles that were used.

Then yesterday, the Pentagon came out

with an updated estimate that they said,

oh, we undercounted.

It's actually closer to $12 billion.

And that doesn't include some of the build up costs

for before the first few days of war.

And what we know is that their estimates will not include

all of the costs that come after the war is over.

So whether this last 12 days, 12 weeks, 12 months, 12 years,

whatever estimate we hear from the Pentagon

will not include all the costs that will continue

to accrue to the American taxpayer, which

will be the ongoing costs for veteran benefits and care,

and the ongoing costs for interest on the debt,

because we will pay for this war through debt.

So whether it's the $12 billion we've already spent

or potentially $50 billion that might get appropriated

for emergency spending, if that happens,

or whatever the cost for the direct operations of the war,

those costs will go on well into the future

to pay interest on the debt that we take out to pay for the war.

As Iran launches retaliatory strikes targeting sites

in Gulf countries, including oil infrastructure,

many are worried about the economic cost of the war.

Iran and its neighboring countries along the Persian Gulf

are some of the largest oil and natural gas producers

in the world.

Matthew walk us through the critical role

around plays in the shipment of oil and natural gas,

especially as it relates to the Strait of Hormuz.

Yeah, so the Strait of Hormuz is a body of water

connecting the Persian Gulf with the Indian Ocean.

It's where the vast majority of oil produced

in the Gulf region transits through,

so that's Saudi Arabia, Iran, Iraq, Kuwait.

It's something like 20 million barrels a day.

It's about a fifth of a global oil production,

and about a third of the shipped oil,

oil sea-borne shipped oil production.

And right now, that Strait is effectively closed.

So, I mean, there's some Iranian tankers

actually going through there,

largely going to China,

but so that means there's millions of barrels of day

not getting through to global markets,

and this has caused oil prices to surge since the war started.

Well, and we should note that on Wednesday,

at least three cargo ships were attacked

in and around the Strait of Hormuz.

That's according to the United Kingdom

maritime trade operations in Iran

has claimed responsibility for one of those attacks.

Earlier today, border and countries,

Iraq and Oman closed their oil terminals

after two tankers were attacked off the coast of Iraq.

Iran has also claimed responsibility

for one of those attacks.

Heidi, help us better understand

how this instability is contributing

to higher oil and gas prices we're seeing right now.

Well, one of the things that happens is that financial markets

have no idea what to expect.

And so many of the costs of all of the goods

in our economy have shipping as part of their costs.

So whether, so it's not just the gas prices

that we're already seeing change at the pump,

which all of us who are driving on a daily basis

feel the pinch already from the surge in the gas prices,

but all of the products that we use

that get shipped from overseas

will see an increase in costs from the shipping

that goes into those products coming from overseas.

And then if you look at American manufacturing,

we use a lot of imported inputs

into the American manufactured goods.

So that's going to raise the cost

of even domestically produced goods.

And financial markets, they are fickle.

And so investors are not sure

what this is going to mean for business.

So they don't want to invest in something

when they're not sure what the long-term ramifications

of these wars are going to be

in terms of energy costs, shipping costs, manufacturing,

economic growth, slowdowns that might happen

because of these energy prices.

And so this can have a downward spiraling effect

in terms of loss in growth,

a loss in investment, and so on.

Well, Matthew, I want to talk a bit

about the global energy ecosystem

because last week, Qatar announced it

would stop the production and export

of liquefied natural gas after an Iranian military attack

on its operating facilities.

And Qatar is the world's second largest

exporter of liquefied natural gas,

second only to the U.S.

And when you think about a country like India,

which relies on LNG, just help us better

understand how this is destabilizing

the global energy market.

Yeah, so the vast majority of those LNG exports

from Qatar were going to Asia.

And that gas is often used in the electricity sector.

But I think the thing that's really pinching right now

because of the time of year it is,

is that fertilizer production is being disrupted.

There's a lot of fertilizer plants in the Gulf region

as well as in South Asia.

And as I think anyone would remember

from high school chemistry, natural gas

is a key feed stock to creating ammonia.

And then from ammonia, you create what's known as urea,

which is the way of getting nitrogen into the soil

and fixed onto plants.

And so this means that food costs will go up.

These are input costs to farmers.

So maybe in the rich world, that means

that farmers would be paying more to fertilize their crops,

especially as growing season starts.

But then also in the developing world,

what you might see is just some farmers,

as you know, these are subsistence farmers,

poorer farmers in Africa and South Asia

might just go without fertilizer for a growing season,

for a planting season, and just would see a hit

to their agricultural productivity.

Well, on Wednesday, the International Energy Agency,

that's an intergovernmental organization.

Now, that works to ensure global energy security

and promote clean energy.

They announced that their 32 member countries

are releasing 400 million barrels of oil reserves.

Now, that's the agency's largest ever release.

And it's in a bid to control spiking energy prices

related to this war, but that move didn't stop

the US stock market from tumbling today

after the IEA more than halved its forecast

for oil supply growth this year.

The agency is calling it, and I'll quote them here,

the largest supply disruption in the history

of the global oil market.

So Heidi, about a third of global emergency stockpiles

will be depleted once the IEA releases the reserves.

What does this move indicate about how long

the agency expects the war might last,

and its longer-term impact on the global energy market?

Well, you know, the reality is,

none of us have any idea how long the war will last.

You know, what we might speculate about what the IEA

is speculating is that they don't think the war

will end immediately, that they already

recognize the disruption in oil supply.

As Matthew mentioned earlier, the Strait of Hormuz

carries about 20% of the war is responsible for about 20%

of the flow of the world's oil through that shipping channel.

So there already has been a severe disruption,

and the IEA is trying to combat that disruption

through this release of the reserve.

Now, if they thought this was going to be a really long

and protracted war, they might not release as much

of the reserves as they have been,

because they might want to be more conservative

in keeping some of those reserves.

So this might imply that they are thinking of this

as more of a medium-term war.

But the reality is that none of us

can really know how long this is going to last.

Before we go to a short break, Tommy Mills,

I have heard figures of $50 billion in borrowing

per week by the US government for this war.

Our current debt is more than $38 trillion.

Now we have a war costing a billion a day,

and we have no one in government screaming

and pounding desks to stop it.

Most in this country can't afford health care,

but we can find a billion dollars a week

to kill school children, tens of billions to give

to foreign countries and now tariffs

that must be refunded.

Who are we?

We'll be right back.

This message comes from an PR sponsor, Total Wine and More.

With so many great bottles to choose from,

it's easy to find your favorite cabernet

or a new single barrel bourbon to try

with some help from one of their friendly guides.

And with every bottle comes the confidence

of knowing you just found something amazing.

Find what you love and love what you find

only at Total Wine and More.

Curbside pickup and delivery available in most areas

visit TotalWine.com to learn more.

Spirits not sold in Virginia and North Carolina

drink responsibly, be 21.

Welcome back.

We're discussing the economic costs

of the US and Israel's war in Iran.

Before we get back to our panels, some emails we got,

Justin wrote,

prices for my family are going up,

mainly fuel and daily necessities like food and energy.

We have to choose between taking the kids out

for an ice cream day or whether to eat dinner.

People like us living paycheck to paycheck

and a place where there is no public transportation

are finding it a lot more expensive

to keep up our vehicle maintenance,

including replacement parts,

which are mostly made overseas.

And could emails how much longer can this war,

low taxes for the ultra wealthy

and eventually reimbursing importers for tariffs

last before there are major repercussions

from the ballooning debt.

The cost of maintaining the debt will grow too big

at some point as government bonds

will need to pay higher interest

and the US government can't be trusted.

Heidi, I'd love to hear your response

to kids email specifically about the cost

of the debt to the US taxpayer.

That's right, both three questions.

So the cost of the debt is not just

because of the cost of war,

but the cost of war certainly is a great contributor

to our debt.

And historically, up through World War II,

the US government would pay for war

through raising taxes, through selling war bonds

and would pay for war by raising revenues.

And that has not happened

basically since World War II

that's starting with the Korean and Vietnam wars.

We started raising supplemental emergency funding

appropriating funds differently.

And in the post 9-11 era,

it's entirely been debt-funded.

And we've incurred over a trillion dollars

of just interest costs in the Iraq and Afghanistan wars.

And all of what we're spending in Iran

is being paid for through debt.

And those interest costs will,

whether we stop our engagement in Iran today

or well into the future,

the interest cost will keep accruing.

And every dollar we're spending on interest

is a dollar that we're not spending

on your first listeners' question.

As a dollar, we're not spending on helping

with tax relief or helping to invest

in public transportation

or helping with other parts of the federal budget.

So right now, the federal budget,

the interest cost is increasingly

crowding out other parts of the federal budget.

We're paying 14% of the federal budget

just in interest costs.

So that is an enormous sum of money

that we could be spending

for those people who would want more defense spending.

We could be spending that on defense.

We could be spending that on non-defense.

We could be spending that on education

or health care or public transportation

or all kinds of other things.

But we're spending 14% of the federal budget

on in this cost alone.

Oh, we have some news here.

Iran's new Supreme Leader Ayatollah

much about how many issued his first statement.

He called for national unity

and said the straight-of-war moves

would continue to be closed

to pressure Iran's enemies.

He also warned that all US bases

should be immediately closed

in the region or face continued attacks.

Now, Matthew, President Trump told CBS News this week

that he was considering taking over control

of the straight-of-war moves from Iran.

Is that something the President can do?

So we're in this very funny situation

where you see the President and some of his allies

saying to these tanker captains

that are on either side of the street,

just go through, you know,

just like turn off the transponder,

wafer it to be dark

and just like make a run for it.

But right now, as far as best I can tell,

as I've heard, the US Navy itself

is not super active in the Persian Gulf right now.

You know, it's not really navigating through it.

It's not launching naval attacks on Iran.

The strikes are all coming from the air.

So if the Navy right now does not feel like

it's safe for them to operate,

you know, the idea that we're gonna see

the straight-of-war moves and open it up

on any kind of quick time frame seems a little unlikely.

I think Secretary Chris Wright, the Secretary of Energy,

said maybe there could be Navy escorts

by the end of the month,

but that's, you know, that's two weeks from now.

And so yeah, right now the United States

has just not seem to be prioritizing

the amount of kind of military hardware

and risk to American sailors, airmen, Marines,

that would probably be necessary

to take the straight and clear it out for commerce.

Oh, we got this question from Timothy,

who says, I don't understand how oil

that hasn't even been processed

can affect the price of gas that is already at the station.

Matthew, what can you tell us?

Yeah, I mean, so some of, I mean, he's right

in the sense that, you know,

some of these price increases will take some time

to feed through the system.

I mean, what you can say is that these markets

are kind of forward looking.

So, you know, oil, oil that's gonna be delivered

in a month has already gotten more expensive

and, you know, the people that operate gas stations know that

and they know that their input costs are going up

and so they can adjust to that.

You know, it's not, it's not a secret

that oil is getting more expensive.

Heidi, you talked about debt

and the potential long-term impacts of a protracted,

well, even a short-term, the short-term war

with Iran, but what are some of the broader economic

consequences of war spending that are often overlooked?

Well, so one thing that we should think about

when thinking about war spending is every dollar

we're spending on war is a dollar

we're not spending on something else.

So whether, you know, we're spending a dollar on war

that is funded through debt,

then that is, you know, a dollar that we are gonna have

to pay interest on starting today and well into the future.

It's also a dollar that's not available to be spent

on whatever else is important to Americans,

whether that's infrastructure or clean energy

or education or healthcare or whatnot.

So there are these trade-offs that we have to think about,

you know, if we're spending on defense,

we're not spending on non-defense.

Alternatively, you know, if we're raising revenues

to pay for war, such as, you know, Trump's idea

that we could raise tariffs in order to increase

the defense budget, well, that money has to come from somebody.

So if we're raising tariffs, then we are, you know,

that's essentially like raising taxes

and that is coming out of the pockets of the consumers

who are paying for those tariffs.

Or the businesses who are paying for those tariffs.

And so that's, you know, spending money

or investment money, that's not available

to be spent somewhere else.

So I think it's important for us to think about these trade-offs

that the cost of war is not just, you know,

the very important cost of human life,

but also that we are, you know,

facing these opportunity costs of what else we could have been

doing as a country in terms of the technologies

that we could have been investing in,

the types of productivity, the types of, you know,

the technologies, the programs, the kinds of investments

and the kind of path we would rather be on

rather than the path of militarism.

Well, we got this from Michael in North Carolina who emails,

I would like to know who is profiting from this war.

I imagine weapons manufacturers have warehouses full

of weapons that need to get used up

and replace in order to keep people on the job.

Am I naive?

So I want to talk about this through two lenses briefly.

First Matthew, as oil prices continue to rise,

who stands to profit economically?

This is a good question.

I mean, so the US is a large producer of oil

and, you know, that oil, a lot of it is exported.

We've been exporting oil now for about 10 years.

It used to not be allowed.

And so those barrels are, you know,

fetching these high prices on the global market.

And one reason why that might turn more into just pure profit

is because often when there's a kind of disruption

in the oil market, the so-called swing producers

may start producing more to kind of bring prices back

into a more normal range.

The issue is that those swing producers,

they're Saudi Arabia, they're Iraq,

they're the countries that can't get their oil out right now

through the straight of hormones.

So there's actually not that much prospect

for increasing production,

which just means that, you know,

the barrels that are going through the system right now

are fetching these high prices.

So, yeah, it means US oil and gas producers and exporters

that are looking, are looking to profit from,

from these, from these price increases.

Well, we also know the US rolled back

some of the measures and sanctions it had against Russia.

Does Russia stand to gain here?

Absolutely.

Russia, I think it's probably one of the biggest

short run beneficiaries of this war,

which is somewhat ironic because, you know,

Russia and Iran have a close relationship.

Yeah, I mean, so one of the first kind of oil price measures

that went through was lifting some sanctions

on Russian barrels that India was going to buy.

India's a major customer of Russian and Middle Eastern oil.

And so, yeah, Russia's definitely a beneficiary of that

because, yeah, the, you know,

there are these sanctioned barrels out there.

And so kind of a quote-unquote easy way to increase supply

is to make that oil more accessible on the global market.

Although, of course, this then runs into kind of pretty

obvious tensions with, say, US policy in Ukraine

where we're currently no supporting funding,

arming Ukraine's, you know, resistance to the Russian

invasion, which has been ongoing since 2022.

Well, Heidi, I want to get your thoughts

about that other question, but Matthew, thanks for your time.

Matthew Zitlin is a correspondent at HeatMap News.

It's always great to talk to you, Matthew, thanks.

Thank you.

And Heidi Peltier is sticking with us.

She's the director of programs at Brown University's

Costs of War Project.

Heidi, to Michael's question about other people or groups

to profit from this war or other wars,

what do we know?

We know that, you know, about half of the Department

of Defense budget in the US goes to contractors

who stands to gain a lot from going to war.

We know that the Tomahawk missiles,

which are used in Iran are made by Raytheon.

So they are certainly one of the beneficiaries

of going to war and having extra demand for their product.

And there are a lot of American manufacturers

who are, you know, producing and selling goods

to the US government, you know, selling weapons systems,

munitions and all kinds of goods and services

that benefit when we are at war.

Yeah.

Well, let's move now to Capitol Hill

where Democratic lawmakers are speaking openly

against the military strikes in Iran

and the multi-billion dollar price tag of waging war

on the country.

And let's bring in a new voice.

Kadea Goba is a politics reporter covering Congress

for the Washington Post.

Kadea, welcome to the program.

Thank you for having me.

Let's hear from one of those Democratic lawmakers

speaking out against the US's war in Iran.

Donald Trump has entered into this war of choice,

by spending billions of dollars in the Middle East,

have zero interest these extremists

and actually trying to lower the high cost of living

for the people of this country.

In terms of this war of choice,

Donald Trump has no clear plan of action.

There's no discernible objectives.

They shift every day.

And there's no exit strategy to get us out of a conflict

when Donald Trump promised as a candidate,

not to get us into this type of potentially endless war

in the Middle East.

Oh, that's the tap House Democrat Representative Huckine,

Jeffrey speaking to MSNOW on Tuesday.

Kadea, what are Republican lawmakers on the Hill

saying about how much this war is costing?

You know, it's interesting because obviously

it's never a good idea to see,

it's never great to see high gas prices

or utility prices for the party in charge

when you're going into the midterms.

But this is sort of particularly detrimental for Republicans

who've sort of made a point to promote energy dominance

and promising voters of cheap gas.

I'd say in addition to that, House Republicans

who've sort of hitched their political wagon

to this concept of affordability

are in a very tight spot right now

as they try to justify their president's foreign policy

posturing with this idea that they are promising

or they are the party of affordability.

So openly, they are talking about,

they're kind of leaning on the president's promise

to have this, make this a very quote unquote short war

and sort of justifying his actions in that way

and saying that, well, you know,

voters have really short term memories

and they probably won't see this as we get closer to them.

They're hoping that they won't see this

as they get closer to the midterms.

Heidi, you know, what qualifies as a short term war,

long term war is relative.

We know the Pentagon hasn't yet asked Congress

for additional money to fund this war in Iran,

but how clear picture does Congress have

about how much this war is costing the US?

We've heard a lot of numbers over the past 13 days.

Yeah, that's a good question.

And, you know, I can't answer for Congress.

I don't know how clear a picture they have

of how much this is costing, you know,

even the White House itself, you know,

has revised its estimate recently.

So, you know, up until two days ago,

they were saying it was $6 billion

in the first week of war.

And then yesterday we found out it was more like $11 billion

in the first week of war and that estimate

didn't count the buildup before the first week of war.

Of course, doesn't include all of the future costs

for veterans, for interest costs and so on.

And so, you know, one thing that we can be sure of

is Congress tends to undercount the cost of war.

In fact, the project where I work at Brown,

the cost of war project was founded

because we tends to get an underestimate

from the government about the true cost of war,

the number we get from the Pentagon

about what it costs to go to war

is one small representation of what it costs.

Really, we have to add to that the cost of interest

on the debt, we have to add to that the cost

of our obligations to veterans,

which goes well into the future, decades into the future.

And that's just the budgetary cost

and we also have, you know, environmental costs

and humanitarian cost and public health costs

and other kinds of ripple effects

that go well beyond the financial costs.

We have to go to a quick break,

but before we go, Alita in Illinois emails

calculating the monetary costs of war.

It's far easier than grappling with the overwhelming

moral costs of war, the toll of suffering

and deaths, the environmental devastation,

the losses of irreplaceable cultural inheritance.

In fact, the monetary financial costs of wars,

pale in comparison to these other losses.

We'll be right back.

This message comes from an PR sponsor, Total Wine and More.

With so many great bottles to choose from,

it's easy to find your favorite Cabernet

or a new single barrel bourbon to try

with some help from one of their friendly guides.

And with every bottle comes the confidence

of knowing you just found something amazing.

Find what you love and love what you find

only at Total Wine and More.

Curbside pickup and delivery available in most areas

visit TotalLine.com to learn more.

Spirits not sold in Virginia and North Carolina,

drink responsibly, be 21.

Let's get back to the economic and political costs

of the U.S. and Israel's war in Iran.

There are reports of the Pentagon plans

to request an additional $50 billion in funding

to support this war.

That would be money added to an already massive

Pentagon discretionary budget, $839 billion as of 2025.

And that's to support a war without an end inside.

Kadea, what are House Geopie lawmakers signaling

about how they'd confront a request for more money?

Yeah, it's interesting.

And I want you to keep in mind that their midterms

are approaching and everyone wants a sort of a nod

from the president or an endorsement.

So people have been very careful about how they posture.

In particular, I thought it was very interesting

that Andy Harris from the House Freedom Caucus,

who is traditionally a very big hardliner on,

or I would say a fiscal hawk,

and conservative about spending,

he sort of, again, defended the president's actions

and said that they probably expected a supplemental,

but they didn't anticipate it being something

that was going to be an ongoing issue

because of the promises that the president has made

to make this a short war.

Again, privately, other members have told me

that they are concerned and I will say about the cost of war.

And I will actually say, you pointed to this earlier,

the moral cost of a war.

I was talking to Richard Hudson who is in charge

of the NRCC, the campaign arm for the House Republicans.

And his point was that he wasn't really that

concerned about the financial portion,

but if voters see boots on the ground,

that that could be problematic for Republicans

going into the midterms,

where there is such a very tight margin in the House

and the possibility that House Republicans

at the very least will lose power or their majority.

Well, and help us understand what in the GOP's calculation

changes if there are boots on the ground.

Is it the optics, is it the increase in costs,

the possibility for U.S. casualties, what's the concern?

It's all of the above, but again, Hudson suggested

that he was less worried about the cost

and how that would impact voters,

but more worried about boots on the ground

and the casualties, especially after a hit not in his words,

but especially after the president has repeatedly said

that there would be, he would be the president of no wars

or he'd make sure there were no more wars.

And we actually hear this coming from the far right flank

of the party, not necessarily members in Congress right now,

but some of those, I mean, Marjorie Taylor Greene

was certainly a big advocate against ongoing wars

or wars in general.

And she consistently said that it spoke against

the America first agenda where she thought

the administration should be focused on lowering prices

for consumers and issues at home as opposed

to the president's new posture on foreign policy.

Now, she is no longer a member of Congress at this point,

but that is privately some of the sentiments

that some members have expressed to me,

although they're just not comfortable with saying it right now

because of the midterms.

Well, gas prices in the U.S. reach to $3.48

a gallon on Monday, that's up nearly 17%

since the war began on February 28th.

And this question of affordability

as we move into the midterms is top of mind

for most voters, Kadia.

What concerns are GOP leaders sharing about

how these price hikes could sway voters ahead of the midterms,

especially if this turns into a protracted conflict?

Yeah, many of them are privately concerned

that they, you know, when people are going to the polls,

going to the primaries at the very start,

they're thinking about like gas prices

driving to the election polls,

they pass by gas prices.

I was in Durral the other day at the President's Resort

and, you know, one of the reporters tweeted out

the local gas prices right next to his resort.

This is something, you know,

and Democrats went through this in 2022.

You can talk about other issues

or you can talk about affordability,

but if the voters aren't actually feeling relief

at the gas pump or on their bills or eggs or prices,

grocery prices, that is, it makes voters feel

like the administration or Congress

is just simply out of touch.

And it's detrimental if you are that party in power,

talking about affordability,

but people aren't feeling that in their, in their,

in their party.

Now, when we saw that spike in gas prices in 2022, Kadia,

that was related to Russia's full-scale invasion

of Ukraine.

What we're talking about now is related

to the U.S. Israel's decision,

and Israel's decision to initiate

these strikes against Iran.

Is there concern from lawmakers you speak to

about voters being upset that this is self-inflicted

pain, if you will?

Yeah, that again, privately, they are worried

that people are making that connection

that this was something that the president

did not have to move on or did not have to engage with,

and yet, especially when there is already a problem

with increased pricing domestically.

But yes, that is the concern that people are saying

that this is self-inflicted or voters will feel like

this is something that the U.S.

or the administration brought on themselves.

Again, very against, and when we talk about

specifically anti or Republican voters,

it is quite the opposite of what the president initially said

or ran on, and it does not fit that America first agenda.

That's why you have this far right flank who has told voters,

don't go to the booth, don't go to vote,

or if you're gonna vote for Democrats.

That has not convinced many, I would say lawmakers

to come out against the president's foreign policy,

but it's definitely something that voters are in fact feeling.

We got this question from Sylvia and Vermont.

We hear a lot about the fact that the war against Iran

will increase our national debt.

Now we will need to pay a huge amount of interest on that debt.

My question is, who holds that debt to whom

will we be paying the interest?

Heidi, I'll come to you on that.

Well, roughly two thirds of the debt roughly is held

by various people and corporations in the U.S.

And roughly a third to 40% is held by other countries.

Right now, the country that holds the most U.S. debt

is Japan, historically it was China,

but Japan, UK, China, Canada are usually the top countries

that hold U.S. debt other than the U.S.

And so U.S. debt is held by people in companies

who have investments in U.S. bonds.

So often it's mutual funds that

have savings bonds or government bonds

as wrapped up in the mutual funds

or its investment products that people may or may not even

realize that they own some government debt

and investors who specifically are looking for government debt

as a kind of safe security to invest in.

Some government securities are owned by other parts

of the government and traded among government departments themselves.

So the majority of the government debt is held by Americans

and wealthier Americans have more investments.

So the short answer is most of the debt

is held by wealthy Americans.

Some of the debt is held by other countries.

Joe and North Carolina emails,

war is a boon for munitions manufacturers.

Trump's sons, Don Jr. and Eric just got involved in drone manufacturing.

So we have the obvious conflict of interest

that the longer Trump keeps the war going,

the more wealth will accrue to his family.

And Barb and Maryland emails we should add

to the financial burden of the war, its ethical costs.

As an undeclared war, it violates the constitution,

weakening our democracy and tarnishing our reputation.

The deaths of thousands of civilians

and the deliberate destruction of civilian infrastructure are immoral.

They may hit our pocketbooks,

but they also hurt us in less tangible ways.

Kadea, I just want to paint a picture of what's happening right now on Capitol Hill.

We know that since mid-February lawmakers have failed to reach a bipartisan agreement

to fund the Department of Homeland Security,

that shutdown is now in its fourth week.

President Trump has told Congress he will not sign any bill

that comes to his desk unless they pass the Save Act.

This is related to voting.

Any emergency funding bill for the war in Iran

would need 60 votes to pass in the Senate,

which would require some bipartisan support.

But what's the likelihood at this point

that Congress would come together to pass an appropriations bill

to allocate additional funds for the war in Iran

if the Pentagon and the President were to request it?

Oh, I think it's definitely going to be brought to the table.

And my speaker, my Johnson, or brought to the floor, I should say.

I think it's supplemental.

Bill will be brought to the floor every member,

at least every leadership member,

expects that there will be an ask from the administration.

And I think Speaker Johnson is going to have a very tough time

whipping his conference ahead of a midterm

to support that kind of supplemental.

Now, again, many of the Republican lawmakers

are posturing in a way that, well, we expect,

they're saying, well, we expect the President

is not going to draw this war out,

so it shouldn't hurt the pockets of voters.

But that rings very differently when Democrats

are able to say, well, this Republican voted

to send billions of dollars when you are paying

five dollars at the gas pump.

That's going to give a lot of ammunition

for some of those vulnerable Republicans,

and it's going to be very difficult for Speaker Johnson

to whip some of those vulnerable seats

where Democrats are maybe favorite to win now.

It's going to be very difficult for him,

but there's no question that there's

going to be a supplemental.

Well, here's what Democratic Senator Richard Blumenthal

told reporters Tuesday.

This was after he attended a classified briefing

for the Senate Armed Services Committee.

I guess I am most concerned about the threat

to American lives of potentially deploying

our sons and daughters on the ground in Iraq.

We seem to be on a path toward deploying American troops

on the ground in Iran to accomplish

any of the potential objectives.

Now, a Reuters Ipsos poll released in early March

shows that only about one in four Americans surveyed

approves of the US and Israel's strikes on Iran.

Half of those surveyed, and this includes a quarter

of Republicans believe President Trump

is too willing to use military force.

But the president is spending a different narrative.

The world respects us right now more

than they have ever respected us before.

Can you do it?

Could he, what's the disconnect between what the president

is saying and what some voters are actually feeling

and expressing?

I mean, I feel like this is typical politics,

and it's not the first time where you hear president

or members of a party talk about one thing that seems

a little bit out of touch with how voters are feeling.

It has, there's been consistent polling

that Americans do not support going to war with Iran.

And, you know, it's up to the president,

I guess, to sort of spin his constituents

or put himself in the best light.

But that is problematic in that anger's voters, right?

The people, it gets very interesting for members in Congress

who have to actually interact with those 750,000 voters

when they go back to their districts.

So, again, I think they're put in a very tight spot

defending the president's war policies.

Heidi, very briefly, as this war continues,

what are you watching most closely related to the costs

of this conflict?

You know, the costs will continue to mount.

I just, I hope that the actions,

the U.S. engagement ends as soon as possible

because what we have seen in the last 25 years

is that the, you know, the costs will go on well

after the war ends.

So the sooner the war can end, the lower the costs can be,

but the cost will not end, the little war ends.

That's Heidi, Peltier, she's the director of programs

at Brown University's Costs of War Project,

and Kadia Goba, a politics reporter covering Congress

for the Washington Post.

Thanks to you both.

Today's producer was Lauren Hamilton.

This program comes to you from WAMU,

part of American University in Washington,

distributed by NPR.

I'm Jen White, Todd Swilikis with you tomorrow

for the Friday News Roundup.

Thanks for listening, and we'll talk more soon.

This is 1A.

The End

This message comes from Capital One Commercial Bank.

Your business requires commercial banking solutions

that prioritize your long-term success.

With Capital One, get a full suite

of financial products and services tailored

to meet your needs today and goals for tomorrow.

Learn more at capitalone.com slash commercial member FDIC.

Support for NPR in the following message

come from Warby Parker, the one-stop shop

for all your vision needs.

They offer expertly crafted prescription eyewear,

plus contacts, eye exams, and more.

For everything you need to see,

visit your nearest Warby Parker store

or head to WarbyParker.com.

This message comes from Mint Mobile.

If you're tired of spending hundreds

on big wireless bills, bogus fees, and free perks,

Mint Mobile is for you.

Shop plans at MintMobile.com slash switch.

Taxes and fees extra.

See Mint Mobile for details.