Just a moment...
apnews.com

The United States has spent a record of at least $17.9 billion on military aid to Israel since the war in Gaza began and led to escalating conflict around the Middle East, according to a report for Brown University’s Costs of War project, released on the anniversary of Hamas’ attacks on Israel.

An additional $4.86 billion has gone into stepped-up U.S. military operations in the region since the Oct. 7, 2023, attacks, researchers said in findings first provided to The Associated Press. That includes the costs of a Navy-led campaign to quell strikes on commercial shipping by Yemen’s Houthis, who are carrying them out in solidarity with the fellow Iranian-backed group Hamas.

The report — completed before Israel opened a second front, this one against Iranian-backed Hezbollah militants in Lebanon, in late September — is one of the first tallies of estimated U.S. costs as the Biden administration backs Israel in its conflicts in Gaza and Lebanon and seeks to contain hostilities by Iran-allied armed groups in the region.

  • NoneOfUrBusiness@fedia.io
    71·
    7 hours ago

    I get your point on Russia but Iran? War with the US is the absolute last thing Iran wants, which is clear from their foreign policy decisions for the last… Forever, really. America has problems with Iran because they won’t do what the US tells them to, not because there’s any risk of Iran starting a war of any kind.

    • PugJesus@lemmy.worldEnglish
      61·
      7 hours ago

      America has problems with Iran because they won’t do what the US tells them to, not because there’s any risk of Iran starting a war of any kind.

      There is absolutely a major risk of Iran starting wars of several kinds. The difference between Russia and Iran is that the Russian government wishes to see the US cratered to give it and its allies free reign to do whatever horrific shite they please. They actively desire a diminished US on the world stage and domestically, both on ideological and strategic grounds.

      Iran, on the other hand, just wants to play its shithead proxy war games in the Middle East against the Saudis and Israel. If the US had no interest in backing those two, Iran would be indifferent to the US except insofar as we can be used as a boogeyman to tamper down internal dissent (a technique that has become less effective in recent generations).

      Regardless of whether we have any legitimate business in backing Israel or the Saudis, or in trying to prevent destabilization of the Middle East, Iran very much would be picking fights absent the US, just as it is with the US present in the region. The Islamic Republic is not some isolationist or benevolent state. They’re as bad as the Saudis (who are constantly picking proxy war fights across the Middle East).

      • NoneOfUrBusiness@fedia.io
        2·
        7 hours ago

        Oh shit I braintarted that sentence; I should have added “with the US”. With that said, I agree with pretty much everything you said so allow me to nitpick a bit.

        First, I don’t see Iran starting any direct wars with anyone when their proxies are willing to do all the work for them. This is a common tactic in the region because it works, destabilizing effects on your surroundings aside.

        Second, I don’t think the US is trying to prevent the destabilization of anything. If anything an unstable Middle East is in their interests to the extent it doesn’t cause a refugee crisis for Europe.

        Third and last, while Iran is definitely pretty bad, I think they’re one genocide and a few hundred thousand slaves short of being as bad as Saudi Arabia. Again, I’m no fan of them, and weaker Iranian influence would be good for the Middle East as a whole as long as it doesn’t lead to (or be caused by) stronger US influence, but Saudi Arabia is just that evil. Iranian is a more typical dictatorship vying for local hegemony.

        • PugJesus@lemmy.worldEnglish
          4·
          7 hours ago

          Don’t know that they’re actually short the genocide, considering Iran’s backing of Syria, and the US definitely has an interest in a Middle East that is not in open war because of the effects of instability on international trade and the domestic political blowback from that, but otherwise I think we’re in agreement.

          • NoneOfUrBusiness@fedia.io
            2·
            7 hours ago

            Don’t know that they’re actually short the genocide, considering Iran’s backing of Syria,

            Oh shit you might be right, but does Assad have any genocides under his belt? I thought the worst he did was gassing his own citizens.

            the US definitely has an interest in a Middle East that is not in open war because of the effects of instability on international trade

            I was thinking unstable as in unstable dictatorships dependent on US support to keep their citizens down ala Egypt. I agree they generally don’t want open war in the region.

            • PugJesus@lemmy.worldEnglish
              2·
              7 hours ago

              Oh shit you might be right, but does Assad have any genocides under his belt? I thought the worst he did was gassing his own citizens.

              There is a very strong ethnic component to the ongoing civil war. There’s been a lot of ethnic cleansing and massacres supported by both sides - but obviously, as we’re discussing the Syrian government, Assad’s government being the important genocidal actor in this conversation. Iranian-backed Shi’ite militias have been… particularly vigorous in this.