Tucker Carlson says ‘neocons’ will try to destroy Joe Kent over resignation

by Ryan Mancini - 03/17/26 

https://thehill.com/national-security/5787790-tucker-carlson-praises-joe-kent/

Conservative commentator Tucker Carlson on Tuesday said that “neocons will now try to destroy” Joe Kent, who resigned earlier in the day from his role as the director of the National Counterterrorism Center in protest of the Trump administration’s conflict with Iran

Carlson praised Kent’s decision to resign, he told The New York Times in a brief interview. The outlet described the two men as close friends.

“Joe is the bravest man I know, and he can’t be dismissed as a nut,” Carlson said. “He’s leaving a job that gave him access to highest-level relevant intelligence. The neocons will now try to destroy him for that. He understands that and did it anyway.”

Kent wrote in his resignation letter to President Trump that although he supports “the values and the foreign policies that you campaigned on in 2016, 2020” and 2024, he disagreed with the president’s decision to launch the U.S. military offensive in Iran.

He argued in his letter that Israel drew the U.S. into the conflict with Iran, which was suggested in Secretary of State Marco Rubio’s explanation of how the conflict began before he later walked back that initial statement.

“I pray that you will reflect upon what we are doing in Iran, and who we are doing it for,” Kent wrote to Trump. “The time for bold action is now. You can reverse course and chart a new path for our nation, or you can allow us to slip further toward decline and chaos. You hold the cards.”

The White House accused Kent of “many false claims,” and fiercely denied his suggestion that Iran posed no imminent threat to the U.S. Trump later told reporters “it’s a good thing that he’s out, because he said Iran is not a threat. … Every country realized what a threat Iran was.”

Rep. Don Bacon (R-Neb.) called it “good riddance” that Kent resigned.

“Iran has murdered more than a thousand Americans,” he posted on the social platform X. Their EFP land mines were the deadliest in Iraq. Anti-Semitism is an evil I detest, and we surely don’t want it in our government.”

Kent is a former Green Beret and two-time GOP congressional hopeful who previously worked as chief of staff to Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard. He served in the Army for 20 years and completed almost a dozen combat deployments, receiving six bronze stars.

Kent referred to his military career and his late wife Shannon M. Kent in his letter. She was a military cryptologist killed in Syria, the Times reported.

“As a veteran who deployed to combat 11 times and as a Gold Star husband who lost my beloved wife Shannon in a war manufactured by Israel, I cannot support sending the next generation off to fight and die in a war that serves no benefit to the American people nor justifies the cost of American lives,” he wrote.

Kent’s departure comes after the Office of the Director of National Intelligence recently hired Dan Caldwell, who was accused of leaking classified information before he was ousted from the Pentagon last April, an administration official told The Hill.

‘Iran posed no imminent threat to our nation’: Trump-appointed intelligence official resigns over Iran war

Zachary Cohen

https://edition.cnn.com/2026/03/17/politics/joe-kent-resigns-iran-war

A senior US intelligence official appointed by President Donald Trump abruptly announced he is stepping down from his post on Tuesday, citing misgivings about the administration’s war with Iran.

“After much reflection, I have decided to resign from my position as Director of the National Counterterrorism Center, effective today,” Joe Kent wrote in a post on X.

“I cannot in good conscience support the ongoing war in Iran. Iran posed no imminent threat to our nation, and it is clear that we started this war due to pressure from Israel and its powerful American lobby,” Kent added in the resignation letter he attached to the post.

Kent was a staunch Trump supporter, and his resignation marks the first high-profile departure of the president’s second term over a major policy issue. Some lawmakers and experts have raised doubts over the intelligence the president used to justify the war, and the departure of a key intelligence official will increase scrutiny of the administration’s case.

A senior US official confirmed that Kent was resigning.

The Office of Director of National Intelligence did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

After the initial wave of strikes against Iran, Trump cited an “imminent threat” to the US, and administration officials said the US acted in response to potential preemptive attacks by Iran on forces in the region — claims that were contradicted in Pentagon briefings to Capitol Hill, where defense officials said Iran was not planning to attack unless struck first.

Kent blamed Israeli officials and the media for misleading Trump about the threat posed by Iran.

“This echo chamber was used to deceive you into believing that Iran posed an imminent threat to the United States, and that should you strike now, there was a clear path to victory,” he wrote in his resignation letter. “This was a lie and is the same tactic the Israelis used to draw us into the disastrous Iraq war that cost our nation the lives of thousands of our best men and women. We cannot make this mistake again.”

Kent served in a key intelligence position

Kent is leaving a crucial role at an organization tasked with monitoring intelligence associated with long-existing terrorist organizations in the Middle East as well as drug cartels and international gangs. Before taking on the position he served as a top aide to Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard.

Kent earned his top position in part by being a vocal proponent of Trump’s 2020 election conspiracies. But Kent’s penchant for conspiracies led to clashes with other administration officials since taking office.

Last year Kent drew a rebuke from FBI Director Kash Patel and other Justice Department officials after he sought to access FBI systems to investigate the Charlie Kirk assassination, pursuing claims that there could have been foreign involvement in the killing, according to people briefed on the discussions.

Patel and other officials raised concerns that accessing FBI evidence could damage the prosecution of Tyler Robinson, the Utah man charged in the Kirk assassination, those briefed said.

Kent has extensive experience in counterterrorism and the military — he served 11 combat tours over a 20-year career in the Army before retiring to become a CIA officer — and has personal experience as a Gold Star spouse. His first wife, Shannon, was killed in a 2019 suicide bombing in Syria while serving as a Navy cryptologist.

Kent’s past connections with far-right figures

Kent ran an unsuccessful campaign for Congress in 2022, during which past associations with far-right figures became a key issue.

Kent repeatedly had to disavow past interactions with Nazi sympathizer Greyson Arnold and Holocaust denier Nick Fuentes as CNN’s KFile has previously reported. Kent said at the time he was unfamiliar with Fuentes and later said he did not want Fuentes’ endorsement.

During Kent’s confirmation hearing, he faced criticism from Democratic lawmakers who pointed to those past associations.

Sen. Patty Murray, a Washington Democrat, described him at the time as a “conspiracy theorist who espouses white supremacist views and is patently unqualified for this important role in just about every way imaginable.” He was confirmed in a 52-44 vote in the Senate.

Trump’s rationale for attacking the Iranian regime has whipsawed from protecting the demonstrators who protested in the streets of Iran in January to defending the US against the risk of Iran building nuclear and long-range weapons and eliminating a regime that’s backed terrorist groups’ killing Americans for decades. He’s called for the Iranian people to take control of their country even as top officials say the war is not about regime change.

Israel Preparing for War to Last into April, Believes Iranian Government Will Remain

by Kyle Anzalone | Mar 15, 2026

https://libertarianinstitute.org/news/israel-preparing-for-war-to-last-into-april-believes-iranian-government-will-remain/

Israel is preparing for the war with Iran to drag into April. Tel Aviv assesses that the government in Tehran will likely remain in place after the conflict. 

Israeli officials told Ynet that preparations were underway in Tel Aviv for the war against Iran to last another month. Tehran has said it is prepared to fight Israel and the US for months. 

Tel Aviv is also taking a new approach to the war as it expects the Islamic Republic to survive the conflict. Israeli officials explained that Tel Aviv was going to continue to encourage an uprising in Iran.

“We continue to strike regime targets, mainly in Tehran. We are entering the decisive phase. We are aiming to bring the people out into the streets. It’s not only us — the Americans are also working toward that,” an Israeli official said. “Not everything can be controlled, but everything possible is being done to make it succeed. The regime must be weakened as much as possible, including the Basij. We are striking them and killing them in the thousands.”

An Israeli official told the outlet that Tel Aviv was skeptical that an uprising would take down the Islamic Republic, although Washington was more optimistic. 

The officials explained that Israel’s new approach involves targeting Iranian missile launchers and production sites. Israel targeted Iran’s missile production sites in June with the goal of making Tehran unprepared for future conflict. 

However, over two weeks into the current war, the Iranian military is continuing to conduct successful missile and drone strikes on Israel and US bases in the Middle East. 

Even if Israel ends the war with Iran, it is still in a conflict with Hezbollah. One official told Ynet that Tel Aviv expects the war in Lebanon to last longer than the conflict with Iran. 

By serving Israel's agenda, Trump betrayed Gulf allies

Soumaya Ghannoushi

11 March 2026

From Doha to Riyadh, the lesson is becoming difficult to ignore: the arrangement meant to guarantee their security is now exposing them to danger

https://www.middleeasteye.net/opinion/serving-israel-agenda-trump-betrayed-gulf-allies

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has succeeded in doing what many in Washington once swore would never happen again: he has dragged American power back into the Middle East.

The last time this happened was in 2003, when the United States invaded Iraq. That war was driven by the ideology of the neoconservatives, who envisioned the birth of what they called the “New American Century”.

Within weeks, American forces toppled the exhausted regime of Saddam Hussein, already weakened by years of sanctions following the disastrous invasion of Kuwait.

But the apparent triumph quickly turned into something very different. The fall of Baghdad marked not the beginning of a new era of American dominance, but the start of a long descent into insurgency, instability and endless war.

The US spent trillions of dollars, lost thousands of soldiers, and watched its credibility erode across much of the world.

Former US President Barack Obama came to power in part by promising repentance for that mistake. A broad conviction formed among sections of the American political elite that the invasion of Iraq was a grave error that must not be repeated.

That realisation helped propel Obama to the presidency, and later contributed to the populist backlash that carried Donald Trump to the White House.

Netanyahu has now succeeded in drawing Trump into the very Middle Eastern labyrinth Trump once promised to avoid.

Sustained pressure 

Since Trump returned to power, Netanyahu has worked relentlessly to steer American policy towards confrontation with Iran. Through repeated visits, constant communication, and sustained political pressure - often channelled through close allies inside Trump’s circle - most notably his son-in-law, Jared Kushner - Netanyahu steadily promoted the idea that striking Iran would reshape the region and eliminate Israel’s most powerful adversary.

Eventually, the decision was made. Trump authorised military operations against Iran and initiated a campaign of targeting senior figures within its leadership.

But it is already becoming clear that this war won't be quick, nor will it be the easy victory Netanyahu had promised. There will be no Venezuela scenario here.

The conflict was not forced upon Washington by an imminent Iranian attack on American territory. Iran does not possess strategic weapons capable of threatening the US itself.

Its nuclear programme had previously been constrained under the 2015 agreement between Iran and world powers, which limited uranium enrichment and subjected it to international monitoring. Iran accepted those restrictions until the US withdrew from the deal during Trump’s first administration.

During subsequent negotiations, Tehran even indicated a willingness to reduce enrichment levels again.

Trump himself ironically claimed only months ago that Iran’s nuclear capabilities had been “obliterated” by American strikes - a statement that underscores how disconnected the rhetoric on this war is from reality.

This war was not driven by a direct threat to American national security. It emerged from a convergence of Israeli strategic calculations and a receptive American administration.

The result is an unprecedented overlap between American and Israeli military action.

Distinction blurred

For decades, Israel’s wars were formally its own, with the US providing weapons, intelligence and diplomatic backing. Today, that distinction has blurred dramatically. The two powers are now directly engaged in the same conflict.

The consequences are already visible across the Gulf, where states have built their security architecture around a simple bargain: they would invest enormous wealth into the American economy and host US military bases, in exchange for protection and stability.

The scale of that economic relationship is enormous. During Trump’s 2025 tour of the Gulf, Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates and Qatar pledged investment commitments estimated at more than $3 trillion over time.

Gulf capital has also flowed into projects linked to Trump’s personal and political networks. Entities connected to the UAE’s national security leadership have reportedly acquired a 49 percent stake in the Trump-linked cryptocurrency venture World Liberty Financial, in a deal worth about $500m.

Meanwhile, Kushner’s investment firm, Affinity Partners, manages billions of dollars from Gulf sovereign wealth funds, including a $2bn commitment from Saudi Arabia’s Public Investment Fund, as well as major investments from Qatar and the UAE.  

These financial ties form part of a broader strategic relationship, in which Gulf states purchase vast quantities of American military equipment and host major US bases across the region.

By fully adopting Netanyahu’s vision and his war, Trump has effectively betrayed Washington’s Gulf allies, ignoring the very security and stability interests that formed the foundation of that partnership. The Israeli-American war against Iran was launched without consulting the Gulf states, even though it is being fought at their doorstep.

This happened despite repeated warnings from governments in the region, which had tried in vain to dissuade Washington from escalating towards war, and had clearly outlined the dangers it would pose to their own security and stability.

Those concerns were later voiced publicly by prominent figures in the region. Influential Emirati businessman Khalaf al-Habtoor recently lambasted Trump for dragging the region into war: “Did you calculate the collateral damage before pulling the trigger?” he wrote on X. “And did you consider that the first to suffer from this escalation will be the countries of the region itself!”

Regional unease 

Such statements are significant not only for their content, but also because of who is making them. Habtoor is neither an opposition figure nor an activist, but a businessman closely associated with the Gulf’s economic and political establishment. 

His intervention reflects a wider unease across the region about being drawn into a conflict whose consequences the Gulf states will bear, while the decisions on it were taken elsewhere.

Because they host American bases, troops and military infrastructure, Gulf states automatically become targets whenever the US enters a war. The very installations meant to guarantee their security instead place them directly in the line of fire.

These bases are not symbolic. They are vast military installations hosting thousands of troops, aircraft and command systems. They exist partly because Gulf governments financed their construction and maintenance, and purchased massive quantities of American weapons, under the assumption that the partnership would guarantee protection.

Yet when war arrived at their doorstep, that protection did not materialise. The protector became a source of danger.

Instead of shielding the region from conflict, the presence of American bases turned Gulf states into targets in a war they neither started nor wanted.

This realisation has begun to surface publicly across the region. On Kuwaiti television, political analyst Musaed al-Maghnam captured the irony of the situation in unusually direct terms: “They think the Americans are defending us, but today we are the ones defending the Americans.”

His remark reflected a broader frustration. Washington has drawn billions from Gulf countries, used their territories for military bases, and justified this relationship in the name of protection. For many in the region, that promise now looks like a mirage.

Growing fears

Washington has now gone further still, pressing Gulf states to join the war itself. Senator Lindsey Graham, a close ally of Trump and Netanyahu, publicly urged Saudi Arabia to enter the conflict against Iran, suggesting that if Gulf states expect security agreements with the US, they should be prepared to fight alongside it.

Recent events have only deepened suspicions across the region. Israeli media circulated claims that the UAE had struck an Iranian desalination facility - a report that UAE officials quickly and firmly denied.

The allegation raised immediate alarm, as such an attack could have triggered Iranian retaliation against Gulf desalination infrastructure, which is relied upon by countries such as the UAE for the vast majority of their drinking water.

For many observers in the region, the episode reinforced fears that attempts are being made to draw Gulf states into a direct confrontation with Iran - a scenario that could ignite a destructive regional conflict reminiscent of the eight-year Iran-Iraq War.

Such fears are increasingly being voiced within the region itself. Saudi journalist and political analyst Adhwan al-Ahmari warned that the strategy appears aimed precisely at widening the war.

He said: “Some believe this war is an American-Israeli trap to implicate the Gulf countries and draw them into a confrontation with Iran … What if the US announces after a week, 10 days, or two weeks that it has achieved all its goals in this war and that the war is over, and then leaves the Gulf states in an open confrontation?”

Who benefits from chaos in the Middle East? Not the Gulf states. Not the Arab world.

But there is one country whose strategic thinking has long emphasised the creation of a regional vacuum: Israel.

Political fragmentation 

For decades, Israeli strategists have argued that when surrounding states weaken, fragment, or descend into internal conflict, Israel’s relative power expands.

This logic has occasionally surfaced openly in Israeli commentary. In a recent article published in the Israeli newspaper Yedioth Ahronoth, Israeli writer Meir Swissa argued that the Middle East should be reshaped through a new political fragmentation.

The article, titled “Sykes-Picot 2026: Time to redraw the Middle East map”, noted: “The inevitable finale is already visible on the horizon … The Arab and Muslim states that present themselves as Western-style nation-states may lose relevance to a model in which tribe and clan once again become the true governing units.”

Such fragmentation might amplify Israeli power and influence, but it does not serve American interests. For decades, the US benefited from the post-Second World War order in the Middle East, effectively inheriting Britain’s former strategic role.

The Gulf, in particular, is not a peripheral theatre of American policy. It is one of the pillars of American global influence. The region sits at the centre of global energy markets, hosts some of Washington’s most important overseas military facilities, and represents a critical source of investment in the American economy.

The partnership has long rested on a simple understanding: access and cooperation in exchange for security and stability. That arrangement is now under strain.

By aligning itself completely with Israel and allowing Netanyahu’s strategy to shape American policy, the Trump administration risks destabilising the very architecture that underpins American influence in the region, and the partners upon whom its power depends.

The longer this war continues, the clearer the strategic paradox becomes. In attempting to serve Israel’s agenda, the US is weakening its own position in the very region that has long sustained its global influence.

For the Gulf states, the lesson is becoming difficult to ignore: the arrangement meant to guarantee their security is now exposing them to danger. And for the US, the question that will increasingly arise will no longer be about Iran. 

It will be about Israel: whether implementing its strategy is protecting Washington’s interests, or steadily eroding them.

The price of war on Iran: Washington’s mounting military and financial drain

As the conflict widens, the decisive arena may shift from the battlefield itself to the immense economic and military burden of sustaining a prolonged war against a prepared regional power.

Abbas al-Zein

MAR 11, 2026

https://thecradle.co/articles/the-price-of-war-on-iran-washingtons-mounting-military-and-financial-drain

The US-Israeli war on Iran has triggered one of the most dangerous escalations witnessed in West Asia in recent years. US military bases spread across the Persian Gulf region have increasingly come under direct missile and drone attack, marking a significant shift in the nature of regional warfare. 

While initial coverage concentrated on battlefield developments and the pace of aerial bombardment, the broader and more consequential cost of confrontation – both military and economic – has gradually begun to take shape.

Alongside reciprocal strikes, there are growing indications of rapid depletion in high‑value missile defense systems, extensive use of expensive strategic munitions, and rising operational strain across US forces. 

At the same time, global markets and energy supply chains have begun to respond to the expanding confrontation. These overlapping dynamics raise fundamental questions about the distribution of losses during the early phase of the war and about the long‑term trajectory of escalation.

US military losses and operational costs

The first days of confrontation with Iran differed markedly from previous US military campaigns in the region. Instead of operating from secure forward positions largely insulated from retaliation, Washington’s regional deployment faced sustained missile and drone threats. This development has carried both material consequences and strategic implications.

Reports suggest that during the initial week of hostilities, US forces experienced a mix of direct and indirect losses. These included accelerated consumption of costly interceptor missiles, damage or disruption to radar installations, and attacks on military facilities that affected elements of the US early warning network.

Based on regional security assessments and western media estimates, the value of damaged US military equipment has been described as reaching into the billions of dollars during the early phase of confrontation. Strategic radar facilities, missile defense infrastructure, and major bases across the Persian Gulf and Jordan were reportedly targeted by missile and drone strikes.

Among the incidents that drew particular attention were reports that an AN/TPY‑2 radar linked to the THAAD missile defense system at the Muwaffaq Salti Air Base in Jordan had been struck or disabled. With an estimated value of around $300 million, the radar forms a key component of the US early warning network designed to detect and intercept ballistic missile threats.

Additional reports – including claims of visual documentation circulated in regional media – suggested that Iranian strikes targeted radar sites, communications facilities, and US military infrastructure in Qatar, the UAE, Bahrain, Kuwait, and Saudi Arabia. 

In the air domain, reports also emerged that three F-15E Strike Eagle aircraft were lost over Kuwait during what was described as a friendly-fire incident amid intense regional aerial operations. Separate reports indicated casualties among US personnel following attacks on bases in Kuwait during the early days of fighting.

Missile defense strain and stockpile pressures

One of the clearest indicators of military strain has been the intensified use of strategic air defense systems, particularly the Terminal High Altitude Area Defense (THAAD) system. Analysts associated with US missile defense programs estimate that a single THAAD interceptor missile costs between $12 million and $15 million.

During periods of intense missile exchange, dozens of interceptors may be launched within a short timeframe. This can translate into expenditures running into hundreds of millions of dollars in just a few days. The THAAD battery itself is among the most expensive air defense systems in the world, with estimated costs ranging from $1.5 billion to $2 billion for a single deployment unit.

Rapid depletion of interceptor inventories presents a strategic challenge. Production capacity remains limited, and manufacturing timelines for new missiles can stretch over several years. Sustained conflict, therefore, risks leaving gaps in defensive coverage not only in West Asia but also in other theaters where US forces maintain commitments.

The situation becomes more complex when allied states request additional interceptor supplies. Gulf governments that rely heavily on US air defense support have reportedly expressed concern over declining stockpiles, prompting urgent procurement discussions and additional financial commitments.

AP coverage also quoted regional officials expressing concern that the US was prioritizing the protection of its own forces and Israel while allied states faced mounting aerial threats. Security analyses warned that the current pace of missile interception may prove unsustainable, as production rates for advanced US interceptor systems struggle to match consumption across simultaneous conflicts, including commitments linked to Ukraine.

Radar vulnerability and early warning challenges

Beyond interceptor use, the confrontation has drawn attention to the vulnerability of radar systems forming the backbone of US surveillance and early warning architecture in the region. 

Damage to early warning installations can reduce response times and complicate interception planning. As a result, unconfirmed reports have suggested that Israel’s early warning time has been reduced from eight minutes to four minutes. 

In high‑intensity conflict environments, even limited reductions in warning windows can increase the likelihood of successful strikes against strategic targets. The need to repair or replace damaged systems further contributes to rising operational expenditure.

US bases and targeted facilities 

Attacks on US bases across the Persian Gulf region have highlighted the changing realities of Washington’s regional military posture. Facilities that once operated with relative security now face persistent threat exposure.

Installations across the Persian Gulf perform distinct but interconnected strategic functions. In Qatar, Al-Udeid Air Base hosts critical command infrastructure and long-range early warning capabilities, including radar systems associated with ballistic missile detection programs valued in the hundreds of millions of dollars. 

In the UAE, US-operated missile defense sites equipped with THAAD batteries form a central layer in regional air defense architecture. In Bahrain, satellite communications facilities linked to the US Fifth Fleet play an essential role in coordinating naval operations and maintaining secure military communications. 

In Kuwait, major installations such as Ali al-Salem Air Base, Camp Arifjan, and Camp Buehring together form a logistical backbone for US force deployment, with infrastructure investments collectively reaching into the billions of dollars. Therefore, the targeting or disruption of these sites carries strategic implications that extend well beyond immediate material damage.

Repeated attacks or heightened alert conditions also force the dispersal of aircraft and equipment, increasing maintenance challenges and complicating command coordination. Over time, these pressures contribute to cumulative attrition even in the absence of catastrophic losses.

The cost of strategic munitions and air operations

Military attrition has not been confined to defensive systems. Offensive operations have relied heavily on high‑cost precision weapons and advanced aircraft.

Tomahawk cruise missiles used in long‑range strike missions are estimated to cost around $2 million each. Their repeated deployment during sustained operations can generate significant financial burdens.

Aircraft operating costs vary according to technological complexity. Stealth bombers such as the B‑2 Spirit incur expenses exceeding $130,000 per flight hour due to demanding maintenance requirements and specialized support systems. 

Advanced fighters including the F‑22 and F‑35 generate hourly costs in the tens of thousands, while platforms such as the F‑15E, F‑16, and A‑10 also require substantial logistical and fuel resources.

Support aircraft further increases expenditure. Aerial refueling missions conducted by KC‑135 tankers and heavy transport operations carried out by C‑17 aircraft remain essential for sustaining high sortie rates across extended campaigns.

Naval deployments and strike group costs

Naval operations introduce another major financial burden. US aircraft carriers typically deploy as part of Carrier Strike Groups composed of destroyers, cruisers, submarines, and logistical support vessels.

US financial and congressional estimates suggest that operating a single carrier can cost between $6 million and $8 million per day under normal conditions. When the full strike group is included, daily operational costs during combat deployments may rise to between $10 million and $13 million. Hence, extended deployments lasting weeks or months translate into substantial budgetary commitments.

Economic repercussions and market volatility

Initial estimates indicate that the confrontation is rapidly becoming a major economic test for Washington. Analysts warn that if the current tempo continues, daily expenditures could approach $1 billion, footed by US taxpayers. 

Some US media assessments suggest that military operations generated costs amounting to several billion dollars in the first days of fighting, driven by munitions consumption, troop deployments, and reinforcement measures.

The Pentagon is also facing growing financial pressure linked to the rapid depletion of missile and munitions stockpiles. Billions of dollars’ worth of precision weapons and strategic missiles were reportedly used in the early stages of the war, prompting discussions in Washington about the need for additional congressional funding to sustain operations and rebuild reserves.

Beyond direct military spending, tensions in the Persian Gulf have begun to affect the global economy and energy markets. Fears of disruption to oil flows through the Strait of Hormuz have contributed to rising crude prices, while gasoline prices in the US have increased within short periods during phases of escalation. Higher energy costs have placed pressure on transport, industrial production, and broader consumer markets.

Financial markets have also reacted strongly to geopolitical uncertainty. Wall Street experienced notable volatility during the first days of war, with major indices recording declines amid investor concerns over rising oil prices and expanding conflict risks. Market sell‑offs during this period were estimated to have wiped close to $1 trillion from the market value of US companies.

Data cited in financial reporting indicated that tens of billions of dollars flowed out of US equity funds within a single week as investors shifted toward safe‑haven assets such as gold and government bonds. This pattern reflects heightened risk aversion in times of geopolitical crisis, particularly when accompanied by energy price shocks that threaten corporate profitability and economic growth.

Financial institutions have warned that prolonged conflict could trigger wider volatility in US markets. Sustained increases in oil prices linked to supply disruptions in the Persian Gulf could raise inflationary pressures, influence Federal Reserve policy decisions, and weigh on sectors such as airlines, transportation, and manufacturing.

A costly test of endurance

Taken together, these military and economic indicators suggest that confrontation with Iran may evolve into a prolonged war of attrition. The targeting of costly radar systems, missile defenses, and major bases has highlighted the financial and strategic strain associated with sustained escalation.

For Washington, the challenge extends beyond battlefield outcomes. It involves maintaining industrial capacity, financial resources, and political support over time. In modern conflict, endurance – economic as much as military – increasingly shapes the trajectory and potential outcome of war.