Are We Getting “Priced Out” of the Iran War?

When discussing the war in Iran with my college-aged peers, the first question they typically ask is, “Why?” Most of the headlines focus on the potential fallout of the war: soaring gas prices, lasting instability in the Middle East, the possibility of a U.S. ground invasion. Few news articles clearly explain the motives for our strikes against Iran. Is this war about regime change? Is it about axing Iran’s nuclear capabilities? Is it about securing control over the Strait of Hormuz? Without clarity about why we are at war with Iran, the economic pressure the war places on Americans may seem like a good reason for us to end our military campaign there. And if public exhaustion rather than strategic success becomes the exit ramp, it will indicate that our involvement was unnecessary in the first place. 

The public has received mixed messaging from members of the Trump administration regarding the reason for our recent military action in Iran. President Trump initially justified an attack on Iran on the basis that the nation was killing peaceful protestors, but later shifted his rationale for the war to focus on curbing Iranian nuclear capabilities and limiting Iranian military and financial aid to groups like Hamas, Hezbollah, and the Houthis. Other Trump administration officials, like Secretary Hegseth and Secretary Rubio, have provided varying justifications referencing regime change and Israeli action.

In my international affairs and policy classes, we are taught to ask questions and given the historical background and political theory needed to answer them. When unpacking the Iran war in a 15-page term paper, I would turn to jus ad bellum theory, the body of historical tradition and ethical rules governing when it is legally and morally justified for a nation to go to war. Jus ad bellum theory requires that a war is fought for a just cause, declared by the correct authority, fought only in the last resort, and with the end goal of peace, and finally, that the war brings about more good than evil. When trying to make sense of the war with my friends on the quad, however, I would make my point simple: if the decision on whether or not to continue a war depends on the price of gasoline, we should likely not be in that war.

A recent study by the Pew Research Center found that most Americans’ biggest concern about the Iran War is the price of gas, overtaking concerns about military casualties and terror attacks. Especially with the midterm elections on the horizon, the Trump administration and Republican lawmakers can’t ignore the fact that the Iran war might come with a $5.00 price tag for gas that the American people aren’t willing to pay. But this begs the question: if the price of gas is enough to dissuade us from engaging in this war, should we ever have gone to war in the first place?

There’s plenty of historical precedent for commodity-based conflicts, from the Opium Wars of the mid-1800s, to the 19th century Chincha Islands War over fertilizer, to the Finnish-Soviet War catalyzed by Stalin seeking nickel. There has been no shortage of study into how access to robust natural resources can threaten a nation’s stability. In fact, the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) found that 40% of all intrastate conflicts in the last 60 years were linked to natural resources. Furthermore, the domino effect of resource wars has become abundantly clear in recent years given the fallout of the Russia-Ukraine War on global prices for food supplies like wheat and corn. However, even if conflicts over resources are found throughout the history books, that doesn’t mean that commodity-based conflicts should necessarily be considered “just war.” 

Regardless of whether this war was waged for the purpose of regime change, Middle East stability, or nuclear deterrence, if the price of gas is enough of a reason to disengage, the Iran War never met the tenets defined in jus ad bellum theory, namely Legitimate Authority, Last Resort, Proportionality, Right Intention, Reasonable Chance of Success, and Just Cause (occasionally limited to just self-defense). You don’t have to turn to Kant, Hobbes, or the U.N. charter to see that if this were really a war of last resort, gas prices wouldn’t be a compelling enough reason to disarm our weapons and send our troops home.

In a time of arguably unprecedented political polarization and an increasingly frenzied news cycle, Americans are overwhelmed. While trying to keep up with a barrage of headlines, navigate a government shutdown, and afford eggs to feed their families, Americans can hardly be expected to study up on just war theory in their limited free time. However, especially for young people like me who grew up against the backdrop of the Iraq War, the lack of clarity surrounding the rationale for the Iran War is concerning. If the motivation for this war is not so utterly compelling that it would justify escalation to total war, a scenario in which Americans would swallow sky-high gas prices and start growing victory gardens, then it’s time to end our involvement.

Aditi Bhattacharjya is a junior at Brown University concentrating in Economics and International and Public Affairs on the Policy and Governance track. Outside of class, she is is a staff writer for the Brown Undergraduate Law Review and leads the politics section of the Brown Journal of Philosophy, Politics, and Economics. She interned at Senator Jack Reed's Providence office last fall and worked as an Organizing Fellow on Governor Abigail Spanberger's campaign last summer. Aditi intends to attend law school after graduating from Brown. Her interests beyond the legal field include political economy, democratic governance, international trade, and monetary policy.