A U.S. Invasion of Iran Would Cost World Economy $1.7 Trillion, Researchers Say


Roshanak Taghavi
by Roshanak Taghavi

A full-blown U.S. invasion, occupation and disarmament of Iran would cost the global economy almost $2 trillion in the first three months alone, according to a special report released by the DC-based Federation of American Scientists (FAS).

The decision to invade and disarm Iran means Washington would impose a naval blockade and no-fly zone against the Islamic Republic, and would require "large numbers" of American troops on the ground inside Iran in order to systematically destroy the country's military bases and nuclear power installations, according to the report.

The special FAS study, entitled "Sanctions, Military Strikes, Other Potential Actions Against Iran," aggregates the findings of nine bipartisan "subject matter experts" affiliated with a vast range of entities such as private consulting firms, investment banks, think-tanks and universities, to present the net global economic cost (or benefit) of six hypothetical U.S. policy options on Iran. The scenarios range from conflicts to sanctions and other potential actions the U.S. could take against Iran, including a new option entitled "de-escalation" which the FAS report says would result in a net gain for the world financial system.

The report provides a range of lower, middle and upper-cost estimates for the six scenarios provided in the report, with each respective calculation factoring in global financial market losses, oil price increases, military and security spending, any damage resulting from conflict, and other global costs. All figures account for the first three months after the U.S. takes a specific policy action.

The authors of the FAS report do not advocate or recommend any one of the six presented policies, stating instead that their principle aim is to fill a "gap" in existing research by encouraging further studies and discussions on a significantly "under-explored" question: "What are the potential effects on the global economy of US actions against Iran?"

To date, noted research projects related to the consequences of U.S. policy on Iran have tended to either address the immediate fallout and civilian impact of military strikes on Iran's nuclear infrastructure, or focused on the energy and economic costs of Iran developing a nuclear weapon.

"The intent in releasing ["Sanctions, Military Strikes, Other Potential Actions Against Iran"]'s initial findings is to broaden the scope of analysis beyond issues immediately affecting Iran and its nuclear infrastructure, or a narrow economic focus on oil prices," write authors Charles Blair and Mark Jansson.

"Surprisingly little attention has been paid to the outcomes of U.S.-led action taken against Iran beyond those immediately impacting Iran and its nuclear infrastructure," they add.

According to the experts elicited for the FAS study, the second-most "globally" expensive U.S. policy option -- a comprehensive bombing campaign against Iran -- would produce a net loss for the world economy worth roughly $1.1 trillion. Such a bombing campaign would entail targeting the Islamic Republic's nuclear facilities, air defenses, radar and aerial command and control facilities as well as Iran's main military bases and facilities for the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps, Navy, Army and Air Force. To read the rest of the article, please visit Huffington Post Politics by copying and pasting this link:



Recently by Roshanak TaghaviCommentsDate
Iranian Art That Transcends Politics
Sep 25, 2012
more from Roshanak Taghavi

don't believe it

by MRX on

Two trillion? none sense. plus why would there be a need for  full blown invasion. All you need is thousends of sorties right and left and blockade of straight hormuz which deprives the regime from oil revenue and the regime will collaps under his own weight.


Costs Vs. Benefits

by Doorbin on

Costs must always be assessed against the benefits for them to make any sense.

What are the inherent benefits of the removal of I.R. from Iran?

Someone should do an "analysis" on that. Then we can discuss the matter logically. 

Darius Kadivar

I thought we were already 'invaded' ... ;0)

by Darius Kadivar on