For comparison sake, the US budget in 1968 was $169 billion. The war’s cost, Vietnam, was roughly $50 billion per year.
Today, that would be close to $500 billion. The forecast for this war at this rate of spending is $325 billion/year @$890 million/day.
The big difference here no national politician talked of a withdrawal as soon as possible. Not even a hint of that.
Peak Spending: From 1965 onwards, was $137 million per day.
Based on Bureau of Labor Statistics CPI data, $100 in 1968 is equivalent in purchasing power to approximately $948.89 in 2026 , representing a total inflation of 848.89% and a multiplier of ~9.49. Prices have increased by nearly 9.5 times, meaning an item costing in 1968 would cost roughly today.
Most likely, from the way it is looking, any new “deal” signed is going to be less than the agreement that Obama made and Trump tore up. Are we tired of winning yet?
The massive national security request comprises $1.15 trillion in discretionary spending alongside $350 billion that the administration wants included in a new reconciliation bill. This combined figure reflects a massive 42 percent increase over FY26 levels. Furthermore, the Pentagon’s base budget alone has officially broken the $1 trillion barrier, totaling $1.1 trillion.
Massive expansion of the military industrial complex.
When we’re constantly hearing about numbers in the billions and trillions, we become desensitized to just how much money $1.5 trillion is. If approved, the US could spend $4.11 billion per day next year…
I hear there’s a new up-and-comer drone / golf course company that is looking for some contracts.
Curious. Several days ago I ask Dr Bob for his comments on the graph (below), given his assertion that the original treaty “wasn’t successful”. I can’t imagine why he hasn’t responded. Can you?
I’m not Dr Bob2 but there are many opinions and articles on how successful or how much of a failure the JCPOA was.
Here is one quick excerpt listing the criticism of the deal. And yes, the article also listed the strengths of the deal. Please read that sentence again. I’m only posting the criticism paragraph. There is a lot more to the issue than one simple graph.
Weaknesses and Criticisms of the JCPOA
One of the main arguments used against the JCPOA was that itallowed Iran tocontinueenriching uranium and move closer to nuclear capability while remaining technically in compliance. The JCPOA also contained so-called“sunset provisions”on various aspects of the deal such as lifting limits on centrifuges after 10 years or reduced enrichment beyond 3.67% only lasting for 15 years. This led toconcernsthat the deal would onlytemporarilydelay Iran’s nuclear program while preventing parties from finding a more permanent solution. Additionally, criticsworriedthat lifting sanctions on Iran in return for the JCPOA’s focus on constraining Iran’s nuclear program would diminish the United States’ ability to address other security concerns such as Iran’s missile program or its funding of violent non-state groups in the Middle East.
The Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) was scheduled to terminate fully on October 18, 2025 , which was designated as “Termination Day,” occurring ten years after the deal’s adoption day.
So… that justifies leaving the treaty 7 years early? Even though they were in compliance? And you are perhaps expecting a treaty that says “you will never, under any circumstances, for any reason at all, not matter what, have nukes”? That isn’t realistic.
We are in this problem today because an orange dude couldn’t stand being roasted by O so he tore up O’s treaty without any attempt to create a new treaty. This allowed Iran to restart their ambitions (surprise!). And let’s not forget, America has time and time again shown that if you don’t have nukes you are at risk of our wrath (ask Lybia, for example). And if you do have nukes we probably won’t bother you.
Ask yourself this. Given T’s history and track record of completely ignoring even his own deals and treaties, why would Iran agree to anything right now? We have not proven ourselves to be trustworthy to bargain with.
Not for nothing, but this is the most addle brained criticism I can imagine. I’ll try to be brief, but it will be hard with such malarky in every sentence.
{1} The treaty allowed Iran to enrich to 3.75% or thereabouts. Not even close to dangerous, just enough for nuclear power plants. To get to “bomb grade” you need to get to 90% or better, a process which takes thousands of centrifuges, several years and is easily verifiable, especially if you have inspectors on the ground. The size of facility that would be necessary would be obvious to overhead satellite monitoring, not to mention boots on the ground inspection teams.
{2} There is no treaty in the world that has lasted forever. None ever in human history. And you don’t get to decide what the other party will agree to; if the most they would offer is 10 years, then you take the 10 years and hope to work to get more the next time. I don’t know where this attitude of “it wasn’t perfect, therefore “nothing” is better than “something”” originated, but it’s daft.
{3} Again, you don’t get to decide “what makes a deal” for the other side. Lifting the sanctions was part and parcel of the deal. We could, of course, have kept the sanctions on things (oh wait! We Did! QUOTE: “ These lifted sanctions were secondary sanctions, which affected non-U.S. companies doing business with Iran. The primary U.S. embargo, which prohibits most trade between U.S. citizens/companies and Iran, largely remained in place. END QUOTE.
You could argue this point, of course, but then you have to accept that it’s entirely possible there would have been no deal at all. That is essentially the place we have been since the deal was “torn up” in 2018. Are we better for it?
Please note : I am not saying the deal was perfect, I am saying it was better than what we’ve got, which is nothing. And a war-lite which will cost Trillions, when all is said and done.
PS: I have yet to see how striking a deal on nuclear enrichment would prevent anyone from also talking to them about missile development or any other issue. Has the word “renegotiation” been struck from the English language?
If we suspend the gas tax (due to this unnecessary war), it will result in another $100 million a day in lost revenue. Note, this doesn’t include the state revenue lost from those states that have decided to turn off their gas tax too.
