By: D.D. Reese

The United States' recent military intervention in Iran, specifically targeting nuclear enrichment facilities deep beneath the mountains of Fordo and Natanz, marks a dramatic turning point in U.S. foreign policy. It’s a move that many view as decisive, even overdue. Others see it as dangerously escalatory, dragging the country closer to another prolonged conflict in the Middle East. But beyond the geopolitics and military posturing, the question that must be asked is this: Was it worth it and at what cost?

The Case for Action
Proponents of the strike argue that Iran’s nuclear ambitions have long threatened global security, particularly for U.S. allies like Israel and Saudi Arabia. The Iranian regime has maintained, at least publicly, that its nuclear program is for peaceful purposes. But intelligence reports over the years, from the U.S., Israel, and U.N. inspectors, have indicated otherwise, pointing to uranium enrichment levels nearing weapons-grade.

In that context, the decision to strike underground nuclear sites is framed by some in Washington as a preemptive defense measure, not an act of war. President Trump and military officials have stressed that the U.S. does not seek war but wants to “eliminate the threat once and for all.”
In theory, success in these airstrikes might eliminate Iran’s capability to build a nuclear weapon for the foreseeable future. In practice, however, the situation is far murkier.

The Risk of Regional Blowback
Iran has vowed retaliation, and not without reason. The strikes represented a direct attack on sovereign soil, prompting Iranian leaders to threaten counterattacks not just on U.S. military installations, but on any country that aided in the assault.

This dramatically raises the specter of wider regional conflict. Even without full-scale war, Iran has shown its capacity to destabilize the region through proxy forces and cyberattacks. A more aggressive posture could trigger renewed violence in Iraq, Syria, and Lebanon, areas where American personnel are still stationed. The ripple effect could be enormous.

The Economic Fallout at Home
Perhaps the most immediate and overlooked consequence of this intervention is economic. Energy markets reacted within hours of the U.S. strikes, with crude oil prices spiking as fears mounted that Iran might block or disrupt traffic through the Strait of Hormuz, the narrow maritime chokepoint through which roughly 20% of the world’s oil passes.

The U.S. may no longer be as dependent on Middle Eastern oil as it once was, but the global economy still is. And oil is priced globally. That means higher costs for fuel, higher transportation costs for goods, and likely an inflationary spike in everything from groceries to utilities. With American households already strained by elevated interest rates, stubborn inflation, and unaffordable housing, even a small hike in fuel prices could push the economy closer to a recession.

Add to this the potential response from OPEC. If the cartel, dominated by oil-producing nations wary of U.S. military interventions, decides to restrict output in protest or as a show of solidarity with Iran, oil prices could surge well beyond $100 a barrel. The downstream impact on global markets would be severe, hitting the U.S. consumer at the gas pump and the checkout line alike.

Is This the Beginning of a Bigger Problem?
While some may applaud the demonstration of military strength, the bigger question remains: What’s the exit strategy? With no formal war declared, no clear diplomatic pathway opened, and a historically unpredictable adversary in Tehran, the U.S. risks being pulled deeper into a web of conflict without broad international backing or domestic consensus.

Moreover, the strike may ultimately backfire. If Iran accelerates its nuclear program in secret or receives more direct support from Russia or China, the U.S. could find itself in a far more dangerous position than it was before.

Conclusion
Military action is sometimes necessary, particularly when national or global security is credibly at risk. But it should always be the last option, not the first. The U.S. strike on Iran’s nuclear facilities may have removed an imminent threat, but it has also lit a fuse with potentially explosive consequences for global stability and the already strained pocketbooks of Americans at home.

Whether this proves to be a calculated blow that stops a crisis before it starts, or the start of something worse, remains to be seen. But as with all such decisions, the American people will ultimately be the ones who bear the costs. And those costs may be just beginning to surface.