Americans question Iran war price as markets grow volatile nationwide

As the Pentagon continues to release videos of bombs destroying parts of Iran, the smoke can’t hide an increasingly urgent question here at home:

What price are Americans willing to pay for this war?

I don’t mean in terms of casualties, since the seven Americans killed so far is a relatively low number, although every fallen soldier is a tragedy. Each should be honored for their sacrifice, as the first half-dozen were at a ceremony in Delaware attended by President Donald Trump and other dignitaries.

It’s just that the financial turmoil is really taking its toll on the country, not to mention the entire world. The markets are sinking. Oil prices are skyrocketing. Jobs are declining. And this has fueled doubts about Trump’s decision to launch relentless attacks on Iran and offer a series of shifting explanations for why war is necessary and why it needs to be launched now.

WHY TRUMP INVOKED REGIME CHANGE BY ATTACKING IRAN, AND THE MEDIA MUST LEARN FROM PAST MISTAKES

All major wars involve sacrifices. But because the president never gave a prime-time speech to support his decision, many Americans feel like they woke up one morning and were at war with Iran.

Was the goal here to prevent Tehran from obtaining nuclear weapons? Or, after having removed Ayatollah Ali Khameini and other top leaders, was it a regime change? Pete Hegseth said the goal was not to overthrow the regime, but Trump contradicted him, saying he had to approve the new leader and rejecting the anointing of the ayatollah’s son. If that’s not George W. Bush-style regime change, what is?

Early on, the Dow Jones was crashing, 401ks were shrinking, and gas prices were rising.

In military terms, the US and Israeli attacks against the world’s leading sponsor of terrorism have been a notable success, at least so far. But how long will this 24/7 bombardment last?

HEGSETH ONCE WARNED AGAINST ENDLESS WARS. NOW LEADING TRUMP’S FIRST STRIKE DOCTRINE

Hegseth told “60 Minutes” that he and Trump are “willing to go as far as necessary” to overthrow Iran’s dictatorial regime, including sending troops if necessary. Understandably, the Secretary of War said he would not tell the enemy whether the military assault would last four to six weeks or longer.

“Near-term oil prices, which will fall rapidly when the destruction of Iran’s nuclear threat ends, are a very small price to pay for the United States and the world, security and peace,” the president posted. “ONLY FOOLS WOULD THINK DIFFERENTLY!”

The president told CBS yesterday that “the war is virtually complete.” That is a significant change.

Hegseth claimed the media is exaggerating American casualties to make Trump look bad. I’m sorry, but there is a reason why many people find this offensive. The journalists cover US military casualties in each administration and are not directed at any particular president. It is to honor our war dead. Most of the press is not pro-Trump, but these deaths would be major news no matter who was the commander in chief.

Meanwhile, other Arab nations, under attack by Iran, have cut their oil production because of that and the risky conditions in the Strait of Hormuz, a major choke point for energy shipments.

At the same time, history shows that some political opponents are trying to exploit American combat deaths, as many Democrats here are doing by refusing to call Iran a terrorist state. When 13 Americans were killed in an attack at the Kabul airport during a chaotic withdrawal from Afghanistan, Republicans blamed Joe Biden throughout his term. When four Americans died in Benghazi, Hillary Clinton, the Secretary of State, was beaten for years.

Russia’s role has also been polarizing. The Washington Post, citing a classified report, said the Kremlin is helping Iran attack US forces; in direct terms, helping to kill Americans.

When reporters raised this with press secretary Karoline Leavitt, she said: “Whether this happened or not, frankly, it doesn’t really matter.”

The reaction was instantaneous.

WHITE HOUSE SAYS OIL PRICE RISE TEMPORARY AS TRUMP BOOSTS ENERGY DOMINANCE AMID IRAN WAR

Right now there is a growing sense of international uncertainty that has everyone off balance.

For years I watched as LBJ and Richard Nixon bombed the Viet Cong in what was largely a jungle war, and the guerrillas refused to surrender, betting on outlasting the United States. Ultimately, South Vietnam collapsed and was invaded. The war was even more futile because it was fought against the “domino theory” that these small countries would fall with a communist triumph.

Donald Trump ran as the America First candidate who would keep the country out of foreign wars. He said it was Kamala Harris who would lead the nation into World War III.

The former vice president now accuses Trump of “dragging the United States into a war that the American people do not want.”

And the fight against Iran, of course, follows another regime change: Trump orders the kidnapping of Nicolás Maduro and declares himself leader of oil-rich Venezuela.

The furor over Iran has exacerbated a deep and ugly divide in conservative media, with some members abruptly changing their rhetoric on foreign wars and others saying the president has betrayed his MAGA base.

SUBSCRIBE TO HOWIE’S MEDIA BUZZMETER PODCAST, A RIFF OF THE HOTTEST STORIES OF THE DAY

A month from now, or six months from now, the decision to go to war with Iran could be seen as either a brilliant tactical move or the beginning of an Iraqi-style quagmire. Will Trump be able to say he shut down the mullahs’ nuclear program?

CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD THE FOX NEWS APP

But if there’s anything that could persuade the president to declare victory and calm things down, it’s the increasing economic pain this war has inflicted on the average American.