U.S. and Israel strike Iran, raising questions about costs, legality, and motive

U.S. and Israel strike Iran, raising questions about costs, legality, and motive.

Last weekend, the United States and Israel launched significant military attacks against Iran. The fallout was immediate, not just in the Middle East but also in Washington, where politicians and commentators started questioning whether the Trump administration had considered its next course of action.

For many observers, the question felt familiar. Twenty-two years ago, the Bush administration invaded Iraq and toppled Saddam Hussein without a clear plan for what would follow.

Critics say President Donald Trump has now done something similar, launched an open-ended military campaign with even less public justification than his predecessor offered.

The strikes came at a rough moment for the White House. In the weeks before the attack, the administration was dealing with backlash over how it handled civil-rights tensions in Minneapolis. The Supreme Court had struck down major parts of its global tariff policy.

And renewed attention had fallen on the long-running Jeffrey Epstein files. Critical outlets, including analyses echoing themes in international reporting, have described the strikes as a potential distraction tactic amid domestic scandals like the Supreme Court tariff ruling and renewed Epstein-file scrutiny.

During a live broadcast on Zeteo on February 28, political commentator Mehdi Hasan described the military operation as “inherently completely illegal.” He maintained that Trump has used more unilateral military force than Dick Cheney, George W. Bush, and the neoconservatives of the time put together.

Hasan also said flatly, “It is 100% true that Epstein is a factor in all this.” Pushing for regime change in Iran has been a goal ingrained in Republican and neoconservative ideology for years, if not decades, according to his colleague Swin Subh.

Hasan also pointed to a broader pattern he described this way: “Every Republican president comes to office, cuts benefits for the poor, cuts taxes for the rich, raises prices, and then bombs a Middle East country.”

Who pays and who profits?

The expense in terms of money is also being questioned. Running a single U.S. carrier strike group costs around $6.5 million per day, according to a Forbes study released shortly before the strikes.

The estimated daily cost of the broader military buildup around Iran in 2026 is between $25 million and $40 million. The Congressional Budget Office has cautioned that interest payments on the nation’s debt are expected to reach the trillions in the next years.

As of late February 2026, the national debt had already crossed $38.7 trillion and was close to $38.8 trillion.

The Epstein-linked elite networks and the spoils of the Iran war

Critics have also raised questions about who stands to benefit. While regular Americans face higher energy costs and more national debt, defense contractors and military-linked investors are positioned to profit.

Some observers have pointed out that the same elite networks recently embarrassed by fresh Epstein-file disclosures could now gain from the conflict.

The timing has been noted: Borge Brende, president and CEO of the World Economic Forum, resigned on February 26 after an internal review confirmed he had dinners and communications with Jeffrey Epstein.

Retired Space Force Colonel and transgender rights activist Bree Fram, who was pushed out under earlier Trump-era policies, did not hold back in her criticism. She called the strikes “reckless adventurism and distraction,” saying Trump “always puts profits and self-interest ahead of American lives.”

Oil prices reacted quickly to the announcement of the strikes. Brent crude might hit $100 per barrel if the Strait of Hormuz is blocked, according to analysts who spoke to Reuters and Forbes.

This would raise prices for Western customers while helping exporters like Saudi Arabia, Russia, and Venezuela.

The bigger concerns noted by commentators include a humanitarian catastrophe within Iran, substantial refugee flows into Europe, and additional pressure on U.S. forces already overburdened by obligations in Asia and Europe.

Republican Representative Thomas Massie of Kentucky, who has co-sponsored a bill to force a congressional vote on the war, posted on X: “PSA: Bombing a country on the other side of the globe won’t make the Epstein files go away, any more than the Dow going above 50,000 will.”

The operation is an illegitimate war that was started without congressional consent, according to several Democratic members of Congress and veteran military personnel who claim it violates the United Nations Charter and the War Powers Resolution.

The smartest crypto minds already read our newsletter. Want in? Join them.