Connect with us

உலகம்

The cost of 76 years of US wars, from Korea to Iran

Published

on

Al Jazeera breaks down the human and financial cost of decades of US-led wars and its latest war on Iran.

“We called it ‘moon dust’,” Jeffery Camp, a 61-year-old retired military veteran who lives in Sarasota, Florida, says when describing the terrain in Maidan Shar, Afghanistan, where he served with the United States Army from 2008 to 2009.

The fine particles of dust there would find their way into “your vehicles, your equipment, your lungs”, he says ruefully while describing the searingly dry summers and freezing windy winters in the eastern provincial capital.

Camp is one of the 832,000 US service members deployed to Afghanistan from 2001 to 2021 during what became the longest war in US history.

He joined the Army in 1983, well before the September 11, 2001, attacks on the US, which led to the war in Afghanistan. “Service was a calling, not a reaction to a national crisis,” he tells Al Jazeera.

During 20 years of war, 2,461 US soldiers were killed and at least 20,000 wounded.

“I left both Iraq and Afghanistan with a profound respect for the human cost of war, not just for American service members but for the populations of those countries. War is not clean, and the people who bear the longest burden are rarely the ones who made the decisions,” Camp says.

Tuesday marks 60 days of the US-Israel war on Iran.

Since February 28, US-Israeli attacks on Iran have killed at least 3,375 people, according to Iran’s Ministry of Health.

The US military has confirmed 13 combat-related deaths among its service members across the region, with more than 200 injuries.

Since the 1950s, US-led wars have killed millions of civilians and tens of thousands of military personnel.

According to an analysis by the Cost of War Project at Brown University’s Watson Institute of International and Public Affairs, US-led wars since 2001 have directly caused the deaths of about 940,000 people across Afghanistan, Pakistan, Iraq, Syria, Yemen and other post-9/11 conflict zones.

The graphic below breaks down the estimated number of civilians killed for every US soldier in the Korean, Vietnam, Afghanistan and Iraq wars.

According to the Pentagon, the Trump administration spent $11.3bn during the first six days of the war, with an estimated $1bn subsequently spent on the war every day until the April 8 ceasefire.

According to Mark Cancian, a senior adviser with the Defense and Security Department at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, the $1bn per day figure is “a little high”.

Speaking to Al Jazeera, he says the war “was very expensive in the first few days” because the US used costly long-range munitions, including Tomahawk missiles. They cost $2.5m each, and the US military used hundreds of them.

Cancian calculates that in addition to the $11.3bn spent on munitions, an additional $1.4bn should be added for combat losses and infrastructure damage and a further $26.5m for support costs, bringing the total for the first six days to $12.7bn.

Cancian estimates that after the first week of its air strikes, the US spent “about half a billion dollars a day”, and now, during the ceasefire, that figure is likely “under $100m per day” because the US is not using any munitions.

On a per-day cost basis, the Iran war may be one of the most expensive in recent history.

According to figures from the Costs of War Project, the 20-year Afghanistan war cost an estimated $2.3 trillion, averaging more than $300m per day, while the eight-year Iraq War, which began in 2003, cost an estimated $2 trillion, averaging about $684m per day.

Naveed Shah is the political director of Common Defense, a grassroots veteran-led organisation based in Washington, DC, that aims to engage, organise and mobilise veterans.

Shah, who served in Iraq from 2006 to 2010, believes the US must defend its national interests and has a vital role to play in deterring threats, but too often overreaches with open-ended wars of choice that create more problems than they solve.

“The current conflict with Iran is repeating the mistakes that led us to spending 20 years in Iraq and Afghanistan: shaky evidence at best, moving goalposts and dangerous rhetoric that risks drawing us into another prolonged war,” Shah tells Al Jazeera.

“At the same time, while we’re deploying troops overseas, the government is trying to claw back the care we promised for our veterans,” Shah says.

“The true cost of war extends far beyond the battlefield. It echoes for decades in veterans’ bodies and minds and for their families. For the families of the troops who won’t come home, it will be an empty seat at the dinner table and a hole in their heart for eternity,” he says.

According to the Cost of War Project, the US is expected to spend at least $2.2 trillion on obligations for veterans’ healthcare over the next 30 years.

According to a Reuters/Ipsos poll from April 12, 60 percent of Americans disapprove of US military strikes on Iran. This is up from a 43 percent disapproval rating at the start of the war.

Historically, US wars have mostly enjoyed a “rally around the flag” effect, which causes low disapproval at the outset.

The chart below compares the disapproval rating at the start and end of the five main wars the US has led since the 1950s.

Marwa Jadoon, 40, from Oklahoma, whose name has been changed to keep her identity concealed, says her out-of-pocket expenses have increased by more than 35 percent over the past couple of months.

“As someone with multiple considerably expensive health conditions, I’m paying more than I’ve ever paid before just to cover only my essential medications and recurring testing. It’s limited my ability to afford additional treatments since healthcare costs are astronomical in the US. I’ve cut costs in groceries and anything outside of essentials,” Jadoon says.

Jadoon feels she’s been shortchanged with the policy shifts that came at the same time she was made redundant, further complicating her life.

“I find it appalling that my tax dollars are funding a war when we have repeatedly been told that we cannot afford universal healthcare. At the end of last year, I lost my job and had to apply for unemployment and Soonercare,” she says, referring to state-covered healthcare.

She explains that unemployment benefits would not even cover her rent.

“How can my tax dollars afford to pay for wars and foreign governments while I can’t even receive Medicaid because they deemed $400 is too much a month? My phone bill alone is $116 a month. My student loan payments are almost $200 a month. I would love to see anyone in the current administration survive on $400 a week with no medical coverage,” Jadoon says.

Another woman in Oklahoma, who also wished to remain anonymous due to her job with the state government, says, “The war in Iran and its funding has made me feel cornered. I feel it at the gas pump, I feel it at the doctor, dentist. I feel it at the bank. I feel it when I’m at the grocery store, thinking how exactly everyone is acting so calm. And it moves me, literally. Emotions carry little power. I’m ready to do something about it. I’ve been stolen from and lied to, and I’ve had enough.

According to the Climate Solutions Lab at the Watson Institute for Public and International Affairs at Brown University, the total consumer burden from the increase in petrol and diesel prices across the US as a result of the war on Iran is estimated at $27.8bn, roughly $200 per household.

The national average price of petrol has increased nearly 40 percent from $2.90 per gallon ($0.76 per litre) before the war to $4.10 per gallon ($1.08 per litre) now.

📰 மூல செய்தி (Source): https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2026/4/28/the-cost-of-76-years-of-us-wars-from-korea-to-iran?traffic_source=rss

உலகம்

UAE leaves OPEC in blow to oil cartel amid war on Iran

Published

on

Announcement of May 1 exit comes as Gulf producers are already struggling to ship exports through the Strait of Hormuz.

The United ‌Arab Emirates (UAE) has announced its decision to quit OPEC and OPEC+ to focus on “national interests”, dealing ⁠a heavy ⁠blow to the oil-exporting groups at a time when the US-Israel war on Iran has caused ⁠a historic energy shock and rattled the global economy.

The move, which will take effective on May 1, reflects “the UAE’s long-term strategic and economic vision and evolving energy profile”, a statement carried by state media said on Tuesday.

“During our time in the organisation, we made significant contributions and even greater sacrifices for the benefit of all,” it added. “However, the time has come to focus our efforts on what our national interest dictates.”

The loss of the UAE, a longstanding OPEC member, could create disarray and weaken the bloc, which has usually sought to show a united ⁠front despite internal disagreements over a range of issues from geopolitics to production quotas.

UAE Energy Minister Suhail Mohamed al-Mazrouei said the decision was taken after a careful look at the regional power’s energy strategies. Asked whether the UAE consulted with OPEC heavyweight Saudi Arabia, he said the UAE did not raise the issue with ‌any other country.

“This is a policy decision, it has been done after a careful look at current and future policies related to level of production,” the energy minister told Reuters news agency.

OPEC Gulf producers have already been struggling to ship exports through the Strait of Hormuz, a ‌narrow chokepoint between Iran and Oman through which a fifth of the world’s crude oil and liquefied natural gas normally passes, because of threats and attacks against vessels amid the war.

United States President Donald Trump has previously accused OPEC of “ripping off the rest of the world” by inflating oil ⁠prices.

Trump has also linked US military support for ⁠the Gulf with oil prices, saying that while the US defends OPEC members, they “exploit this by imposing high oil prices”.

The UAE had been a member of OPEC first through its emirate of Abu Dhabi in 1967, and later when it became its own country in 1971.

The oil cartel based in Vienna has seen some of its market power wane as the US increased its production of crude oil in recent years.

Additionally, the UAE and Saudi Arabia have increasingly competed over economic issues and regional politics, particularly in the Red Sea area.

The two countries had joined in together in a coalition to fight against Yemen’s Iran-backed Houthi rebels in 2015. However, that coalition broke down into recriminations in late December, when Saudi Arabia bombed what it described as a weapons shipment bound for Yemeni separatists backed by the UAE.

Energy research company Rystad Energy said the UAE’s withdrawal marks a significant shift for the oil-producer group.

“Losing a member with 4.8 million barrels per day of capacity, and the ambition to produce more, takes a real tool out of the group’s hands,” Rystad Energy’s head of geopolitical analysis Jorge Leon said in a statement.

“With demand nearing a peak, the calculation for producers with low-cost barrels is changing fast, and waiting your turn inside a quota system starts to look like leaving money on the table,” he continued.

“Saudi Arabia is now left doing more of the heavy lifting on price stability, and the market loses one of the few shock absorbers it had left.”

📰 மூல செய்தி (Source): https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2026/4/28/uae-leaves-opec-and-opec?traffic_source=rss

Continue Reading

உலகம்

Kandice in southern Lebanon

Published

on

Kandice Ardiel works with the United Nations in southern Lebanon. The Israeli military’s  attacks damaged her apartment in Tyre, forcing her to move into a UN office in Naqoura. In her video, Kandice describes  life under fire: forced evacuations, nearby explosions and having to leave the cat behind.

📰 மூல செய்தி (Source): https://www.aljazeera.com/video/on-the-ground/2026/4/28/kandice-in-southern-lebanon?traffic_source=rss

Continue Reading

உலகம்

‘War crime’: Afghan-Pakistan truce under strain after university strike

Published

on

Civilian casualties in Kunar raise tensions as Pakistan denies role, casting shadow over ceasefire and peace talks.

Islamabad, Pakistan – Afghanistan’s Taliban authorities say Pakistani mortars and missiles struck a university and residential neighbourhoods in the eastern province of Kunar on Monday, killing at least seven people and wounding more than 80.

Taliban deputy spokesperson Hamdullah Fitrat said the strikes hit the city of Asadabad, the provincial capital, as well as surrounding districts.

Afghanistan’s Ministry of Higher Education said about 30 students and professors were among the wounded, with Sayed Jamaluddin Afghani University sustaining extensive damage to its buildings and grounds.

Fitrat called the attacks “unforgivable war crimes” against civilians and academic institutions.

Pakistan’s Ministry of Information and Broadcasting rejected the account, describing reports that Pakistani forces had struck the university as a “blatant lie”.

In a statement posted on X, the ministry said no strike had been carried out on the university and that Pakistan’s targeting is “precise and intelligence based”, though it did not explicitly rule out any attack within Afghan territory.

Afghan and Pakistani officials have separately confirmed to Al Jazeera that the two sides have been exchanging fire along their porous border, even though they are formally observing a ceasefire. Kunar is a border province.

The competing claims over the attack on the university have now raised fears that the already fragile ceasefire might completely collapse. The heightened tensions follow days after peace talks held in the Chinese city of Urumqi between the two sides that Afghan Foreign Minister Amir Khan Muttaqi described as “positive”.

The Urumqi talks, hosted by China in early April, brought delegations from both sides together for the first time since the conflict’s most intense phase in February and March, when Pakistan struck Kabul multiple times and declared it was in “open war” with Afghanistan.

Afghanistan described the discussions as “useful”. Pakistan said further progress would depend on Kabul. The talks ended without a formal agreement or joint statement.

Pakistan accuses the Afghan Taliban of providing sanctuary to the Pakistan Taliban, known by the acronym TTP, which emerged in 2007 and, while distinct from the Afghan Taliban, shares deep ideological, social and linguistic ties with the group. The TTP and other groups have carried out a sustained campaign of attacks across Khyber Pakhtunkhwa and Balochistan, according to Pakistani authorities.

Afghanistan rejects accusations that it is sheltering or aiding the TTP and other anti-Pakistan groups.

Mehmood Jan Babar, a Peshawar-based political and security analyst, said the engagement in Urumqi was thin from the start.

Delegations were at the level of diplomats, with no political contact throughout. Pakistan, he said, maintained a firm position and demanded action in writing.

“Until Afghanistan puts something in writing, no verbal commitment will be trusted,” Babar told Al Jazeera. “That is what was said in Urumqi, and that is where things stand.”

Tameem Bahiss, a Kabul-based security analyst, said the outcome reflected how little ground either side had shifted.

“The negotiations in Urumqi did not achieve a clear settlement or agreement,” he told Al Jazeera. “Both sides may agree to talks under pressure from regional countries, but once the talks end, the same problems return.”

Babar noted some softening on the Afghan side.

Muttaqi had reportedly instructed senior ministers to use more restrained language on Pakistan, he said, given how much Kabul has at stake in its relationship with Islamabad.

“But Pakistan’s core position has not changed,” Babar said.

This is not the first time a diplomatic opening has quickly unravelled.

A ceasefire mediated by Qatar and Turkiye in October 2025 was followed by continued low-level clashes.

A temporary Eid ceasefire in March after fighting had resumed in February – brokered at the request of Saudi Arabia, Qatar and Turkiye – was almost immediately disputed.

The Taliban alleged Pakistan carried out dozens of mortar strikes in Kunar while the truce was still in effect.

The most contentious episode came on March 16, when a Pakistani air strike destroyed the Omar Hospital in Kabul, a 2,000-bed addiction treatment facility.

Afghan officials put the death toll at more than 400. The United Nations recorded 143.

Pakistan insisted that its target was not the hospital, but nearby military installations and an ammunition depot. The incident remains the most disputed of the conflict.

Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Turkiye and China have all attempted to broker a lasting arrangement.

Babar said Pakistan had briefed all of them on its position that cross-border attacks on Pakistani soil had decreased when Pakistan carried out its own operations.

“That is a valid argument, and it is holding weight right now,” he said.

But Bahiss said the repeated failures point to something structural.

“The main problem is that Pakistan and Afghanistan have very different views of the security situation,” he said. “If both sides cannot even agree on the nature of the problem, it becomes very difficult for mediators to agree on a solution.”

The Kabul-based analyst added that internal pressures make compromise difficult on both sides.

“Pakistan risks looking weak domestically if it accepts vague assurances and the Taliban risks looking as though it is yielding to outside pressure [if it accepts Islamabad’s assertions],” he said.

At the core of the conflict is a dispute that predates the current fighting.

Kabul denies harbouring the TTP and has accused Islamabad of using attacks in Pakistan as a pretext for interference in Afghan affairs.

Pakistan maintains that the burden lies with Kabul to take verifiable action and has sought written assurances that it says have not been provided.

Bahiss said months of military pressure have yielded little.

“The Taliban have not accepted Pakistan’s main demand in the way Islamabad wants,” he said. “They may be unwilling because of ideological or historical links, or unable because acting against the TTP could create internal divisions. Whatever the reason, the outcome is the same: Pakistan’s demands remain unmet.”

Babar said the picture inside Afghanistan is more complex than a flat refusal.

Several factions within the Taliban hold differing views, he said, with some facing public pressure.

He added that the Afghan Taliban had arrested a significant number of TTP members and their families and transferred them from the eastern provinces deeper into Afghanistan, though it remained unclear whether this constituted a policy shift or a tactical adjustment.

Afghan officials, meanwhile, argue that Pakistan’s campaign has caused civilian casualties that harden public opinion without addressing the underlying drivers of violence.

China’s role as host of the Urumqi talks carries weight. Beijing is Pakistan’s largest trading partner and has significant infrastructure investments in both countries through the economic corridor. It has a direct interest in stabilising the border.

But Babar said no agreement is possible without a written guarantee and a guarantor to enforce it.

He pointed to the Doha accord in 2020, in which the Taliban gave a written commitment that Afghan soil would not be used against any country, a commitment Pakistan says was violated.

The Doha Agreement, signed in February 2020 between the United States and the Afghan Taliban, committed the Taliban to preventing Afghan soil from being used by any group to threaten US or allied security, in exchange for a full withdrawal of US and NATO forces from Afghanistan.

“Pakistan does not want to enter into any agreement that brings it no tangible benefit,” he said. “Until a written commitment comes, nothing else moves.”

Afghanistan has its own demands: That Pakistan keep borders

📰 மூல செய்தி (Source): https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2026/4/28/war-crime-afghan-pakistan-truce-under-strain-after-university-strike?traffic_source=rss

Continue Reading

Trending

Copyright © 2024 by 7Tamil Media, All rights reserved.