Analysis Summary
This article strongly argues that the government is hiding the true, enormous costs of the war with Iran. It mainly does this by quoting various experts and unnamed officials who claim the war is far more expensive than official figures let on, aiming to make you feel outraged and cynical about government transparency. The article emphasizes these high costs and what it wants you to believe are misleading official statements, but it doesn't give much space to why the government believes this war is necessary in the first place.
Cross-Outlet PSYOP Detected
This article is part of a narrative being pushed across multiple outlets:
FATE Analysis
Four dimensions of psychological manipulation: how content captures Focus, exploits Authority, triggers Tribal identity, and engineers Emotion.
Focus signals
"The Trump administration is drastically undercounting the price tag of the U.S. war with Iran, peddling fragmentary estimates that offer Americans a skewed understanding of the costs."
This opening statement immediately establishes a 'drastically undercounting' and 'skewed understanding' narrative, framing the article's revelations as crucial and corrective to an intentionally obscured truth, thus capturing attention.
"At the very least, they say the war is burning through between $1 billion and $2 billion per day — or roughly $11,500 to $23,000 per second."
The breakdown of spending per day and especially per second provides a highly granular and easily digestible 'novelty spike' of information, making the abstract figure of billions more visceral and attention-grabbing.
"This and other estimates turned out to be drastic undercounts as Pentagon officials, in classified briefings, disclosed that the military burned through $5.6 billion worth of munitions in just the first two days of the war."
This highlights a 'new' and 'unrecognized' massive expenditure, contrasting it with previous 'drastic undercounts' to suggest a significant, previously concealed, financial reality.
Authority signals
"But these sums are dwarfed by estimates offered by experts in the costs of war, lawmakers experienced with the Pentagon budget, and two government officials briefed on Operation Epic Fury who spoke on the condition of anonymity."
The article immediately sets up a conflict between official figures and 'experts,' 'lawmakers,' and 'government officials' to lend credibility to its higher cost estimates. The 'government officials briefed on Operation Epic Fury' imply inside knowledge.
"Gabe Murphy, a policy analyst at Taxpayers for Common Sense, a nonpartisan budget watchdog advocating for an end to wasteful spending"
The article uses the affiliation with 'Taxpayers for Common Sense' a 'nonpartisan budget watchdog' to imbue Murphy's statements with impartiality and credibility on financial matters.
"Elaine McCusker, a former senior Pentagon budget official now at the American Enterprise Institute."
McCusker's past role as a 'senior Pentagon budget official' and current affiliation with a prominent think tank (American Enterprise Institute) are used to bolster the credibility of her cost estimates, positioning her as an insider expert.
"Estimates by Linda Bilmes, the co-author of “The Three Trillion Dollar War,” are in line with the government officials’ projections. Bilmes, a former assistant secretary and chief financial officer of the U.S. Department of Commerce under Bill Clinton and currently a public policy professor at the Harvard Kennedy School, says that the price tag of the war will exceed $50 billion if the conflict stretches into its third or fourth week."
Bilmes is presented as a high-authority figure, with impressive credentials ('co-author of 'The Three Trillion Dollar War,'' 'former assistant secretary and chief financial officer,' 'public policy professor at the Harvard Kennedy School') to lend extreme weight to her dire financial predictions and establish them as definitive.
"Bilmes first called attention to the immense hidden costs of America’s wars in her groundbreaking analyses of the Iraq War. The George W. Bush administration initially put the likely cost of the Iraq War at $40 billion. In 2015, Bilmes and economist Joseph Stiglitz discovered that the real cost would be at least $3 trillion. Just six years later, that figure had ballooned to around $8 trillion."
This paragraph establishes Bilmes's past record of accurately predicting higher war costs than official estimates, effectively portraying her as a prophet of undercounted war expenses and giving her current predictions significant authoritative weight.
Tribe signals
"The Trump administration is drastically undercounting the price tag of the U.S. war with Iran, peddling fragmentary estimates that offer Americans a skewed understanding of the costs."
This immediately establishes an 'us vs. them' dynamic between the 'Trump administration' (who are 'peddling fragmentary estimates' and 'skewing understanding') and 'Americans' (who are being misled).
"Jacobs told The Intercept that Americans had been conned into an open-ended conflict, with unclear goals and no exit plan."
The phrase 'Americans had been conned' directly frames the situation as a deliberate deception perpetrated by a powerful 'them' (the administration/Pentagon) against 'us' (the American people/taxpayers).
"“My kids’ kids, and probably their kids, are going to be paying for this.”"
This quote from an anonymous official helps solidify the 'us vs. them' narrative by creating a sense of shared generational burden among 'us' (taxpayers) against opaque, unaccountable 'them' (the government/military complex that created the debt).
Emotion signals
"The Trump administration is drastically undercounting the price tag of the U.S. war with Iran, peddling fragmentary estimates that offer Americans a skewed understanding of the costs."
The words 'drastically undercounting,' 'fragmentary estimates,' and 'skewed understanding' evoke a sense of unease and potential danger, implying a concealed truth that could have severe consequences for the reader/taxpayer.
"At the very least, they say the war is burning through between $1 billion and $2 billion per day — or roughly $11,500 to $23,000 per second."
The precise and rapid 'per day' and especially 'per second' figures are designed to create a sense of alarming urgency and uncontrolled expenditure, signaling that the situation is rapidly deteriorating.
"Even that is a drop in the bucket compared to the long-term expenses, which could cost the U.S. trillions of dollars in the decades to come. One of the officials lamented that Americans would be paying off the war for generations."
The phrases 'trillions of dollars in the decades to come' and 'paying off the war for generations' evoke profound fear and anxiety about the long-term financial burden on readers and their descendants.
"Jacobs told The Intercept that Americans had been conned into an open-ended conflict, with unclear goals and no exit plan."
The use of the word 'conned' directly attempts to provoke outrage by suggesting deceit and manipulation against the American public regarding the war's true nature and consequences.
"“The majority are being exposed to toxins, contamination, acid rain, dust from infrastructure destruction, and burning oil fumes, so we can estimate that at least one-third will be claiming disability benefits under the PACT Act,” she said... “That is a major long-term cost that almost nobody looks at.”"
This segment engineers outrage and fear by highlighting severe health consequences for troops ('toxins, contamination, acid rain') and linking it to a 'major long-term cost that almost nobody looks at,' implying neglect and systemic failure towards veterans.
Narrative Analysis (PCP)
How the article reshapes thinking: Perception (what beliefs are targeted), Context (what information is shifted or omitted), and Permission (what behavior is being encouraged).
The article aims to instill the belief that the government, specifically the Trump administration and the Pentagon, is intentionally misleading the public about the true financial and societal costs of the war with Iran. It wants the reader to believe that these costs are astronomically high, long-term, and are being hidden.
The article shifts the context of discussing war costs from a simple financial transaction to a moral and intergenerational burden. By emphasizing 'trillions of dollars in the decades to come' and 'Americans would be paying off the war for generations,' it frames the financial impact not just as budget numbers but as an enduring legacy of debt and human suffering. It also shifts the context from necessary defense spending to 'unauthorized war' and 'wasteful spending,' particularly by associating current costs with the massive debt incurred by previous wars under previous administrations.
The article focuses heavily on the financial and human costs of the war while largely omitting the strategic objectives, the alleged threats that necessitated military action, or any benefits that might be presented as justifying the expenditure by the administration. While it mentions the 'goals of the war undefined' it doesn't give space to the official justification for the war itself, which, even if disputed, forms the basis for the government's perceived need for these costs.
The article implicitly grants permission for the reader to feel outrage and cynicism towards government transparency, specifically regarding military spending and war. It encourages skepticism towards official government figures and a demand for greater accountability from elected officials. It nudges the reader to advocate for an end to the war and for congressional oversight on military spending, particularly when an Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF) is absent.
SMRP Pattern
Four manipulation maintenance tactics: Socializing the idea as normal, Minimizing concerns, Rationalizing with logic, and Projecting blame.
"The Trump administration is drastically undercounting the price tag of the U.S. war with Iran, peddling fragmentary estimates that offer Americans a skewed understanding of the costs."
Red Flags
High-severity indicators: silencing dissent, coordinated messaging, or weaponizing identity to shut down debate.
""I can’t give you an answer at this point," he said. The Office of the Secretary of Defense as well as Pentagon press secretary Kingsley Wilson were no more forthcoming with The Intercept."
Techniques Found(11)
Specific propaganda techniques identified using the SemEval-2023 academic taxonomy of 23 techniques across 6 categories.
"The Trump administration is drastically undercounting the price tag of the U.S. war with Iran, peddling fragmentary estimates that offer Americans a skewed understanding of the costs."
Words like 'drastically undercounting,' 'peddling fragmentary estimates,' and 'skewed understanding' are emotionally charged and present the administration's actions in a highly negative light, suggesting intentional deception rather than mere estimation or error.
"Even that is a drop in the bucket compared to the long-term expenses, which could cost the U.S. trillions of dollars in the decades to come."
While future costs can be high, describing a potential quarter-trillion-dollar cost as 'a drop in the bucket' compared to 'trillions of dollars' is an exaggeration designed to magnify the perceived financial burden and create a sense of overwhelming, uncontrolled spending.
"One of the officials lamented that Americans would be paying off the war for generations."
The word 'lamented' attributes a strong emotional reaction (sorrow, regret) to an unnamed official, framing the long-term cost as a tragic burden rather than a neutral financial projection.
"Jacobs told The Intercept that Americans had been conned into an open-ended conflict, with unclear goals and no exit plan."
The phrase 'conned into an open-ended conflict' is vague and implies deliberate deception without detailing concrete evidence or mechanisms of the 'con.' It's also a strong, emotionally charged accusation.
"The American people are demanding an end to this illegal war to prevent more killings of children, retaliation against U.S. service members, skyrocketing costs to U.S. taxpayers, and yet another endless war."
This quote appeals to deeply held societal values such as protecting children, supporting service members, fiscal responsibility for taxpayers, and avoiding 'endless wars' to justify the demand for the war's end. The claim of an 'illegal war' also plays on adherence to legal and moral principles.
"estimates of the financial burden of Trump’s war with Iran — his second war on the country within the span of a year."
Calling it 'Trump's war' personalizes the conflict to the President, implying it's a personal venture rather than a state action. Framing it as his 'second war on the country' within a year creates a negative impression of reckless behavior.
"The self-styled War Department has never passed an audit, despite almost a decade of attempts."
Describing the Pentagon as 'self-styled War Department' and highlighting its failure to pass an audit for 'almost a decade' is used to minimize its credibility and suggest systemic financial mismanagement, thus bolstering the argument that its cost estimates are unreliable.
"“The majority are being exposed to toxins, contamination, acid rain, dust from infrastructure destruction, and burning oil fumes.”"
This quote uses broad, alarming terms like 'toxins,' 'contamination,' 'acid rain,' and 'burning oil fumes' without precise quantification or detailed scientific context for their prevalence or direct impact on the 'majority' of troops, creating a sense of widespread and severe danger through vagueness.
"“Billions of taxpayer dollars have already been spent on this unauthorized war. We’re facing a spiraling debt crisis, skyrocketing health care premiums, dire food insecurity, and natural disasters that are growing more frequent, extreme, and costly. These are national security issues,” Murphy told The Intercept. “If Congress believes this war is a good use of taxpayer dollars, it should vote on an authorization for the use of military force. Congress has a duty to consider any supplemental funding requests, but absent an AUMF, Congress shouldn’t approve additional funding.”"
This argument appeals to values of fiscal responsibility ('spiraling debt crisis,' 'taxpayer dollars'), public welfare ('skyrocketing health care premiums,' 'dire food insecurity'), and proper democratic process ('unauthorized war,' 'duty to consider,' 'absent an AUMF') to make a case against continued funding.
"Murphy, the policy analyst at Taxpayers for Common Sense, noted that the reconciliation bill enacted last summer included over $60 billion for munitions, missile defense, and low-cost weapons. The lack of specificity in the bill would allow the Pentagon to easily utilize that, plus the remaining $90 billion from reconciliation, for Trump’s war of choice with Iran, he said."
The phrase 'war of choice' is loaded, implying that the war is unnecessary, optional, and deliberately chosen by Trump rather than a necessity, influencing readers to view it negatively.
"Jacobs highlighted this uncertainty underlying the conflict, noting that Americans have been “misled into another regime-change war in the Middle East under false pretenses and with fairy tale ideas about what will happen next.”"
Phrases like 'misled into,' 'false pretenses,' and 'fairy tale ideas' are highly charged and accusatory, suggesting deliberate deception and unrealistic planning rather than misjudgment or evolving circumstances.