Total Iran Economic Damage Estimate | Hacker News Reader

Total Iran Economic Damage Estimate

fdd.org

It should be noted that this is from the Foundation For The Defense of Democracy, which is a pro-Israeli and anti-Iran lobbying group: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foundation_for_Defense_of_Demo...

They are not neutral actors and this webpage (which is dated to April 23rd) is not neutral either.

Iran is a country, persians is the people and the people hated the ayatollahs enough to prefer getting gunned down by these bastards more then living under them. A insane imperialist apocalyptic cult with a country as hostage, murdering its oil industry by strangulation. The gulf states will build a pipeline that circumvent hormus straights and then there will be a 2nd round.

You do not humilate the likes of putin and trump, to life and tell the tale.

Persians are dominant but the Baloch and Kurd form substantial , often militarily hostile minorities, who would not call themselves Persian and are largely included as within the present-day lines due to decisions related to the British empire.

Thanks for the heads-up, I didn't realize at time of post

"Exclusive: Iran deal includes $300 billion fund, more than half of which already committed, source says" (https://www.reuters.com/business/finance/iran-deal-includes-...)

> The new fund is a private investment vehicle, not a reconstruction or reparations program and will not include any government money or grants, the source said, adding that companies based in the U.S., the Gulf Arab states, Asia, South America and Africa have agreed to commit financing.

It would be interesting to see more detail on how this vehicle is structured and what sectors the commitments are in.

It's kind of a nonsensical explanation. As you quoted, the source says it's "not a reconstruction or reparations program" but they go on to say it will be called the Reconstruction and Development Fund and that the program will "include securing loans, establishing credit lines or directly financing the reconstruction of sites damaged in the war ... and, more broadly, infrastructure affected by the conflict."

I'm confused about this investment vehicle. China, their largest external trading partner, is notably absent from the list. I'm assuming they would be willing to extend Iran credit and Iran would probably prefer to deal with a Chinese company over a US company. Are US companies going to offer lower loan rates than Chinese companies? Or is the US going to use financial controls to only allow Iran to conduct international business through approved banks?

"Our most likely estimate is that replacement costs are approximately $91 billion. Military and strategic assets — nuclear facilities, missile and drone production infrastructure, air bases, naval vessels, and air defense systems — make up roughly half that total, at approximately $46 billion, which is equivalent to 4-6 years of Iran’s pre-war defense budget"

How exactly did they arrive at this estimate? I would like to see a building-by-building breakdown, or at least a methodology. Feels very vibe-researched tbh.

You could get to a pretty good figure by assuming the Iranians know they can ask for at least twice as much. Three times as much isn't even pushing it.

More is probably better for Trump if it's larger because it's more padding through which the deal can be engineered that "such and such" [friend/proxy of Trump] has to be destination company/supplier of reparations materials or other self-dealing benefits.

Exactly (I made just this point with a bit less clarity than yours, in another comment)

This was the Suez Crisis for the US. It's all downhill from here.

I'm expected the next Democrat president to cashier a bunch of high rank officers who went along with this. They weren't brave enough to risk their careers to object to illegal orders, so out they go.

The total cost of Operation Epic Fury (the US-led conflict with Iran that began on February 28, 2026)

reached approximately $113 billion in direct military spending till April alone

Spending. At parity with destruction.

And all, really, because Trump wanted to make a fuss about the idea of Iran getting access to $1.2bn of their own money under the JCPOA.

Even with inflation and interest it'd be under $5bn now.

Don't make the mistake of thinking Trump cares about Iran, and how much money they have, at all.

He cares about being able to put on a good spectacle. Shooting down the JCPOA did that. Going to war with Iran did that.

This might be a geopolitical loss for the US, but that doesn't make it a personal loss for Trump, whose interests are not aligned with those of the US.

It is an appalling loss for Trump because he knows he was humiliated and he cannot bear it.

One thing you must understand about Trump is that he is a malignant narcissist: he has an absolutely acute sense for when shame attaches to him personally and he will do anything to deflect it or deny it.

In this case, for example, suddenly Vance is "the architect of the deal".

When he can no longer bear to be associated even to this level he will do something else awful to distract himself from the feelings he is experiencing. (You could argue that this is why the conflict started when it did).

But expect at least some more sabre-rattling about Greenland, more calling Canada the 51st State and Mark Carney "Governor", more dangling a Cuba invasion in front of pathetic Lidl' Marco, etc.

Trump has several personal goals that sometimes compete.

- Be plausably better than Obama

- Enrich himself and his family

- Stay out of prison

The Iran debacle may have utterly failed at the first goal, but not the second two. His relatives made money hand over fist, and the Epstein files have exited public discourse for the time being.

ah. so over $100 billion, about 25% of which safe to assume went to friends and CEOs and executives at companies of friends of people making the big decisions at the top.

Great extrapolation and extraction of value.

It must be lower than $300bn, because that is the size of the redevelopment fund in the MoU. My reasoning:

- Trump is desperate to get out of this war, so Iran can ask for more or less whatever they like, and he will get Vance to agree to it —- notice how Vance is already "the architect of the deal" because it's terrible. So Iran is overestimating.

- He knows they will over-estimate, but doesn't care, since:

1) he (thinks he) is getting his allies in the region to pay and

2) the family will undoubtedly start brand new companies to bid for the work

I don't think the executive can make those kind of financial decisions without authorization of congress, no?

Oh you're right, that'll definitely stop them /s

ETA: even a very hypothetical landslide Democratic Congress is substantially hands-tied over this deal. It's terrible and wasteful but going back on it is impossible.

You mean like this executive also couldn't kick off an all-out war and keep it going for months without authorization of congress?

Congress preauthorized in War Powers 1973 and 2001 AUMF, which was never been revoked after decades. The Iraq AUMF was revoked recently though. These need to be revoked. Congress delegated their power to the executive

The executive cannot start wars either and yet…

Just imagine how chill and wonderful life would be right now if Kamala had been elected.

Kamala "the greatest adversary of the US is Iran" Harris? That Kamala?

https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2024/10/8/kamala-harris-says-...

I kick myself every time I fail to place bets on Polymarket. When I heard her say that, I said to myself:

* "Not Russia, which has nuclear parity and now a massively-experienced (if preoccupied) conventional army? Not China, which dwarfs our production capacity and clearly intends to push us out of the West Pacific? Iran, really? So.....we are definitely going to war with Iran after the election. Kamala will lose the election but it won't matter. She has no independent thoughts in her head....which means The Decision-Makers have already decided what needs to happen, and gave her talking points to that effect." *

I coulda made a fortune. -_-

Iran has been on the agenda ever since Bush made it part of the Axis of Evil, but I doubt a Harris administration would be doing what Trump is doing right now. Probably not going to war with Iran outright, and at the very least not doing so as recklessly and haphazardly.

I understand the de riguer thought terminating cliche in American political discourse is that both parties and all politicians are the same, equally corrupt, incompetent malicious, mere puppets bought by corporations and controlled by Israel, and therefore elections don't matter.

I'm not denying the Biden administration's complicity in aiding and abetting Israel's genocide or Harris's unwillingness to distance herself from it, both are disgusting, and the Democrats have no one but themselves to blame for their losses. But Donald Trump really has been qualitatively worse in what should be every conceivably relevant metric than everyone else in the field, including other Republicans.

I actually completely agree on all points. #47/DJT2 is uniquely disastrous for the American Empire. I think Kamala is a narcissistic sociopath but DJT is that PLUS a bully with a fragile ego and the most ridiculously overconfident pathological liar I've ever seen in high office.

Dead people doesn't count. At least until is their turn, I suppose.

So this is why the US will pay $300B for their surrender.

Get better information, the fund is not from USG

Reply on news.ycombinator.com