Open thread for night owls: Potential global economic impacts of actions against Iran

The Federation of American Scientists has released a 25-page white paper that looks at the potential global impacts of various actions against Iran. In Sanctions, Military Strikes, and Other Potential Actions Against Iran [pdf], Charles P. Blair and Mark Jansson lay it out starkly. Jasmin Ramsey writes:

Based on consul[t]ations with a group of nine bipartisan economic and national security experts, the findings showed the effects of U.S. escalatory action against Iran could range from 64 billion to 1.7 trillion dollars in losses for the world economy over the initial three-month term. The least likely scenario of de-escalation, which would require U.S. unilateral steps showing it was willing to make concessions to resolve the standoff, would result in an estimated global economic benefit of 60 billion dollars. 'The study's findings suggest that there are potential costs to any number of U.S.-led actions and, in general, the more severe the action, the greater the possible costs,' Mark Jansson, FAS's special projects director, told IPS. 'That being said, even among experts, there is tremendous uncertainty about what might happen at the higher end of the escalation ladder,' added Jansson, the second author of the report after Charles P. Blair, an FAS senior fellow on state and non-state threats. The six plausible scenarios of U.S.-led actions against Iran included isolation and a Gulf blockade, which would include U.S. moves to 'curtail any exports of refined oil products, natural gas, energy equipment and services', the banning of the Iranian energy sector worldwide (incurring an estimated global economic cost of 325 billion dollars), and a comprehensive bombing campaign that would also target Iran's ability to retaliate (incurring an estimated global economic cost of 1.082 trillion dollars). [...] 'In addition to the financial costs of conducting military attacks against Iran, which would be significant'there would likely be near-term costs associated with Iranian retaliation, through both direct and surrogate asymmetrical attacks,' according to the report, which was endorsed by a long list of high-level, bipartisan national security advisers. The Iran Project report's findings support the notion that greater escalatory action will result in greater costs ' shown in financial terms by the FAS findings: 'A dynamic of escalation, action, and counteraction could produce serious unintended consequences that would significantly increase all of these costs and lead, potentially, to all-out regional war,' notes the report.

High Impact Posts. Top Comments.