US War on Terror in 76 Countries Cost $6.5 Trillion

US soldiers in Afghanistan. (AFP)
US soldiers in Afghanistan. (AFP)
TT

US War on Terror in 76 Countries Cost $6.5 Trillion

US soldiers in Afghanistan. (AFP)
US soldiers in Afghanistan. (AFP)

A US study published earlier this week revealed that the United States’ war on terrorism has cost $6.5 trillion, reported The National magazine based on report by the Watson Institute for International and Public Affairs at Brown University.

The ongoing war on terror began in October 2001, a month after the September 11 attacks in the US.

US President Donald Trump revealed in one of his tweets that his country has spent 7 trillion dollars on the Middle East alone.

Estimates predict that US loans to fund the war will result in an 8 trillion dollar debt by 2025.

The number of countries involved in the war has reached 76 or 39 percent of the countries in the world. The tally also lists regions where US forces are deployed on the ground, such as Yemen, Somalia, Libya, Iraq and Afghanistan. It also lists where American advisors are training local forces on counter-terrorism methods.

Experts said there are currently no real discussions in the United States on the cost of the war due to the nature of the conflict that lacks no stable fronts or boundaries.

A map presented by the study of the 76 countries linked to the war raised questions over the effectiveness of Washington’s approach on the conflict. They explained that the approach has turned many major cities into rubble and forced the displacement of millions of people, which has destabilized many host countries.

The map also showed the extent in which terrorist groups have spread across the world, turning the conflict against extremists into a worldwide phenomenon. The conflict stretches from as far as Southeast Asia, the Philippines, passes through the Middle East and reaches North Africa and Niger in the west of the continent.

The National said that the ongoing US war on Afghanistan is the longest in American history and it is predicted to go on even longer, especially under Trump’s administration. The current president had unveiled a national defense strategy two months ago in which he agreed to send more troops to Kabul and increase airstrikes against terrorist groups, including the Taliban.

The magazine said that the situation in Afghanistan indicates that the war will continue for a long time and it will extend beyond the country’s borders. A US Secretary of Defense report spoke of some 20 terrorist and radical groups operating in Afghanistan and Pakistan.

The National traced back the beginnings of the war on terror. It said that the US initially launched the war by attacking Afghanistan in order to eliminate Taliban, which had great control over the country. The beginning of the war seemed promising and American forces were able to make advances in Kabul. The Taliban had incurred enough defeats that its fighters had asked US troops to allow them to lay down their arms and return to their homes.

This initial success led senior officials in the administration of then President George W. Bush to raise their expectations and ambitions. Bush and his Vice President Donald Rumsfeld then believed that there was a need to extend this success in countering terrorism to 60 other countries.

At the time, Washington saw the war on terror as being restricted to one country at a time. It then began preparing for extending this war, setting Iraq as its next target.

The war led to the toppling of Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein, but the National said that the US had not only intended for his ouster, but it had also set its sights on the country’s oil wealth.

A British official, who was close to the Bush administration at the time, was quoted by the magazine as saying: “Everyone wants to go to Baghdad, but real men want to go to Tehran.”

He implied that the US invasion of Iraq was not really aimed at combating terrorism, but its real target was Iraq’s oil and Washington should have shifted its attention to Iran, which had transformed into an extremist state after the 1978 Khomeini revolution.



A Bullet Shattered Her Knee. Now a Gaza Teen's Chances of Walking Depend on Rafah Border Crossing

Islam Saleh, who was injured in her left leg in an Israeli strike on a school shelter in Jabalia in 2024, sits in a wheelchair inside her family’s tent in Zawaida, Gaza Strip, Tuesday, Jan. 27, 2026, as she awaits permission to travel outside Gaza for treatment. (AP Photo/Abdel Kareem Hana)
Islam Saleh, who was injured in her left leg in an Israeli strike on a school shelter in Jabalia in 2024, sits in a wheelchair inside her family’s tent in Zawaida, Gaza Strip, Tuesday, Jan. 27, 2026, as she awaits permission to travel outside Gaza for treatment. (AP Photo/Abdel Kareem Hana)
TT

A Bullet Shattered Her Knee. Now a Gaza Teen's Chances of Walking Depend on Rafah Border Crossing

Islam Saleh, who was injured in her left leg in an Israeli strike on a school shelter in Jabalia in 2024, sits in a wheelchair inside her family’s tent in Zawaida, Gaza Strip, Tuesday, Jan. 27, 2026, as she awaits permission to travel outside Gaza for treatment. (AP Photo/Abdel Kareem Hana)
Islam Saleh, who was injured in her left leg in an Israeli strike on a school shelter in Jabalia in 2024, sits in a wheelchair inside her family’s tent in Zawaida, Gaza Strip, Tuesday, Jan. 27, 2026, as she awaits permission to travel outside Gaza for treatment. (AP Photo/Abdel Kareem Hana)

Rimas Abu Lehia was wounded five months ago when Israeli troops opened fired toward a crowd of hungry people mobbing an aid truck for food in Gaza and a bullet shattered the 15-year-old Palestinian girl's left knee.

Now her best chance of walking again is surgery abroad. She is on a long list of more than 20,000 Palestinians, including 4,500 children, who have been waiting — some more than a year — for evacuation to get treatment for war wounds or chronic medical conditions, according to the Gaza Health Ministry, The AP news reported.

Their hopes hinge on the reopening of the crucial Rafah border crossing between Gaza and Egypt, a key point under the nearly 4-month-old ceasefire between Israel and Hamas. Israel has announced the crossing would open in both directions on Sunday.

The Israeli military body in charge of coordinating aid to Gaza said Friday that “limited movement of people only” would be allowed. Earlier, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu had said Israel will allow 50 patients a day to leave; others have spoken of up to 150 a day.

That's a large jump from about 25 patients a week allowed to leave since the ceasefire began, according to UN figures. But it would still take anywhere from 130 to 400 days of crossings to get everyone in need out.

Abu Lehia said her life depends on the crossing opening.

“I wish I didn’t have to sit in this chair,” she said, crying as she pointed at the wheelchair she relies on to move. “I need help to stand, to dress, to go to the bathroom.”

Evacuations are critical as Gaza hospitals are decimated Israel’s campaign in Gaza after the Hamas October 2023 attack on southern Israel that triggered the war has decimated the territory’s health sector — the few hospitals still working were overwhelmed by casualties. There are shortages of medical supplies and Israel has restricted aid entry.

Hospitals are unable to perform complicated surgeries for many of the wounded, including thousands of amputees, or treat many chronic conditions. Gaza’s single specialized cancer hospital shut down early in the war, and Israeli troops blew it up in early 2025. Without giving evidence, the military said Hamas militants were using it, though it was located in an area under Israeli control for most of the war.

More than 10,000 patients have left Gaza for treatment abroad since the war began, according to the World Health Organization.

After Israeli troops seized and closed the Rafah crossing in May 2024 and until the ceasefire, only around 17 patients a week were evacuated from Gaza, except for a brief surge of more than 200 patients a week during a two-month ceasefire in early 2025, according to WHO figures.

About 440 of those seeking evacuation have life-threatening injuries or diseases, according to the Health Ministry. More than 1,200 patients have died while waiting for evacuation, the ministry said Tuesday.

A UN official said one reason for the slow pace of evacuations has been that many countries are reluctant to accept the patients because Israel would not guarantee they would be allowed to return to the Gaza Strip. The official spoke on condition of anonymity because he was not authorized to discuss the issue. The majority of evacuees have gone to Egypt, the United Arab Emirates, Qatar and Türkiye.

He said it wasn't clear if that would change with Rafah's opening. Even with "daily or almost daily evacuations,” he said, the number is not very high. Also, Israel has said it will only allow around 50 Palestinians a day to enter Gaza while tens of thousands of Palestinians hope to go back.

Israel has also banned sending patients to hospitals in the Israeli-occupied West Bank and east Jerusalem since the war began, the official said — a move that cut off what was previously the main outlet for Palestinians needing treatment unavailable in Gaza.

Five human rights groups have petitioned Israel’s High Court of Justice to remove the ban. The court has not ruled. Still, one cancer patient in Gaza was allowed to travel to the West Bank for treatment on Jan. 11, after the Jerusalem District Court accepted a petition in his case by the Israeli rights group Gisha.

Thousands of cancer patients need evacuation Gaza has more than 11,000 cancer patients and some 75% of the necessary chemotherapy drugs are not available, the Health Ministry said. At least 4,000 cancer patients need urgent treatment abroad, it added.

Ahmed Barham, a 22-year-old university student, has been battling leukemia. He underwent two lymph node removal surgeries in June but the disease is continuing to spread “at an alarming rate,” his father, Mohamed Barham, said.

“There is no treatment available here," the elder Barham said.

His son, who has lost 35 kilograms (77 pounds), got on the urgent list for referral abroad this past week but still doesn’t have a confirmation of travel.

“My son is dying before my eyes,” the father said.

Desperate for Rafah to open Mahmoud Abu Ishaq, a 14-year-old, has been waiting for more than a year on the referral list for treatment abroad.

The roof of his family home collapsed when an Israeli strike hit nearby in the southern town of Beni Suhaila. The boy was injured and suffered a retinal detachment.

“Now he is completely blind,” his father, Fawaz Abu Ishaq said. “We are waiting for the crossing to open.”

Abu Lehia was wounded in August, when she went out from her family tent in the southern city of Khan Younis, looking for her younger brother, Muhannad, she told The Associated Press. The boy had gone out earlier that morning, hoping to get some food off entering aid trucks.

At the time, when Gaza was near famine, large crowds regularly waited for trucks and pulled food boxes off them, and Israeli troops often opened fire on the crowds. The Israeli military said its forces were firing warning shots, but hundreds were killed over the course of several months, according to Gaza health officials.

When Abu Lehia arrived at the edge of a military-held zone from which the trucks were passing, dozens of people were fleeing as Israeli troops fired. A bullet hit Abu Lehia in the knee, and she fell to the ground screaming, she said.

At the nearby Nasser Hospital, she underwent multiple surgeries, but they were unable to repair her knee. Doctors told her she needs knee replacement surgery outside Gaza.

Officials told the family last month that she would be evacuated in January. But so far nothing has happened, said her father, Sarhan Abu Lehia.

“Her condition is getting worse day by day,” he said. “She sits alone and cries.”


How Far Will He Go? Trump’s Options for US Action Against Iran

An Iranian woman walks next to an anti-US mural in Tehran, Iran, 29 January 2026. (EPA)
An Iranian woman walks next to an anti-US mural in Tehran, Iran, 29 January 2026. (EPA)
TT

How Far Will He Go? Trump’s Options for US Action Against Iran

An Iranian woman walks next to an anti-US mural in Tehran, Iran, 29 January 2026. (EPA)
An Iranian woman walks next to an anti-US mural in Tehran, Iran, 29 January 2026. (EPA)

US President Donald Trump has threatened military action against Iran over its crackdown on protesters, while still for now appearing to leave the door open for negotiations over the country’s controversial nuclear program.

But should Trump, after weeks of American threats and counter-threats from Tehran, finally decide to order military action after already sending a US aircraft carrier to the region, he faces another dilemma over what form the intervention should take.

Such action could replicate American strikes during Israel's June war against the country, enforce economic strangulation by targeting the energy sector or amount to a bid to replace the theocratic system under supreme leader Ali Khamenei.

- Venezuela economic pressure scenario

Trump's relatively cautious stance so far has sparked speculation he could target Iranian energy infrastructure and squeeze its oil exports, mimicking a strategy Washington used over Venezuela.

This policy earlier this month led to the capture of Venezuelan leader Nicolas Maduro, with Trump then working with the remnants of his former administration.

The US naval group in Middle East waters could look to block "dark fleet vessels" carrying Iranian oil and put pressure on Iran's oil exports, said Farzan Sabet, managing researcher of the Sanctions and Sustainable Peace Hub at the Geneva Graduate Institute.

"And that pressure can be gradual, similar to what we saw in Venezuela. It could play out over days, weeks, months, it's hard to foresee, but possibly longer," he said, while acknowledging that Trump was playing "his cards very close to his chest".

The naval group, repeatedly described as an "armada" by Trump, consists of the aircraft carrier USS Abraham Lincoln and its more than 80 aircraft, as well as its escort of three destroyers, equipped with anti-missile capabilities and Tomahawk cruise missiles.

- Strikes on military and IRGC targets

If Trump decides on a course of military action, prime targets would be bases of the Iranian Revolutionary Guards Corps (IRGC) and its youth militia, the Basij, which are accused by rights groups of taking a frontline role in the deadly crackdown on the protests that according to rights groups left thousands dead.

Using Tomahawk missiles and combat aircraft, the United States could strike positions of the Basij and the IRGC forces, "particularly those forces that participated and continue to participate in targeting Iranian protesters", said independent military researcher Eva J. Koulouriotis.

She said US intelligence, helped by Israel's Mossad spy agency, has "a clear picture" of those forces and their location nationwide.

"Such a strike would serve as a direct warning to the Iranian regime," she said.

During its June war against Tehran, Israel showed its deep intelligence penetration of Iran by killing senior security officials including the IRGC's chief and the armed forces chief of staff in targeted strikes based on location intelligence.

In a "harsh but measured strike", the United States could target "operations command and senior officers involved in mass killings carried out by the Iranian regime", she said.

- Massive strikes and regime change bid -

Iran's theocratic system has been in place since the 1979 revolution led by Khomeini that ousted the largely pro-Western shah.

Relations with the United States were cut in the wake of the hostage siege of the US embassy in Tehran that began that year and have remained severed ever since.

Under Khomeini, the revolution survived the war with Iraq in the 1980s. Since Khamenei took over in 1989, he has managed to keep the system in place despite economic sanctions and repeated protests.

As well as the so-called "armada", Washington already has a heavy deployment of military resources in the region with dozens of aircraft deployed at the air bases of Al Udeid in Qatar and Al Dhafra in the United Arab Emirates.

"The American objective is to destabilize the regime," said David Khalfa, co-founder of the Atlantic Middle East Forum (AMEF) think-tank.

"So there is really a strategy that will aim to paralyze it, to disrupt the chain of command" marked by the physical "elimination" of Khamenei, his close advisors and senior IRGC generals, he added.

But he said: "The regime is still relatively solid and resilient, it will not be an easy task", especially as "the Guards have anticipated this scenario".

Sabet said it would appear for now that Washington "would prefer something limited, where they can continue the process of weakening the system while minimizing the country's desire -- and to some extent its ability, but mostly its desire -- to carry out larger-scale retaliation".


Deal or Strike: Is Military Action Against Iran Drawing Closer?

Military equipment, including helicopters, on board the aircraft carrier Abraham Lincoln (AP)
Military equipment, including helicopters, on board the aircraft carrier Abraham Lincoln (AP)
TT

Deal or Strike: Is Military Action Against Iran Drawing Closer?

Military equipment, including helicopters, on board the aircraft carrier Abraham Lincoln (AP)
Military equipment, including helicopters, on board the aircraft carrier Abraham Lincoln (AP)

Despite reports of mediation and back-channel exchanges between Washington and Tehran, what is being described as “negotiations” so far looks more like a bid to keep tensions from boiling over than a diplomatic process.

Signals emerging from Western officials and media indicate the two sides have yet to engage in direct, substantive talks, with the dispute over the very terms of entry itself carrying a political message.

US President Donald Trump’s administration is pressing for an agreement that encompasses Iran’s nuclear program, ballistic missiles, and regional influence. At the same time, Tehran insists that any dialogue be confined strictly to the nuclear file.

That gap has reinforced suspicions in Tehran that Trump’s offer of a deal is little more than a tactical feint, masking serious preparations for military action. This scenario would echo the US strikes on Iranian nuclear facilities in June 2025.

As Trump sharpens his rhetoric, the stalemate revives a central question: Is diplomacy becoming a pretext for war, or a narrowing window to avert it?

A different escalation

The key difference this time lies in the scale and nature of the military posture.

It is not a mere show of force, but a combined offensive-defensive package signaling readiness for multiple scenarios, following the arrival of the aircraft carrier Abraham Lincoln and its strike group in the US Central Command area of operations, enabling support for strikes or protection of allies against retaliatory attacks.

This has been accompanied by strengthened air defenses, including Patriot and THAAD systems, as well as air drills focused on deployment, operations, and sortie generation under challenging conditions, according to US Central Command.

Such a pattern is typically associated with raising readiness for potential reciprocal responses.

At the same time, Washington is aware that any operation against Iran would not be a “precision operation” like what occurred in Venezuela, where the US previously amassed large forces in the Caribbean in a campaign that ended with the arrest of President Nicolas Maduro in early January 2026.

Iran’s geography is more complex, and its missile capabilities and layered defenses make a “decisive strike” more complicated, even if the US enjoys overwhelming superiority.

Trump’s options

Earlier leaks pointed to the end of this month as a possible date for a US strike, though this remains unconfirmed publicly.

The danger in circulating such reports lies in the political-military dynamic they create. When a force of this size is mobilized, internal and external pressure on the White House grows to justify the cost by achieving some result, even if limited.

At the same time, the leaks may be part of psychological warfare aimed at forcing Tehran to make concessions before the window for de-escalation “closes.”

Accordingly, the practical rule is that absent a clear political decision, the scenario remains open to three graduated possibilities: a limited strike to impose new rules of engagement; a broader campaign targeting nuclear and missile infrastructure and security nodes; or continued military pressure as a negotiating lever without opening fire.

According to the Financial Times, Trump’s options, should he decide to carry out military action, range from a limited punitive strike targeting missile sites, drones, or facilities linked to the Revolutionary Guard, aimed at raising the cost of Iranian refusal without seeking regime change.

Another option would expand the target bank to include nuclear facilities that are being hardened and rebuilt, particularly after Western talk of Iranian attempts to resume work at deeper underground sites.

There is also a set of non-traditional pressure options, such as tightening a maritime blockade or striking state infrastructure as a political message.

These options carry higher risks, as they raise the likelihood of retaliation outside established rules of engagement.

The decisive issue, however, is the “endgame.”

The US administration itself implicitly acknowledges that removing the regime's head does not guarantee its collapse, and that the question of “who comes next” has no ready answer.

This explains repeated warnings in assessments leaked to the media and in statements by US officials that the regime is weaker than ever, but that a decisive blow is not guaranteed.

How might Iran respond?

Tehran has warned in advance that any attack would mark the start of a war, and that retaliation could extend to Israel, particularly Tel Aviv, as well as anyone who supports the aggressor.

Operationally, Iran has a ladder of response, starting with strikes on US bases in the region using missiles or drones, moving through the activation of regional proxies, and culminating in threats to shipping in the Strait of Hormuz, the scenario with the most severe global impact.

The latter possibility may be among the main reasons regional states have sought to avoid war and continue diplomatic efforts while stressing neutrality.

This stance could increase US logistical demands in any large-scale operation and heighten reliance on distant naval platforms.

Markets, however, have already issued an early warning. Oil prices have risen for three consecutive sessions amid fears of supply disruptions, with Brent crude nearing the $ 70-a-barrel threshold and a rise in the geopolitical risk premium, while gold has climbed as a safe-haven asset.

If a strike does occur, the potential fallout would be threefold. Economically, a spike in oil prices, pressure on shipping and insurance, and volatility in Gulf markets. Security-wise, an expansion of theaters of engagement to include Iraq, Syria, the Gulf, and Israel, with heightened risks of miscalculation.

Politically, a narrowing of prospects for any near-term negotiations, or conversely, a limited strike used to force talks under harsher terms.