← Force-Planning Documents

Weighing Benefits and Costs of Military Action Against Iran

In 2012, The Iran Project published Weighing Benefits and Costs of Military Action Against Iran. Austin Long of Columbia University and William Luers, the project's director, drafted it. A letter from former U.S. officials supports publishing the paper. The file is posted on the Wilson Center website. An American family should care because the drafters estimate that occupying Iran would take more U.S. personnel and resources than the Iraq and Afghanistan wars combined. That is a ground war larger than those two long wars. It is their estimate.

Evidence rating: MODERATE. The rating covers The Iran Project's 2012 executive summary, signed by a bipartisan group of former officials, which estimates that occupying Iran would take more than the Iraq and Afghanistan wars combined. The signers note they do not all agree with every point.

What the article says

The authors say force was being discussed because a nuclear-armed Iran would threaten U.S. interests and the security of Israel. They write that air strikes, cyber attacks, covert action, and perhaps small teams of special operations soldiers are unlikely, in their judgment, to meet the stated goal of stopping Iran from building a nuclear weapon. They also write that extended strikes by the United States alone, or together with Israel, could badly damage the six most important known nuclear sites and set the program back by up to four years. A strike by Israel alone, they estimate, could delay a bomb by up to two years.

They separate that limited aim from a larger one. If the United States wanted regime change, meaning replacing Iran's government, or wanted to roll back Iran's influence in the region, they write that Washington would have to occupy all or part of the country.

we estimate that the occupation of Iran would require a commitment of resources and personnel greater than what the U.S. has expended over the past 10 years in the Iraq and Afghanistan wars combined.

Austin Long and William Luers wrote that in The Iran Project executive summary in 2012. The "past 10 years" is their comparison, from 2012, with the Iraq war that began in 2003 and the Afghanistan war that began in 2001. They do not put a troop total or a dollar total on that sentence. They add that a more ambitious goal, and a longer war, would make an exit harder to plan.

What other reporting and posts add

The same year, a former Powell aide put numbers on it. In September 2012, Lawrence Wilkerson, former chief of staff to Secretary of State Colin Powell, said: "the only way you are going to get regime change and no nuclear weapon, you are going to need invasion. And that is going to take 500,000 troops, ten years and $2 trillion to $3 trillion." Corporate Crime Reporter, 28 September 2012. (capture: twitter/t03__v034.md)

What the air-war path cost by 2026, without an occupation. On 14 September 2026, a House member put the toll in the Congressional Record: "18 U.S. servicemembers killed. At $100 billion and counting, that translates to an additional $602 for every American taxpayer on average." Congressional Record, 14 September 2026. (capture: twitter/t52__v622.md) The report's point stands in the numbers: that is the cost of air and sea war; an occupation, by its estimate, would be larger than the Iraq and Afghanistan wars combined.

The uranium problem it predicted. The report warned strikes alone were unlikely to end the nuclear program. In May 2026, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said on CBS's 60 Minutes that enriched uranium "has to be taken out of Iran": "You go in, and you take it out." CBS News, 10 May 2026. (capture: twitter/t13__v145.md)

What it shows

In 2012, former senior officials told Washington that airstrikes would not end Iran's nuclear program, and that regime change would mean occupying all or part of the country, at a cost greater than Iraq and Afghanistan combined. Fourteen years later, the air-and-sea war alone had killed 18 Americans by September and cost what one member of Congress put at "$100 billion and counting," and Netanyahu was saying the uranium must be removed in person: "You go in, and you take it out."

The report predicted the uranium problem that now points toward ground troops. See Force-Planning Documents and Kharg Island and the Uranium Raid.

Check it yourself

The Iran Project executive summary, 2012, posted at the Wilson Center: Weighing Benefits and Costs of Military Action Against Iran. No second source was opened for this page.

Why a 2012 report matters to a 2026 reader: The Iran Project was a group of former US diplomats and officials; this summary was posted by the Wilson Center, a Washington research institution chartered by Congress. In 2012, Israel and the United States were openly debating whether to bomb Iran's nuclear sites. The report's core warning, that strikes alone would not end Iran's program and that anything more would mean occupying part or all of Iran at a cost larger than Iraq and Afghanistan combined, is the same fork the United States faced after it and Israel began bombing Iran on 28 February 2026.

Research captures: twitter/t03__v034.md, twitter/t52__v622.md, twitter/t13__v145.md

Last Updated: 2026-09-26