What If The US Redirected The Money From The Iran War To Clean Energy?

---

Support CleanTechnica’s work through a Substack subscription or on Stripe.

---

If the US federal government had leaders with a vision of an achievable, healthy net-zero future, $200 billion would never be dedicated for the Iran War efforts. Yet the idiocy of the Iran War makes our minds wander and envision a robust US energy and climate package in its place. An infusion of $200 billion would mean installing wind, solar, and batteries. The US would develop deep clean tech manufacturing capacity and electrify home heating and transportation across the nation.

It’s such an exciting concept!

Many countries have already invested in low carbon power and have prepared themselves well for an unstable global energy future. They view investments in renewables about much more than mere climate policy: these energy pro-active countries see before them how decarbonization results in energy security and economic stability. As their energy autonomy deepens, low carbon countries experience drastic reductions in health-damaging air pollution and climate-warming emissions. Fossil fuel blackmail is a fading, distant memory…

“Most Americans oppose this war. Congress did not authorize it,” Robert Reich explains. “It is one man’s war: Donald Trump’s.”

The Iran War is a war of choice. We in the US could choose, instead, to be clean energy self-reliant.

Not an Iran War but a Clean Energy Paradigm

What would the US look like if $200 billion were being invested in clean energy?

Instead of an unjust, unpopular, and illegal war, we’d have a legal, Just Transition to clean energy.

Instead of creating a world stage that is more dangerous and more expensive for US citizens, we’d have have an abundance of renewable energy, and it would be very popular because of its inherent reduced consumer costs.

Instead of a centralized grid that can be compromised by bombs and destabilized by devastating storms, a decentralized grid would be powered by on-site solar and backed up by heavy-duty batteries.

Instead of propping up fossil fuel billionaires, we would capture what has seemed to be the elusive 1.5 degree F. threshold for atmospheric warming.

Instead of a Hegseth Pentagon that thoughtlessly spent nearly $100 billion on luxuries like lobster, steak, and crab last September alone, we’d have hefty incentives for zero-emissions electric vehicles and heat pumps.

Instead of experiencing what Fatih Birol, the head of the International Energy Agency, has called this “the greatest global energy security threat in history,” we’d see battery storage flourish.

Instead of spending more than $1,400 per US household, we’d see more wind turbines on hilltops and solar panels on roofs, as in Europe.

Instead of producing fossil fuels for fertilizers, we would nurture healthy soils, farms, fields, and forests.

Hope springs eternal, as Alexander Pope wrote.

Hung My Head As I Lost The War

(with apologies to Taylor Swift)

$200 billion would support an enormous amount of domestic clean energy projects that would benefit everyday US citizens. Such a windfall would usher in a paradigm in which a sustainable economy takes front and center.

Oxford Economics explains that these renewables have large upfront capital expenditures, sure, but those expenditures are followed by relatively small, fixed operating costs and minimal variable costs. While the construction of renewable generating assets is less protected from commodity price shocks, those same assets are more insulated once installed. After installation, the team at Oxford Economics says the marginal cost of producing the next unit of electricity is close to zero. This cost structure shields renewable power generation from swings in fossil fuel markets.

In contrast, most of the costs of oil and gas-fired plants come from the fuel it burns. These plants are directly exposed to market prices, which move sharply in response to geopolitical shocks. If we replace energy supply exposed to potentially volatile prices with one that’s stable, it becomes insurance against global rifts. Financial institutions would make it their investment goal to support a restoration economy.

The US government should invest significantly in factories to produce solar panels, heat pumps, and EVs with the $200 billion in the Iran War coffers. Mourad Chergui, senior product manager for Delta-Q Technologies, explains why to Power magazine.

“To drive electrification, governments should intervene by funding research and innovation, offering subsidies, enacting legislation, or providing other incentives to move electric vehicles and systems from early adoption to mass production. This is because their initial capital costs are typically much higher than alternatives, preventing widespread adoption.”

Back to a Clean Energy Future

Of course, it’s hard to visualize a war hawk zealot like US Secretary of War Pete Hegseth re-appropriating funds from the Iran War to the greater clean energy good. But a tree-hugging pacifist can dream, can’t she?

All for the love of sunshine: No one can predict how long this period of Iran war volatility will last, but we can predict how long solar will serve the human race. That would be as long as the sun is viable, or millions more years. Community solar, which refers to hyper-local or nearby solar arrays that ratepayers can tap into on a subscription basis, is a good example of renewable abundance. It’s a particularly good fit for smaller industrialized states where open space is limited but plenty of brownfields, derelict quarries, reservoirs, and other infrastructure are available for repurposing into solar power plants.

Wind: For all the Trump bluster, wind power is one of the most reliable and efficient mechanisms to power communities. After all, a technology like wind has no fuel input costs. Stacy Johnson comments in Money Talks News, “It’s one thing to prefer oil; it’s another entirely to take your hard-earned tax dollars and pay companies not to produce renewable power.” Right now our tax money being spent to intentionally reduce our domestic wind-energy supply.

Electric vehicles: With the support of President Donald J. Trump, the Republican-controlled US Congress rescinded a $7,500 federal EV tax credit, leading to an initial plunge in EV sales. However, the US/Israel war against Iran has reignited demand for electric vehicles and the batteries that power them. Innovations in the EV battery sector make rising consumer interest in EVs particularly timely. In fact, researchers at Stanford determined that the Inflation Reduction Act could have been “far more beneficial if it provided larger tax credits to cleaner EVs.”

Heavy duty vehicles and charging: Electric charging stations for heavy-duty trucks are a really more cost-effective way to decarbonize the heavy-duty freight sector. A new report finds that shared charging hubs available to multiple fleets are critical for longer-distance trips — they enable charging en route and serve regional and long-haul trucks from different fleets at the same locations, increasing utilization and cutting costs.

Hydropower: Submersible hydropower is emerging as a promising clean energy solution in the Great Lakes region, where rising electricity demand and costs are driving interest in new technologies. The technology uses carbon-fiber turbines, spun by flowing water to generate electricity, emulating projects in Scotland and South Korea.

Grid enhancement: The global electricity network represents trillions of dollars in infrastructure built over more than a century. Expanding that network will remain necessary in many places. But a large portion of the required capacity increase can come from making existing assets perform better, argues CleanTechnica’s Michael Barnard. Replacing an ACSR conductor with a composite core design can turn a 1,300 MW corridor into a 2,000 MW corridor without new towers. When multiplied across hundreds of lines, these upgrades add gigawatts of transfer capability.

Free training for clean energy installers: “We can cough up the cash when there’s political will, such as to drop bombs halfway around the world,” Nicholar Kristoff writes in the New York Times. “For a bit more than two weeks of this war, we could offer free college education to every US family earning less than $125,000 annually, at a cost of around $30 billion a year,” Kristof adds. Just think of the boost that could provide for training for trades in renewable energy industries.

Regenerative farming: “The American public is paying in many ways,” says Reich, “not just for more expensive gas but soon for more costly food due to pricier fertilizer.” Currently, about 35% of the world’s agricultural land is degraded. Many farmers and conservationists argue that support for agriculture needs to focus on soil health, water quality, and climate resilience. Better soil management will have larger benefits for food production and only constitute a fraction of food system decarbonization.

---

Resources

“5 reasons Trump’s war on renewables is a costly mistake right now.” Stacy Johnson. Money Talks News. April 1, 2026.

“ACEEE study examines best ways to decarbonize heavy-duty freight sector.”  Dave Kovaleski. Daily Energy Insider. April 01, 2026.

“A powerful change supporting cleaner energy.” Darrell Proctor. Power. April 1, 2026.

“Better uses for the money Pete Hegseth wants to throw at Trump’s illegal Iran War.” Lindsay Koshgarian. Common Dreams. March 25, 2026.

“Electric vehicle subsidies help the climate and automakers, but at questionable cost to taxpayers.” Stanford Report. October 7th, 2024.

“Energy security after the Iran war: Why renewables are the safer bet.” Beatrice Tanjangco. Oxford Economics. March 31, 2026.

“The $1.3-million-a-minute war.” Nicholas Kristof. New York Times. March 21, 2026.

“The catastrophe of Trump’s war and its mounting costs.” Robert Reich. Substack. March 26, 2026.

“US renewable growth continues into 2026.” Renewable Energy Institute. 2026.