It is no secret that over the course of the past half-century, relations between the United States and Iran have been precarious, particularly over the topic of nuclear capabilities. Countless US Presidents have aimed to diminish Iran’s nuclear program through treaties and attacks on the nation, and this time is no different—except for the fact that the United States has dramatically reduced its capacity to provide humanitarian assistance abroad. With the closure of most USAID programs, millions of people affected by conflict, displacement, and economic instability have lost access to critical aid. As tensions between the United States and Iran continue to escalate, the absence of a robust humanitarian response leaves vulnerable populations with fewer resources and diminishes America's ability to avoid the human consequences of conflict.

The Path to Conflict

An announcement from President Trump on TruthSocial at 2:00 A.M EST was the only warning of Operation Epic Fury, launched on February 28th. In an 8-minute video targeted at Americans and Iranians, the President highlighted the need to end Iran’s nuclear program once and for all, while encouraging Iranians, stating, “the hour of your freedom is at hand.” However, the implications of this war, felt by Americans in the form of rapidly climbing gas prices and disapproval from constituents, would have much broader implications on the national stage. 

Since the start of the conflict, US-Israeli attacks have displaced over 3.2 million people within Iran. The shocks the war has sent to the supply chain and humanitarian efforts have impacted even more individuals, endangering the livelihood of millions as they struggle to face rising prices and a lack of access to support. With the dissolution of the United States Agency for International Development (USAID) over the past year, countless countries that once relied on US support to survive now face a questionable future where they are not only forced to fend for themselves, but also to do so in the face of rising costs and limited supply. 

Effects on the Supply Chain

Persistent tensions in the Strait of Hormuz have complicated humanitarian efforts, as oil prices continue to rise exponentially. Despite a ceasefire negotiated between the United States and Iran back in April, tensions remain as high as ever, with recent strikes proving just how far both sides will go to test the boundaries. While both countries are focused on undermining the other, everyday Americans and citizens worldwide struggle with the implications which have forced them to cut back on spending. 

Key exports, such as fertilizer, oil, and medicine, can no longer be transported through this key channel. Missile strikes have destroyed key ports, while the US blockade of the Strait has prevented goods from exiting Middle Eastern countries, such as the UAE. Between February and March 2026, the number of ships passing through the Strait of Hormuz dropped 95%, preventing access to natural gas and energy, key inputs in the production of fertilizers used to increase agricultural resources and food availability, particularly within developing countries whose economies rely primarily on self-sustenance and agriculture. Countries such as India, Brazil, and Bangladesh are just some of the examples of nations that rely heavily on imported fertilizers in order to maintain crop yields and food production. As prices for these fertilizers increase, farmers are forced to reduce their application rates, resulting in lower agricultural output and, in turn, higher food prices. 

Rising agricultural costs are directly correlated to greater food insecurity, malnutrition, and poverty. Plainly, these increases are particularly devastating for low-income countries, where individuals are not able to cover the spread for survival. With approximately a third of all fertilizer passing through the Strait, as well as a quarter of all refined oil trade, it is not unreasonable that a regional conflict can quickly turn into a global problem, spanning across multiple continents. Previous fertilizer shortages have demonstrated the adverse impacts of disruptions. Per the FAO, due to recent supply shocks, fertilizer scarcity will continue to lead to lower yields and tighter food supplies through 2027. As food prices rise and agricultural production decreases, millions become dependent on humanitarian assistance, creating challenges at a time when international aid faces significant constraints. 

The Loss of USAID: Consequences for the World and the United States

Typically, in situations like these, USAID would step in, reducing the brunt of the impact through humanitarian support. However, in 2025, President Trump announced the closure of 98% of USAID’s contracts and functions following a "necessary budget review”. As a result, over $2 billion in critical funding was lost. Individuals in nations dependent on USAID for delivering critical support were left to fend off the effects of inflation and climate change themselves. Examples include the Solomon Islands, where long-term planning for natural disasters ensured the prevention of forced relocation for residents, as well as Nepal, where funds used to strengthen agriculture infrastructure prevented losses from supply chain shocks and descent into violence. By withdrawing aid to foreign countries, the United States not only takes away life-saving aid but also runs the risk of losing global influence to rivals such as China. At a time when the US looks to continue to maintain its sphere of influence, the end of USAID would be a poor way to lose ground to China, which has already begun to pick up contracts and establish relations with countries the United States ended support for. 

The reduction of American aid is particularly harmful when considered in the context of Iranian tensions. A decline in humanitarian support means that Washington’s diplomatic and military decisions have greater implications in geopolitics. It certainly doesn’t help that the conflict in Iran has made the United States somewhat unpopular amongst the rest of the world. While European allies and Iran’s Arab neighbors have expressed similar concerns about nuclear capabilities, they are overshadowed by frustration with growing economic disruption, as well as blatant violations of Iran’s sovereignty. Per PBS, the 22-nation Arab League, which has historically condemned both Israel and Iran for actions it says risk destabilizing the region, called the attacks on Iran "a blatant violation of the sovereignty of countries that advocate for peace and strive for stability." The combined effects of reduced foreign aid with growing criticism may be detrimental to the strategic interests of the United States. When President Trump and his allies advocate for the end of foreign aid, they fail to consider the drawbacks this could have for Americans. For example, Louisiana, which produces over $300 million worth of rice every year for international assistance, is at risk of being left with no one to buy already planted crops, and no way to make back the estimated $1,400 per acre spent by farmers. All in all, American-based organizations stand to lose over $29 billion as a result of contract terminations. For decades, USAID served not only as a humanitarian organization but also as an instrument of soft power, strengthening diplomatic relationships and fostering goodwill toward the United States. As aid programs disappear, Washington risks the global standing of the United States at a time of aggressive competition from China. 

Solutions For Restoration 

At the moment, the most obvious solution for all parties involves the restoration of USAID in its full form.  However, this is not an easy task. Programs in the past, such as Feed the Future, strengthened local agricultural systems and provided food assistance to communities facing food insecurity, reducing the risk of famine following economic disruption or displacement. Similarly, the Bureau of Humanitarian Assistance, another key USAID program, coordinated both long-term and rapid emergency responses to nations affected by wars and natural disasters, delivering food, water, shelter, and medical care to struggling citizens. Today, these programs are more crucial than ever to respond to the growing humanitarian crisis stemming from the US-Iranian war, particularly as displacement, damaged infrastructure, and supply chain disruptions only continue to threaten access to natural resources. 

Part of this effort is the Two Penny Pledge, an initiative coined by the Alliance for American Leadership. The Two Penny Pledge aims to raise foreign affairs and USAID spending to 2% of the federal budget. This may seem like a high number, but in reality, it is far less than the amount the average American estimates is spent on foreign aid, and it is a reasonable amount to secure the United States’s future as the global leader. 

While my colleagues and I at the Alliance for American Leadership are currently lobbying politicians on both sides of the aisle, the issue requires further support from constituents to succeed. Historically, public pressure has played a crucial role in shaping congressional priorities, and lawmakers are often more likely to support funding initiatives when they receive clear backing from voters. By contacting local representatives, participating in advocacy efforts and protests, and raising awareness about the consequences of foreign aid reduction, citizens can help bring the issue to the national agenda. 

Without meaningful action, the effects of US-Iranian tensions will continue to result in broader implications across the globe. Millions of individuals across the globe will continue to be at risk of losing access to valuable healthcare, agricultural, food assistance, and disaster relief resources, while the United States continues to risk its global standing and key diplomatic relations. To restore USAID would mean not only providing crucial humanitarian assistance to over 120 million individuals who need it the most, but also reasserting the United States as the undisputed global leader. As a result, rebuilding the agency should not be viewed simply as an act of charity, but as an investment in both global well-being and U.S. security.