Syria’s President Bashar al-Assad agreed Thursday to comply with mounting pressure from the international community to surrender his complete arsenal of chemical weapons. He’s done so verbally over Russian television, noting specifically that forceful U.S. threats of military intervention had nothing to do with his decision to to pursue diplomacy and that it was Russia’s nonviolent foreign relations that led Assad to change his mind.

But while optimistic in Assad’s conclusion, President Obama is still urging congress to consider a limited missile strike against the regime in an attempt to hold Assad accountable for his alleged gassing of innocent civilians. At this point, one of the remaining questions yet to be answered is how much money will a military strike in Syria cost the U.S.?

The primary objectives of a military strike would be to confiscate the weapons Assad detonated upon his own people but also to hold him accountable, something President Obama thinks is obtainable using American armed forces. So while diplomacy might work in brokering peace between Syria, its allies, and the rest of the world angry of his crimes against humanity, it’s possible a strike could still come to fruition.

So back to the question of cost.

Various media outlets, beat writers, politicos, pundits, and even the Congressional Budget Office can all agree on one thing: Nobody knows for sure at this point what the monetary value of a limited missile strike in Syria would look like for the U.S.

Tomahawk chop

It’s said President Obama’s weapon of choice against the Assad regime could likely be sea-launched tomahawk missiles (below). Back in August, Raytheon, a defense contracting company out of Waltham, secured a government order for 196 tomahawk missiles valued at approximately $1.4 million apiece. Launching every last missile at the $1.4 million valuation could run the U.S. some $274 million alone.

Drone discussion

Drone usage, a controversial topic of its own we can save for a rainy day, could prove to be useful as it requires no in-plane pilot and can be controlled from a remote location. These run even costlier than sea-launched tomahawks at “$4 million, not including each $58,000 Hellfire anti-armor missile in its airborne arsenal,” according to the Daily Mail. And that’s $4 million per drone, not total.

No-fly zone

In order to establish a commanding aerial assault, a no fly zone would have to be implemented, or so says Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Martin Dempsey. By doing this, the U.S. would quell any attempts by Assad at retaliating through the sky. But a no-fly zone comes with other concessions significant portions of the public are knowingly not too keen on.

“Thousands of special operations forces and other ground forces would be needed to assault and secure critical sites,” Dempsey wrote. “Costs could also average well over $1 billion per month.”

On top of those costs and the parallel risk to American soldiers’ lives, the initial price tag of a no-fly zone runs somewhere in the neighborhood of $500 million, the same cost Dempsey says it would run to train, advise, and support the opposition for a year (an additional $125 million over the supposed 90-day timeline).

Timeline

What’s important to consider when trying to estimate the cost of an intervention is that a timeline has yet to be announced. A joint resolution put forth by the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, the one the President is urging Congress to continue debating should Syria’s willingness to forfeit chemical weapons prove to be erroneous, would give President Obama up to 90 days in which to conduct his strike.

That’s 90 days worth of tomahawk missiles, drones, and no-fly zones in tandem with other various military costs. But some among the Congressional ranks feel a strike of this scope isn’t worth undertaking because it’s simply not enough. If Congress were to authorize a longer campaign, which appears unlikely but never say never, the costs would only continue to grow.

Bottom line

The bottom line is that at this point in time, while talks of Syria’s compliance are running rampant across the globe, there just isn’t enough detail to accurately lock down a value for intervention. What we do know is that Secretary of Defense Chuck Hagel’s lowball figure of “tens of millions” just doesn’t seem realistic. We’re likely looking in the estimated tens of billions range, a number surely uncomfortable for those domestically who either disapprove of any action at all or feel the money ought to be spent on those in need here on American soil.

Stay tuned to BostInno for the latest developments regarding the Syria crisis. We’ll be sure to keep you updated with any and all information as details continue to be made publicly available.

You can read more stories on Boston startups, technology and innovation at https://www.bizjournals.com/boston/inno