Pentagon: US costs in conflict with Iran reach $29 billion.
On May 13, the US Department of Defense (Pentagon) confirmed that the cost of the conflict with Iran had reached nearly $29 billion. This enormous figure is sparking a wave of questions in the US Congress regarding financial transparency and the implications for the military's combat readiness.
This information was revealed during a budget hearing on Capitol Hill, when defense officials presented their request for a $1.5 trillion defense budget for fiscal year 2027. Notably, the $29 billion figure is about $4 billion higher than the Pentagon's estimate just two weeks earlier.
Responding to questions from lawmakers, Pentagon Chief Financial Officer Jules Hurst III explained the discrepancy: "In the April 29 hearing, the estimated figure was $25 billion. However, the financial experts and the Joint Chiefs of Staff have been continuously updating the data. Currently, we have determined that the cost is close to $29 billion."
Mr. Hurst stated that this increase stemmed from expanded operating expenses and costs for repairing and replacing military equipment.
However, Democratic lawmakers and observers expressed deep skepticism about the Pentagon's calculations. They argued that the actual cost – including the damage caused by the Iranian attacks – could be far higher. Representative Rosa DeLauro, the senior Democrat on the House Appropriations Committee, sharply questioned: "Ultimately, the core question that needs to be answered is: What have we achieved and at what cost?"
The hearing marked the first appearance of Pentagon officials before Congress since the White House officially announced in late February that the military actions launched by the US and Israel against Iran had "ended." However, the current ceasefire is considered extremely fragile, especially after President Donald Trump rejected Tehran's latest peace proposal.
Besides the financial burden, the issue of weapons depletion has also become a focal point of debate. Democratic Senator Mark Kelly warned that the US stockpile of Tomahawk cruise missiles, Patriot interceptor missiles, and many other advanced weapons systems has been severely depleted and could take years to replenish.
In response, Pentagon leaders dismissed these concerns, calling them "exaggerations that are not helpful."
Controversies continued to erupt at the Senate hearing. Senator Patty Murray argued that the administration's cost estimate appeared "suspiciously low" because it did not fully account for the damage to U.S. infrastructure. Reports indicated that Iran had attacked at least 228 structures or pieces of equipment at military bases.
Sharing this view, Virginia Burger, a senior defense policy analyst at the Project on Government Oversight (POGO), believes Washington may be underreporting its actual spending by tens of billions of dollars.
Under pressure from lawmakers, U.S. defense officials refused to provide a detailed damage assessment. Instead, the Pentagon maintained its consistent argument throughout the conflict that the cost of preventing Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons far outweighed the consequences of allowing it to happen.
