The Hidden Cost of the Iran War: Pentagon Figures Under Scrutiny

Washington – Said Arikat - 5/1/2026

The wide gap between the figures the Pentagon provides to Congress regarding the cost of the war on Iran and actual estimates, which indicate financial and military burdens that may far exceed what the US administration announces to the public, has gradually begun to emerge. While the Pentagon affirmed that the war cost 25 billion dollars, media reports and leaks from within the military establishment suggest that the real figure could approach 50 billion dollars, and perhaps far exceed that with the continuation of military operations and the expansion of destruction at American bases spread across the Middle East.

CNN quoted informed sources as saying that the official estimate provided by the Pentagon to Congress does not include the costs of rehabilitating damaged military bases, nor the replacement of equipment and weapons destroyed during confrontations. According to these sources, including these expenses could raise the total cost to between 40 and 50 billion dollars, meaning that the US military establishment deliberately presented a low initial figure to alleviate political pressure within Congress.

These estimates come at a time when criticism is escalating within the United States regarding the scale of military spending associated with the war, especially with increasing indications that the US administration has not set a clear ceiling for costs or for the duration of military operations.

Earlier, the Pentagon had announced that the first six days of the war alone cost 11.3 billion dollars, but observers have doubted the accuracy of this figure from the beginning, especially since military operations later expanded at a more violent pace, with an increase in airstrikes, the launch of long-range missiles, and the expansion of US military deployment in the Gulf and the region.

"The New York Times" had indicated in an earlier report that the 11.3 billion dollar estimate itself does not include essential costs that preceded the outbreak of the war, such as the movement of aircraft carriers, the deployment of thousands of soldiers, and the deployment of air defense systems and strategic munitions at bases in the region. This means that the US administration may be following an "accounting installment" policy by dividing expenses and concealing large parts of them outside the direct official accounts of the war.

The issue of figures does not seem to be merely a technical dispute over military calculations, but rather reflects a deeper crisis of transparency within the American political establishment. The recent history of American wars, from Iraq to Afghanistan, reveals a recurring pattern of deliberate underestimation of the true cost in the early stages of the war, before military operations turn into a long-term financial drain. In the case of Iran, the US administration seems keen to avoid an early internal shock, especially in light of economic deterioration and rising public debt, which pushes it to present partial and temporary figures instead of revealing the full picture to taxpayers.

During a congressional hearing, the Pentagon implicitly acknowledged that the announced figure was not final when it confirmed that the expected supplementary funding request for the war would be higher than 25 billion dollars. According to American media reports, the Trump administration may request additional funding ranging from 80 to 200 billion dollars to cover military operations and related needs.

At the same time, the Pentagon revealed that the war costs were not included in the annual military budget project for 2027, which already amounts to 1.5 trillion dollars, raising questions about the volume of military expenditures managed outside traditional financial oversight frameworks.

Democratic Representative Ro Khanna (from California) publicly questioned the credibility of the Pentagon's estimates, demanding that US Secretary of War Pete Hegseth reveal the true value of the expected supplementary funding. However, Hegseth evaded providing a clear figure, merely stating that the funding would not be limited to operations against Iran, but would also include the purchase of ammunition and compensating for shortages in US military stockpiles.

This ambiguity has fueled concerns that the war is gradually turning into an open-ended spending project, especially with increasing reports of the depletion of US ammunition and damage to a number of military bases in the region.

The war on Iran also reflects the complex relationship between the military industries and US foreign policy. Every expansion of military operations automatically means additional contracts for major arms companies, larger budgets for the Pentagon, and an increasing demand for ammunition and military technology. For this reason, critics believe that inflated costs are not just a side effect of the war, but part of an economic structure that benefits from the continuation of conflicts. Hence, the conflicting figures about the true cost of the war are also linked to an internal struggle over how to pass military funding without arousing the anger of the economically exhausted American public.

In another part of the hearing, Ro Khanna raised the issue of the US bombing of an elementary school in the city of Minab, southern Iran, which led to the death of 156 people, including 120 children, according to circulating reports. Khanna asked the US Secretary of War about the political and moral cost borne by the American taxpayer as a result of such operations.

However, Hegseth responded that the incident was still "under investigation," despite reports and evidence indicating the use of US Tomahawk missiles in the attack on the school.

This incident has led to an escalation of human rights and humanitarian criticism against the United States, especially with the increasing number of civilian casualties and the widening scope of targeting within Iranian cities.

The Minab school incident reveals another aspect of the war that US administrations often try to marginalize: the human and political cost that is not measured in dollars. When US weapons are used to bomb civilian facilities and kill children, the damage is not limited to the direct victims, but extends to the image of the United States globally, fueling waves of anger and hatred towards its policies. Moreover, the repetition of the phrase "investigation underway" after every massacre is now seen as a political tool to absorb anger, not a real path to accountability, especially in the absence of any actual accountability for past violations in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Gaza.