Nicolai Haugsted
Trump’s Iran war could become even more expensive as the Pentagon prepares for possible renewed fighting.
Donald Trump promised a relatively short military campaign when the United States joined Israel in launching attacks against Iran earlier this year.
Eight months later, the conflict is still casting a long shadow over Washington, and the financial consequences are becoming increasingly difficult for the White House to ignore.
With the midterm elections approaching, Republicans are already struggling to defend the administration’s handling of a war that has contributed to higher energy prices and declining support for the president.
Now, newly obtained Pentagon figures by Reuters suggest the financial burden is considerably heavier than previously acknowledged.
According to Reuters, the American military has spent more than $47 billion on the conflict, representing an increase of over 25 percent compared with the Defense Department’s previous estimate.
And the final bill could be substantially higher.
Pentagon figures reveal a massive increase
The latest assessment, obtained by Reuters but not publicly released by the Pentagon, puts the cost of American military operations against Iran above $47 billion.
Back in July, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth estimated the war’s cost at $37.5 billion.
The new figure therefore represents an increase of at least $9.5 billion in just a few months.
The Pentagon did not immediately respond to Reuters’ request for comment on the updated assessment.
Much of the expense is associated with replacing weapons and military equipment consumed or destroyed during the fighting.
According to the figures, replenishing ammunition and other munitions alone is expected to cost more than $29 billion.
Another $6 billion or more would be required to replace lost military equipment, including aircraft and numerous drones.
The assessment also covers operational expenses such as military flights and cyber support.
However, some potentially enormous costs may still be missing from the calculations.
Trump’s original strategy came with a hefty price tag
The United States and Israel launched their military campaign against Iran in February, with Trump initially suggesting that the conflict would be relatively brief.
American forces began by targeting Iranian defenses with sophisticated precision-guided missiles.
The strategy was designed to weaken Iran’s military capabilities sufficiently to allow the United States to rely increasingly on cheaper and more readily available weapons.
Those included conventional gravity bombs equipped with guidance systems, such as Joint Direct Attack Munitions, commonly known as JDAMs.
In theory, the approach would reduce the need to keep firing expensive missiles throughout the campaign.
But the fighting did not follow the straightforward timetable the administration had initially anticipated.
Ceasefire gave Iran time to recover
An April ceasefire temporarily halted major hostilities, but the pause also created an opportunity for Iranian forces to restore some of their military capabilities.
According to the reporting, Iran used the period to regain access to underground storage facilities that had been damaged or blocked during earlier attacks.
The recovery efforts allowed some previously inaccessible missiles and drones to become available again.
Parts of the country’s air defense network were also brought back into operation.
For American military planners, that meant some of the capabilities targeted during the initial campaign were once again relevant to future operations.
The development complicated the prospect of achieving a lasting military advantage without further costly attacks.
Another round of fighting remains possible
Although large-scale combat operations have been suspended, the confrontation between Washington and Tehran is far from resolved.
Trump has imposed a naval blockade intended to restrict Iran’s ability to earn revenue from oil exports.
The president has also raised the possibility of launching another military operation against Iran after the November 3 midterm elections.
According to American officials who spoke anonymously to Reuters, the Pentagon has already been preparing for the possibility of renewed heavy fighting.
Those preparations do not mean another attack has been ordered.
However, they indicate that the military is considering scenarios in which the United States would once again conduct major combat operations.
Such an escalation could add billions more to the cost of a conflict that has already exceeded earlier estimates.
Republicans face an uncomfortable election problem
The timing of the latest financial assessment is particularly awkward for Trump’s Republican Party.
Voters will head to the polls on November 3 to determine which party controls Congress for the next two years.
Republicans currently hold narrow majorities in both the House of Representatives and the Senate.
But the Iran conflict has created additional political difficulties for the administration.
Disruptions to global energy markets have contributed to higher prices, placing further pressure on American consumers.
The war’s unpopularity has also weighed on Trump’s approval ratings and complicated Republican efforts to maintain congressional control.
The newly reported costs provide Democrats with another issue to raise as they criticize the administration’s handling of the conflict.
For Republicans trying to convince voters that the country is heading in the right direction, a rapidly growing military bill is hardly ideal campaign material.
The true cost could be even higher
Perhaps the most significant detail in the Pentagon assessment concerns expenses that have not been clearly accounted for.
Iranian missile and drone attacks damaged American military installations during the conflict.
Repairing those facilities could require substantial additional spending.
However, Reuters reports that the military’s cost estimates do not clearly include the full anticipated expense of repairing the damaged bases.
That means the reported $47 billion should not necessarily be interpreted as the total financial cost of the war.
The estimate primarily reflects military operations and the projected expense of replacing weapons and equipment.
Future repairs, additional deployments and any renewed fighting could push the overall figure considerably higher.
Meanwhile, the administration has yet to publicly explain the latest assessment or provide a comprehensive accounting of the conflict’s eventual cost.
