Pentagon Wants $200 Billion to Fund Iran War
"It takes money to kill bad guys."
WaPo (“Pentagon seeks more than $200 billion in budget request for Iran war“):
The Pentagon has asked the White House to approve a more than $200 billion request to Congress to fund the war in Iran, according to a senior administration official, in an enormous new ask that is almost certain to run into resistance from lawmakers opposed to the conflict.
That number would far surpass the costs of the administration’s massive airstrike campaign to date and instead seek to urgently increase production of critical weaponry expended as U.S. and Israeli forces have struck thousands of targets over the past three weeks, according to three other people familiar with the matter, who confirmed that the Defense Department is seeking packages of that size.
Like some others for this article, the people spoke on the condition of anonymity to describe the administration’s sensitive planning.
It remains unclear how much the White House will ultimately ask congressional lawmakers to approve. Some White House officials do not think the Pentagon’s request has a realistic shot of being approved in Congress, the senior administration official said. The Pentagon has floated several different proposed funding requests over the past two weeks, according to the official and three other people familiar with the matter.
[…]
The cost of the war in Iran has rapidly grown, exceeding $11 billion in the first week alone, according to multiple officials. Shortly after the joint U.S.-Israeli campaign began late last month, the Trump administration started preparing an additional funding request to help cover the costs, a process often required to ensure the military can maintain its readiness to defend against threats around the world even during wartime.
WSJ (“Pentagon Will Ask for More Money to Fund Iran Campaign“) adds:
Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth said the Pentagon planned to request money from Congress to pay for Operation Epic Fury and replenish munitions that have been fired during the nearly three weeks of fighting in the Middle East.
“It takes money to kill bad guys,” Hegseth told reporters at the Pentagon Thursday. “So we are going back to Congress and our folks there to ensure that we are properly funded for what’s been done, for what we may have to do in the future.”
Hegseth said the amount of money could change, but didn’t dispute that the Pentagon was asking for around $200 billion, a figure that was earlier reported by the Washington Post. “As far as $200 billion, I think that number could move,” he said.
The extra money, which would be in addition to the Pentagon’s annual budget for 2026 already approved by Congress, would “ensure that we’re properly funded for what’s been done, for what we may have to do in the future,” Hegseth said. The first six days of strikes cost roughly $11.3 billion, Acting Pentagon Comptroller Jules Hurst said at an industry conference on Tuesday.
The request is sure to meet resistance on Capitol Hill. The Trump administration has largely bypassed Congress in attacking Iran, and Democrats have questioned President Trump’s strategy and demanded more congressional oversight of the war.
“The Iran War will cost $200B. Prices in the U.S. are spiking. The Middle East is on fire. A dozen soldiers are dead, more to come. And for what? Iran’s new leaders are worse than the old ones, and they will keep their missile, drone and nuclear programs,” Sen. Chris Murphy (D., Conn.) said on X.
Republicans have largely supported the operation, though some have raised concerns about how long it will last and the impact on energy prices. Some have also expressed nervousness about the potential to put boots on the ground in Iran.
Presumably, the $200 billion is a bargaining position rather than the amount the Department actually expects to receive. The early days of the war were always going to be the most expensive, as it required the expenditure of exquisite stand-off munitions to destroy Iranian air defenses. Since then, US and Israeli forces have enjoyed air supremacy and thus the ability to get closer and use JDAMs and other comparatively inexpensive tools.
Still, this is why—in addition to the plain language of the Constitution—Presidents have made their case to Congress and the American people before starting wars of choice. We’ve lost at least thirteen service members and more than 200 wounded, had our top aircraft carrier set on fire, and had at least three planes downed. We’ve burned through expensive and hard-to-replace weapons.
Congressional Democrats have already signaled that they’re not going to back President Trump’s unpopular war. As he reaches lame duck status, it’s going to be very hard to strong-arm Republicans in vulnerable districts to go along with him.
If I were a Democrat, I would look to the bloated One Big Beautiful Bill for sourcing of funds. Specifically, ICE.
Somehow I knew that the post’s subhead was a Hegseth quote.
Start lining up the Trump contradictions:
We need money to replace munitions – We have an infinite supply of munitions.
We need 5,000 troops – the war was over in the first hour.
We need other countries to help – we don’t need anyone else.
And on and on, as two blustering idiots are the face of an illegal, immoral war that is roiling the U.S. and world economies, not to mention displacing millions of people in the Middle East and creating an environmental disaster. “You’re doing a heck of a job, Trumpie!”
BTW, it is utterly maddening to see things like USAID slashed and no willingness to address real social needs in the US while we blow billions on a war–especially one that is highly unlikely to achieve any of its various stated goals/will likely lead to long-term security concerns in the region, and deep economic problems for the globe.
Wait! What? Now when it comes to funding we are talking about “defense”. What happened to “war” as in Dept of War?
Congress must ‘adequately’ fund defense, Johnson says, amid talk of $200 billion war request
I think the unstated but real goal is to destroy as much of Iran as they reasonably can. This would be Israel’s goal which we have now adopted. Last I looked we had contributed over $25 billion in war aid to Israel in its Gaza efforts. I would bet that some of the $200 billion or a separate expenditure will increase military aid (ie give them money) to cover their current expenses. It’s a rich country and we are doing a lot of this to aid Israel. Seems like they ought to be paying us.
Steve
@Gregory Lawrence Brown:
Back when stealth aircraft were new, there was a lot of talk about battlefield survivability and air defenses. This was then the F-117 stealth fighter and the B-2 were all the rage. The air force and the Pentagon were selling the idea stealth aircraft were invulnerable, without quite claiming so (much like the Titanic was supposed to be unsinkable).
Then amid the war in the former Yugoslavia, an F-117 was shot down.
That’s when the illusion shatters, and you realize that “low observable” design does not make an aircraft invisible to radar.
@Steven L. Taylor: Indeed. I intended to provide such context but, oddly, I could not find the AY27 budget breakdown—which has heretofore been quite simple. The best I could find was FYTD spending, which is unhelpful. But, yeah, $200 billion is more than we spend on Veterans Affairs.
If I were a treaty ally, this would be terrifying. The world’s biggest military budget, that’s already as big as the next eight or nine countries’ budgets combined, can burn through enough of its inventory in three weeks against a modest adversary to be worrisome. Even more so if I were a non-treaty country who had been promised protection, like Taiwan.
My TV just now showed a clip of Hegseth saying that. Straight face, matter of fact, as though that were the entire point to the war, and why would anyone question it.
The question about this war has been not only “Why?”, but, “Why now?” The Omani’s seem unhappy and may have answered “Why now?”
As always, it’s risky to take what anyone involved says at face value. But it is easy to picture Netanyahu freaking at the idea we might, as in the JCPOA, get safety for the U.S. from Iranian nukes without also destroying Iran.
Two money sourcing thoughts:
1) I seem to remember in Gulf War I that the Saudis and Kuwaitis pretty much financed our war against Saddam. Why not again?
2) Here is my hare-brained idea for a defense tax. An asset tax on Americans. With a fairly large exemption, of course, of around the first $5M of assets. That would get our oligarchs on board to pay for their own defense. After all, the military is there to protect property, not people. No?
It’s an illegal, unpopular war that hurts American interests abroad and at home.
I expect there will be 7 Democrats willing to vote for it, avoiding any filibuster. To “support the troops.”