As the Iran war wraps up its third week, the Pentagon has finally revealed a long-awaited figure: $200 billion. This is reportedly the figure that the Department of Defense hopes Congress will approve to cover the costs of the latest US misadventure in the Middle East.

On top of the nearly $1 trillion that the Trump administration has already allocated to the defense budget this year, a request for an additional $200 billion may seem outrageous. But it should not be surprising. That a military campaign in Iran would be a long, expensive slog was easily foreseeable. Worse, before the conflict ends, the costs could rise much higher.

By far the biggest driver of this exorbitant bill is the munitions used in offensive strikes and defensive operations. The most advanced precision missiles used in the US campaign against Iran cost at least $1 million each, and some may cost much more. The ground-launched Precision Strike Missile costs $1.6 million, while the cost of a Tomahawk missile is over $2 million. Less sophisticated weapons can be closer to $50,000 each, but these typically require that bomber and fighter aircraft are able to fly directly over their targets. The Pentagon says it has now launched something like 15,000 strikes, each of which may use several munitions. At these prices, the cost of replacing expended munitions, now likely in the tens of thousands, will come with a hefty bill.

What’s more, defensive air interceptors used to protect US personnel can be even more expensive than their offensive counterparts. While cheap counter-drone interceptors may cost as little as $10,000, the most advanced air defense munitions can cost millions. The THAAD and Patriot interceptors cost $12 million and $4 million per munition, respectively, and the US military has already expended hundreds of them. Replenishing US stockpiles will be a costly endeavor.

The second most significant cost category is the replacement and repair of aircraft, air defense systems, and other military hardware. Open-source intelligence suggests that several US THAAD systems have been hit by Iranian drones, which will cost billions of dollars to fix. The US has also lost three F-15s to friendly fire, as well as several K-135 aerial refuelers to an mid-air collision and drone attacks on US bases, while at least one F-35 was struck by Iranian anti-aircraft fire. Each of these aircraft will cost in the hundreds of millions to replace.

Thirdly, there are the operating costs associated with wartime military activity. These include the cost of fuel and other inputs required to keep military systems working at the heightened state of alert required. For example, the cost of one flight hour for an F-35 is about $40,000. For a B-2 bomber, the cost can be as much as $150,000 per hour. Assuming each round of airstrikes takes several hours and involves hundreds of aircraft, it is easy to see how expenditures would add up. Meanwhile, the operating costs for a US Navy carrier strike group during wartime are about $8 million a day. The United States has two of these in the Middle East at present.

Finally, there is the simple wear and tear that aircraft, warships, and ground equipment take during any deployment, especially a war. Parts will need to be replaced, and repairs and maintenance will be completed. The humid climate in the Middle East will exacerbate the strain of a long deployment.

All told, it is easy to imagine that the war is costing the United States $2 billion a day. The Pentagon itself has acknowledged this as the cost for at least the war’s first week, but there is no sign that the intensity of the campaign or the rate at which it is absorbing military resources has lessened since then.

After news of the $200 billion request spread, US officials cautioned that the figure was higher than the cost of the war so far. That leads to one of two broad conclusions. Either the Pentagon hopes to use the war supplemental as a budget boost, to supercharge future spending. Or defense officials expect a war that lasts months, not weeks. For American voters, it’s bad news either way.

---

Jennifer Kavanagh is a senior fellow and director of military analysis at Defense Priorities.

jekavanagh

---