The US Department of Defense, the Pentagon, told lawmakers that the US war with Iran had an estimated cost of $29 billion through the end of May, but acknowledged that this figure does not include damage to military facilities and other infrastructure, prompting criticism from Senator Angus King for the lack of a more recent calculation.
Jules Hurst, President Donald Trump's nominee for Under Secretary of Defense for Financial Control, testified before the Senate Armed Services Committee during his confirmation hearing, along with other nominees for positions at the Department of Defense.
Questioning Hurst, Senator King of Maine challenged him on the cost of the conflict with Iran, noting that Hurst had served as the acting comptroller and chief financial officer of the Pentagon until May 20.
“Mr. Hurst, I’m not convinced by your claims that you don’t know about the cost of the war. You were the acting comptroller, the chief financial officer of the Department of Defense until May 20. That was about seven weeks ago. And to sit here today and say, ‘I don’t really know and I’m not in that position’… Come on, you should have known this question was going to come up in this session. How much has the war with Iran cost the American people?” King asked.
"I'll give you the same answer I gave during the defense status hearing, it was $29 billion at the time I left office. If I'm confirmed, I'll work," Hurst replied.
Asked whether this figure included damage to US military facilities and equipment in the region, Hurst said it did not include them.
"No, senator. This assessment did not include military construction," he said, adding that the conflict highlighted the need for the US to invest more in "fortified and deep underground" military facilities.
King stressed that the $29 billion estimate represented primarily the direct costs of military operations and not the broader financial impact of the conflict.
"So that's not part of the estimate. The $29 billion estimate that you gave was basically just for munitions and expenses as a direct result of the conflict," King said.
Hurst agreed, saying the figure consisted largely of spending on weapons.
"I would describe that estimate as primarily munitions costs. From my recollection, it was more than $20 billion for munitions and most of the rest was operating costs, whether it was fuel," he said.
King also asked if Hurst had requested updated cost figures in preparation for the hearing.
Hurst said he had not done so, explaining that he no longer serves in a role responsible for compiling this data.
