The Pentagon told members of Congress in a closed briefing that US military operations against Iran have already cost more than $11.3 billion in the first six days, a figure that officials say excludes significant pre-deployment and ancillary expenses. Defence sources also disclosed unusually rapid consumption of munitions, with about $5.6 billion worth expended in the opening 48 hours, underscoring how intense the initial phase of the campaign has been.
These tallies, delivered behind closed doors, are likely conservative. Pentagon officials warned that they had not yet incorporated many related costs such as logistics, forward basing and the mobilisation of personnel and equipment that occurred before the first airstrikes. Independent estimates released earlier in the month put the cost of the initial 100 hours of action at roughly $3.7 billion, highlighting how different accounting windows yield different political and fiscal pressures.
Despite weeks of American and Israeli strikes, US intelligence assessments conclude that Iran’s leadership remains largely intact and does not face a near-term collapse. The National Intelligence Council and the CIA declined to comment on the specific briefing; officials briefed on the assessment said the judgment was recent and based on multiple sources of information collected during the campaign’s opening phase.
President Donald Trump described the United States as being in a “favourable position” in the conflict and said Washington will focus on the situation in the Strait of Hormuz. He also asserted that US forces know the locations of Iran’s “secret organisations” and are closely monitoring them, remarks that echoed an earlier comment about considering occupation of the strait and signal a continued preoccupation with protecting shipping lanes vital to the global oil trade.
The operational picture includes overseas basing and allied cooperation; imagery and reporting showed US B-1 bombers being serviced at RAF Fairford in Britain, a reminder that this is not a purely unilateral campaign and that logistics and host-nation access are key to sustained air operations. Lawmakers watching the budgetary implications are bracing for a much larger bill once the Pentagon completes a fuller accounting of the campaign’s direct and indirect costs.
The cost and intensity of the opening days pose questions about the sustainability of the US approach. High munitions expenditure accelerates resupply needs and strains inventories that have been drawn down after two decades of lower-intensity operations. That in turn has consequences for procurement, budget fights in Congress and the timeline for any potential expansion or de-escalation of the campaign.
For Tehran, remaining leadership cohesion reduces the chance of a rapid political collapse but raises the prospect of a prolonged asymmetric campaign. Iran can continue to leverage proxies, maritime interdiction, and cyber tools to raise costs for the United States and its partners without presenting a single decapitation target. That dynamic complicates Washington’s decision calculus: striking harder risks escalation and further inventory depletion, while stepping back risks emboldening Iranian tactics that disrupt global commerce.
The near-term consequences reach beyond the military ledger. The focus on the Strait of Hormuz keeps a key energy chokepoint and insurance costs for shipping on edge, with potential knock-on effects for global oil markets. Domestically, the administration will face pressure from Congress over oversight of war spending and from an electorate sensitive to both fiscal costs and the human toll of sustained conflict.