These developments are raising a fundamental question in Washington — whether the economics of the war is becoming as difficult as the military challenge itself.
Burning billions in days
The financial scale of the bombing campaign became clear in a closed door briefing on Capitol Hill this week. According to The New York Times, Pentagon officials told lawmakers that the war had already cost more than $11.3 billion in the first six days alone. The figure covers the period immediately after the US launched strikes on February 28. The estimate also does not include the cost of the large military buildup that preceded the attacks, meaning the overall price tag is likely to rise further.
Earlier congressional briefings had already revealed the extraordinary pace at which munitions were being consumed. The New York Times had reported that the US military had used $5.6 billion worth of weapons in just the first two days of the war, a burn rate far higher than had been publicly disclosed. Independent analysts had arrived at similar conclusions. The Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS) estimated that the first 100 hours of the operation cost $3.7 billion, or roughly $891 million per day.
Such spending reflects the nature of modern air warfare, which relies heavily on precision weapons rather than large quantities of cheaper unguided bombs.
Also Read | Iran is not another Venezuela, Trump has found to great cost
The staggering price of precision weaponsThe early phase of the war relied on some of the most sophisticated and expensive munitions in the US arsenal. One example is the AGM-154 Joint Standoff Weapon, a glide bomb designed to strike targets from long distances. Each of these bombs is said to cost between $578,000 and $836,000.
These weapons are typically used in the initial phase of a conflict to destroy heavily defended targets while keeping aircraft far from enemy air defenses. But their cost quickly adds up when they are used in large numbers. Even more expensive are some of the missiles used in the campaign. According to the Financial Times, the US Navy’s Tomahawk cruise missiles cost around $3.6 million each and have been fired extensively during the war. The result is that even a relatively small number of strikes can generate enormous costs within days.
Also Read | Donald Trump has never been a planner, and that’s deadly
A stockpile under pressure
The financial strain is closely tied to another concern: the rapid depletion of US munitions. According to the Financial Times, the Trump administration has already burned through years of critical munitions since the start of the war, citing three people familiar with the matter. Among the weapons being consumed rapidly are the Tomahawk missiles used in early strikes.
One person familiar with the military’s use of munitions told FT that the scale of the spending is striking. “It is a massive expenditure of Tomahawks,” the person said, adding that “the navy will be feeling this expenditure for several years.”
The problem is compounded by limited production capacity. FT reported that the US military has bought only 322 Tomahawk missiles in the past five years, meaning that replacing large numbers of missiles used in the war could take a long time. Analysts say this highlights a long-standing vulnerability in US defence planning. For years, officials have warned that the pace at which modern wars consume munitions could exceed the rate at which they can be manufactured.
A costly imbalance in modern warfare
Another issue complicating the economics of the war is the cost imbalance between the weapons used by the United States and those deployed by Iran. US forces have been firing extremely expensive interceptor missiles to defend against Iranian attacks. These include Patriot and THAAD air defense missiles, each of which can cost millions of dollars per shot. Democratic senator Mark Kelly, a former US Navy pilot and astronaut, pointed to the problem directly. “The rounds we’re firing — Patriot rounds, Thaad rounds … these weapon systems, each round is millions of dollars,” Kelly said, speaking about the war in remarks cited by FT. Meanwhile, he noted, Iranian forces are using far cheaper weapons. Iran’s Shahed drones can be produced for roughly $30,000 each, according to US intelligence assessments cited in the report. “The math on this doesn’t work,” Kelly said.
Faced with these costs, the US military is already adjusting its strategy. According to the NYT, the Pentagon plans to shift toward far less expensive bombs such as the Joint Direct Attack Munition, commonly known as JDAM. These bombs consist of a standard warhead fitted with a GPS guidance kit. The smallest JDAM warhead costs roughly $1,000, while the guidance kit costs about $38,000, the NYT reported. That makes them dramatically cheaper than glide bombs or cruise missiles used in the opening phase of the war.
The shift reflects a familiar pattern in modern conflicts. Expensive long range weapons are used first to dismantle enemy defenses and command networks. Once those threats are reduced, aircraft can operate closer to targets and rely on cheaper bombs. This transition helps reduce the cost of each strike and preserve limited stocks of more advanced munitions.
A looming $50 billion bill
Even with that shift, the financial burden of the war is continuing to grow. According to FT, the Pentagon is preparing to request as much as $50 billion in additional military funding from the White House and Congress to cover the costs of the campaign and replenish weapons stocks. The request is expected to trigger a fierce debate on Capitol Hill. The war is already proving controversial, and many lawmakers are reluctant to approve a massive new spending package without clearer answers about the strategy and objectives.
Republican senator Lisa Murkowski, who sits on the Senate appropriations committee responsible for federal spending, warned that Congress would not simply approve the funding automatically. “You’ve got to be able to provide us with information, as requested, justification,” Murkowski said, speaking about the administration’s funding request in remarks reported by FT. “Don’t just take for granted that the Congress’s role is basically just to write the cheque.”
At the same time, other Republicans are urging lawmakers to approve the funding despite their differences with the administration. Former Senate majority leader Mitch McConnell argued that the supplemental funding request represents an opportunity to strengthen US military readiness. “Weakness invites challenge,” McConnell said on the Senate floor, according to FT. “But our adversaries have sought to weaken and undermine America regardless of who the commander-in-chief is.”
A growing political and economic challenge
The economic burden of the war is also becoming a broader political issue. Democratic senator Ron Wyden, the top Democrat on the Senate finance committee, warned that the financial costs are escalating rapidly. “The cost of it goes up practically as we talk,” Wyden said, according to FT. “It’s an astronomical sum.”
The war is also affecting the global economy. Disruptions to shipping in the region have pushed oil prices above $100 a barrel, adding to domestic political pressure on the administration. For the Trump administration, the challenge is therefore not only military but economic. Sustaining a long campaign against Iran will require vast resources, strong industrial production and continued political support at home.
The early weeks of the Iran conflict have already revealed a central truth about modern military power. Precision warfare delivers extraordinary effectiveness but comes with extraordinary costs. The US has spent billions of dollars on bombs and missiles within days of launching its campaign. It has drawn down stockpiles of some of its most advanced weapons. And it is preparing to ask Congress for tens of billions more to keep the war going.
As Operation Epic Fury continues, the economics of bombing Iran may prove to be one of the most important factors shaping how long the conflict can last and how far the US is willing to go.
