costs iran war
| |

US costs of Iran war rise to over $47B – Pentagon data

WASHINGTON, USA – The US military has spent over $47 billion so far to prosecute the war in Iran, more than 25% higher than the Defense Department’s estimate in July, according to Pentagon data obtained by Reuters.

The Pentagon did not immediately respond to a request for comment on its estimate, which has not been shared publicly.

The disclosure about the rising cost of the Iran war comes as Republicans wrestle with the political fallout of the unpopular conflict ahead of the November 3 election that will determine control of Congress for the next two years.


US costs of Iran war rise to over $47B – Pentagon data

The war’s impact on global energy costs has weighed on support for Republican candidates and hurt President Donald Trump’s approval ratings. Trump’s Republican Party holds a narrow majority in both chambers of Congress.

The Pentagon’s latest estimate was tied to the operational costs of carrying out the war, with a projected cost of more than $29 billion to replace expended munitions used in the conflict.

More than $6 billion would be needed to replace military equipment and so-called “platform losses,” which include the loss of aircraft including many drones lost during the war.

Trump launched the Iran war jointly with Israel in February, predicting ​that the conflict would last a short time.

Trump’s initial strategy in the Iran war focused on first using expensive, high-end precision missiles to bomb Iran’s defenses so it could later use less expensive munitions, including gravity bombs like the air-launched JDAMs, which are plentiful.

But an April ceasefire gave time for Iran to dig out underground storage facilities, bringing back online some Iranian defenses, as well as missiles and drones that had been inaccessible.

Trump has since imposed a naval blockade on Iran to starve it of oil export revenue and held out the possibility of restarting combat operations after the midterm elections. US officials, speaking on condition of anonymity, say the Pentagon has been planning to restart heavy fighting if ordered to do so.

The latest Pentagon estimate compares to Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth‘s July estimate of $37.5 billion for the cost of the war.

While the figures include a host of operational costs, from flight operations to cyber support, the US military’s Iran war cost estimates did not clearly account for the massive expense expected to repair damage to US bases sustained by Iranian missile and drone attacks. Rappler.com

Similar Posts

  • EASA issues urgent advisory warning airlines to avoid Jordanian airspace

    The European Union Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) has issued a security bulletin urging commercial airlines to suspend all operations within Jordanian airspace. The safety agency highlighted an escalation in cross-border military strikes and ballistic missile trajectories as primary drivers behind the severe risks currently facing civilian flights in the region. The newly released directive instructs European carriers and EASA-authorized foreign operators to avoid the Amman Flight Information Region (FIR) across all flight levels. Alongside this new warning, EASA officially extended its existing airspace warnings for several neighboring Middle Eastern territories through August 31, 2026. According to official EASA statements, security conditions across the region have deteriorated rapidly since mid-July. The airspace over and around Jordan has become increasingly hazardous due to active kinetic military engagements, including drone deployments, ballistic missile transit, and the frequent activation of heavy air defense systems. The regulatory agency highlighted several critical factors endangering high-altitude commercial flights. The heightened operational state of regional air-defense units increases the probability that radar systems could accidentally target civilian airliners. Active aerial engagements create unpredictable hazard zones caused by mid-air missile interceptions, anti-aircraft fire, and descending shrapnel. Rapid combat developments often leave local aviation authorities without adequate time to issue timely rerouting orders or close vulnerable corridors. Because Jordanian authorities have not yet published definitive local flight restrictions or comprehensive safety mitigations, European regulators felt compelled to intervene directly to protect commercial flights. Jordan’s addition to the no-fly advisory list reflects a widespread expansion of flight restrictions across key aviation transit hubs in the Middle East. EASA had previously reinstated and strengthened safety advisories for several other nations and maritime zones following intensified conflicts involving U.S. assets and Iranian forces. The full list of airspaces currently subject to EASA’s strict operational warnings includes Jordan (Amman FIR); Iran, Iraq, and Lebanon; Bahrain, Kuwait, Qatar, and the United Arab Emirates; overwater corridors in the Gulf of Oman. All related advisories, which were previously scheduled to expire on July 29, have now been synchronized and extended until at least August 31, 2026. The decision to bypass Jordan forces international airlines to implement extensive flight path revisions. Carriers are diverting long-haul journeys around extended no-fly zones, leading to longer flight durations, increased fuel consumption and higher operating costs.  Also, the potential schedule shifts for passengers traveling along major international routes. EASA emphasized that all affected air operators must continuously track real-time Notice to Air Missions (NOTAMs) and conduct rigorous safety evaluations prior to dispatching aircraft near or around adjacent flight zones. European regulators stated they will continue to monitor regional security developments closely and modify their airspace guidelines as conditions evolve.  

  • | |

    Report details Trump’s covert aircraft switc…

    President Donald Trump quietly switched planes while departing a NATO summit in Turkey last month as part of an elaborate security maneuver designed to counter a possible Iranian threat, according to a US media report. The report said Trump boarded Air Force One in full public view before being discreetly transferred to a separate military aircraft with the help of a catering truck used to shield the movement from onlookers. Journalists and some White House staff traveling with the delegation reportedly had no idea at the time that Trump had already been moved off the plane. Officials said security teams had identified a credible Iranian threat involving a possible missile strike against the aircraft. During the Ankara summit, Trump had described Iran as the country’s top target. According to the report, Trump had traveled to Turkey aboard a newer Boeing 747-8 previously donated by Qatar, but chose to depart on the older Air Force One instead, saying at the time it was “for old time’s sake.” Footage released on July 9 showed Trump boarding the presidential aircraft at Ankara airport before being secretly transferred to a smaller C-32A military jet, a modified Boeing 757 typically used to transport the vice president. Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth reportedly boarded the C-32A through a separate exterior entrance as part of the effort to keep the flight’s appearance routine. Journalists and staff who boarded Air Force One were told to lower their window shades during the departure. While in the air, Trump spoke with reporters on board and acknowledged concerns about threats from Iran, though he made no mention of the earlier switch between aircraft. Explaining why passengers had been asked to keep their windows lowered during the flight from Turkey, Trump said the flight carried added risk “because of the sleazebags we have to deal with.” A previous report had already raised questions about security risks tied to the Qatari donated jet, noting that the Secret Service had urged Trump to change planes during his return from the NATO summit. The United States has spent months upgrading the $400 million Boeing 747-8 to bring it up to presidential standards, while older Air Force One aircraft carry laser based countermeasures designed to disrupt the guidance systems of incoming missiles.

  • | |

    Trump hits back at Canada as tariff war escalates

    WASHINGTON: US President Donald Trump has lashed out at Canada after Prime Minister Mark Carney announced retaliatory tariffs on American goods, deepening a trade dispute that threatens to further strain economic ties between the two neighbouring countries. Trump responded sharply on Sunday after Canada confirmed that new tariffs targeting US products would take effect on September 8. “Canada wants the benefits of being a state, without being one!!!” Trump said in a post on Truth Social, while also accusing Canada of imposing heavy tariffs on American farmers for years. The latest escalation follows the introduction of new US tariffs covering around $20 billion worth of Canadian goods. The measures, which took effect on Saturday, impose tariffs of up to 50 per cent and affect products ranging from hockey sticks and cement to other Canadian exports. Carney announced Canada’s response a day earlier, saying Ottawa would impose new tariffs particularly targeting American steel and dairy products. The Canadian prime minister described the situation in unusually forceful terms, saying the country had effectively been “attacked” and was responding accordingly. The confrontation follows the collapse of recent trade negotiations between Washington and Ottawa. Earlier discussions had appeared more constructive, with Trump saying he believed the United States could reach an agreement with Canada and pointing to his positive relationship with Carney. But Carney said the latest US demands had crossed a line. According to the Canadian leader, Washington proposed terms that were “uneconomic” and “unfair” while undermining the benefits Canada expected from a potential agreement. Ottawa ultimately rejected the proposal. US Trade Representative Jamieson Greer offered a different account of the negotiations. He told The New York Times that Washington had offered to reduce tariffs on Canadian steel, aluminium and automobiles while also removing a recently imposed tariff on Canadian lumber. Greer said the proposed measures would have provided Canada with exceptionally favourable treatment compared with other US trading partners. However, the offer failed to produce a breakthrough. Greer also told Fox News that Washington was preparing measures in response to Canada’s retaliation, signalling that the dispute could escalate further rather than return immediately to the negotiating table. A senior US official described the latest talks as candid but not acrimonious, suggesting that despite the increasingly hostile public statements, both sides had maintained communication during negotiations. The economic stakes are significant. The United States and Canada share one of the world’s largest trading relationships, with businesses and consumers on both sides relying heavily on cross-border commerce. The latest tariffs could therefore raise costs for companies, disrupt supply chains and put additional pressure on industries already facing uncertainty. With Canadian counter-tariffs scheduled to take effect in September, attention will now turn to whether Washington and Ottawa can find a compromise before the measures trigger a wider trade confrontation.

  • | |

    English Football to trial new rule to eliminate go…

    English football will implement a trial this season aimed at eradicating the increasingly common practice of goalkeepers feigning injury to secure tactical timeouts, with teams required to temporarily remove an outfield player if their keeper receives treatment . The Football Association, Premier League, English Football League, National League, and Women’s Super League have agreed on the measure, with permission granted by the International Football Association Board (IFAB) . The first game to feature the trial will be the Carabao Cup preliminary round tie between Tranmere and Rochdale on Saturday . Under the new protocol, if a referee signals for a physio to treat a goalkeeper, the team’s coach will have 10 seconds to nominate an outfield player to leave the pitch for one minute after play restarts, informing the fourth official of their choice . If no player is selected within 10 seconds, the captain must leave the field . The tactic of goalkeepers going down for treatment allowing coaches to deliver instructions to outfield players gathered on the touchline has become increasingly controversial in recent seasons . Leeds United fans regularly booed opposing goalkeepers for such delays last season, and the practice has been used to disrupt momentum when opponents are on top . Pro Ref, led by chief refereeing officer Howard Webb, had been in discussions with the leagues to address the issue . English football opted for this trial because it follows the logic already applied to outfield players, who must leave the field for one minute if the physio comes on . The measure is intended as a proactive deterrent rather than a reactive punishment . There are several exemptions: no player will have to leave if the goalkeeper says they do not need treatment and have not stopped play, if the goalkeeper and an outfield player have collided, if the goalkeeper is fouled and needs immediate treatment, if the goalkeeper is bleeding, or if there is a serious injury requiring substitution or concussion . Match of the Day pundit Danny Murphy had previously suggested this exact solution, saying: “If a keeper goes down injured, instead of him having to go off, one of the outfield players should go off then it’s fair all round. It’s a little change that makes a world of difference.” The Australian A-League will trial a variation where the captain must always leave the field . The results of the trials will be assessed by IFAB throughout the season, potentially leading to a permanent global law change from the 2027-28 season .

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *