Pentagon nominee says Iran war cost stood at $29bn in May

WASHINGTON: A US Defence Department nominee told senators on Tuesday that the American war with Iran had cost an estimated $29 billion by late May, while acknowledging that the figure did not include damage to military facilities and other infrastructure.

Jules Hurst, President Donald Trump’s nominee for under secretary of defence (comptroller), gave the estimate during a Senate Armed Services Committee confirmation hearing. He appeared alongside other Pentagon nominees. Senator Angus King of Maine questioned Hurst about the financial toll of the conflict, noting that Hurst had served as the Pentagon’s acting comptroller and chief financial officer until May 20.

King challenged Hurst over what he described as a lack of clarity about the overall cost of the war, saying Hurst should have been prepared to answer because of his previous role overseeing Pentagon finances.

In response, Hurst repeated the figure he said he had previously provided lawmakers.

“I will give you the same answer I gave you during the posture hearing, that it was $29 billion at the time I left the position. If confirmed, I'm going to work,”

Hurst said.

King then asked whether that amount covered damage to US military facilities and assets in the region. Hurst said it did not.

“No, senator. That estimate did not include military construction,”

he said, adding that the conflict had highlighted the need for the United States to invest more in hardened and deeply buried military sites.

The exchange made clear that the estimate reflected mainly the direct cost of military activity rather than the wider financial impact of the conflict. King said the $29 billion figure was essentially limited to munitions and other direct wartime expenditures. Hurst agreed with that characterisation.

He said the amount consisted largely of weapons spending.

“I would characterise that estimate as largely munitions,”

Hurst said.

“From memory, it was over $20 billion in munitions, and most of the rest of that was operational cost, whether that's fuel.”

King also asked whether Hurst had sought updated cost figures while preparing for his confirmation hearing. Hurst said he had not done so because he no longer held the position responsible for compiling those numbers.

Explaining his decision, Hurst said he believed it would have been inappropriate to seek the updated estimate because that function no longer fell within his current role at the department. King responded by saying it was frustrating for the American public not to receive a direct answer on the cost of the war.