How much the United States paid for the war with Iran. Analysis

The main thing in the material:

• The war with Iran has turned into a campaign for the United States with a rapid burning of resources, both military and political.
• High-precision missiles and interceptors burn out faster than the American military-industrial complex is capable of producing them.
• The Pentagon needs hundreds of billions of dollars, but the chances of getting them are extremely low.
• For Washington, the war in the Middle East is no longer a show of force, but a politically toxic conflict.

The war between the United States and Israel with Iran has rapidly turned not into a triumph of precision weapons, but into an expensive exam for the entire American military industry. The longer the campaign drags on, the clearer it becomes that Washington knows how to expend expensive ammunition with lightning speed, but does not know how to replenish them as quickly. And the White House's request for $1.5 trillion in military spending looks more like a nervous gesture by the administration, which is simultaneously trying to wage war, hold the market and not lose its own country before the midterm elections in November 2026. Izvestia investigated how much the Iranian conflict is costing Washington and whether it has enough industrial, financial and political resources to carry out such a campaign without disintegrating the internal consensus.

The price of a salvo

Since the United States and Israel began attacking targets in Iran at the very end of February, billions of dollars worth of American military equipment have been lost or damaged. The first six days of the campaign alone cost the United States $12.7 billion. At the same time, $11.3 billion of them is spent on ammunition. According to other widespread estimates, the amount of military costs in 12 days has already amounted to $16.5 billion (taking into account the costs of conducting the operation, both budgeted and not budgeted, as well as damage).

Military spending was unevenly distributed: the first days were the most ruinous, when the United States used expensive high-precision weapons, such as Tomahawk cruise missiles. According to sources, during the four weeks of the war, the US military fired about 850 Tomahawks. The cost of one such rocket reaches $ 3-4 million.

In addition, in the first wave of bombing, the United States used AGM-154 guided aerial bombs, which can cost up to $836,000 per unit. The Navy purchased 3,000 of these bombs for its aviation almost two decades ago. Since then, the US military has said it will switch to using cheaper projectiles, such as the $100,000 Joint Direct Attack Munition.

By the fourth day of the campaign, the intensity of the use of expensive ammunition had dropped — American aircraft began to strike using more budget bombs and missiles. By the fifth day, the number of Iranian attacks (by missiles and drones) had decreased by about 90%, which required significantly fewer interceptions.

What has the US lost in Iran and how much does it cost to replace it

During the hostilities, two American radar systems in Qatar and Jordan were damaged, including the AN/TPY-2 radar, which is used as part of the THAAD missile defense system. The AN/TPY-2 replacement will cost approximately $485 million. It takes Raytheon almost three years to produce one radar. There are no surplus systems in American warehouses. The AN/FPS-132 early warning radar, capable of tracking multiple targets at the same time, damaged at the Al-Udeid airbase in Qatar, could cost about $1 billion.

In early March, Kuwait mistakenly shot down three American F-15E fighter jets. The cost of each is about $100 million. Iran later attacked another such aircraft. After this incident, the United States conducted a large-scale rescue operation for the crew. The sides involved in it were also shelled. As a result, the Americans lost the A-10 Warthog attack aircraft.

In addition, two C-130 Hercules transport aircraft were destroyed, as well as a KC-135 tanker that crashed over western Iraq due to a collision with another similar aircraft. Five more KC-135s were damaged as a result of an Iranian missile strike on an airbase in Saudi Arabia. Boeing has not produced the KC-135 since the 1960s, so the Air Force is likely to replace the lost aircraft with the KC-46 Pegasus, a tanker aircraft based on a modified Boeing 767 airliner. The cost of the KC-46 is about $165 million.

The Boeing E-3 Sentry long-range radar detection aircraft, which was located at an airbase southeast of Riyadh, was also seriously damaged. His replacement was estimated at more than $700 million.

Iran shot down a dozen MQ-9 Reaper drones manufactured by General Atomics. Each cost at least $16 million. They are no longer available. The price of the newer MQ-9B SkyGuardian model is about $30 million.

The topic of lost technology is sensitive for Washington — it changes the very perception of the campaign. As long as war looks like a remote launch of expensive missiles, it can be sold to the electorate as a purely technological operation. When there are downed planes, rescue operations deep in enemy territory, dozens of dead and hundreds injured, the war turns into an expensive and politically toxic conflict.

How will they be reimbursed

According to estimates by the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS), US military spending is now increasing by $500 million per day. And this pace will continue if the course of the war does not change significantly. To cover the costs and strengthen the military machine, the Pentagon needs additional funds — the ministry has sent a request to the White House for the allocation of $ 200 billion. After approval, the document must go to Congress, where, as expected, it will not be approved.

Analysts say that the request has already faded into oblivion, and in order to continue the campaign, the United States may have to redirect resources from other theaters of war, potentially weakening the country's defense capability as a whole. There is speculation that the Pentagon's costs may be offset in the fall, when the new federal budget for fiscal year 2027 is approved. President Donald Trump has already proposed putting $1.5 trillion in it for military spending. This is the largest request in recent decades. With a budget deficit of almost $2 trillion and a national debt of $39 trillion, it is unlikely to be possible to coordinate a serious increase in the amount of appropriations for the needs of the Pentagon.

Not only Democrats, but also his Republican party members are opposed to the adoption of Trump's draft budget. For the latter, approving cuts in social spending before the upcoming midterm congressional elections, when a third of the Senate and the full House of Representatives are re-elected, may be a political verdict. Republicans are already predicting a crushing defeat with the loss of control over both chambers.

Why the United States does not have time to replenish military reserves

The pace of burning money for the war with Iran turned out to be such that the campaign quickly became an industrial and financial depletion of reserves. This year, production will definitely not be able to compensate for the consumption of ammunition. For example, with the same Tomahawks — experts say that if over 800 such missiles were actually fired at Iran, then the United States used up about a quarter of the entire arsenal. At the same time, they are being purchased in small batches — this year's defense budget includes only 57 units for the Navy.

It takes up to two years to produce one Tomahawk. And the industry is barely coping with the growing use of these missiles. In recent years, only a dozen to several hundred Tomahawks have been produced for the United States per year as part of standard purchase cycles. Analysts have long argued that the problem lies not only in financing, but also in the structural limitations of the military-industrial base, designed for predictable demand. Raytheon has already announced agreements with the Pentagon to increase supplies to 1,000 missiles per year. However, it will take several years to do this.

It's the same story with the Patriot PAC-3 interceptor missiles, which cost $4 million per unit. They were used against cheap Iranian drones and missiles — economically, a bad deal, even if the interception is successful. At the same time, Bloomberg suggests that the United States and its allies in the Persian Gulf have spent more than 1,000 PAC-3. This is almost twice the annual production volume of these weapons, and they are also going to increase it to 2 thousand. units per year, however, it is planned to do this only by 2030.

It turns out that one intense week of war can consume the volume of production, which factories then replenish for months and years. This is the main paradox of the current war: the United States wins as a shot, but loses in the economy of pace. The American military-industrial complex is designed as a peacetime system with expensive and long cycles, and not as a rapid mobilization machine.

As a result, the problem of the military industry inevitably turns into a political one. When warehouses are being emptied faster than they are being replenished, and the cost of war is rising, the Pentagon and the White House are forced to request additional funds and at the same time explain to Americans, who for the most part disapprove of Trump's actions in Iran, why they need more and more resources. And if Congress, which manages the "purse," does not approve the allocation of funds and does not agree on a new budget, this will mean the following: even the United States cannot endlessly wage an expensive war if society is against it, the party is split, and the military industry does not keep up with the front.