Key keywords: Pentagon Iran war cost estimate, Pete Hegseth, US military spending, US-Iran military conflict, war funding skeptics, 2025 US defense budget, Strait of Hormuz energy security, Middle East military escalation The U.S. Department of Defense released a new cost projection this week for a potential large-scale conventional military campaign against Iran, placing the estimated price tag for the first 30 days of conflict at $25 billion, during a contentious Senate Armed Services Committee hearing for Defense Secretary nominee Pete Hegseth. The estimate covers expenses for targeted air strikes on Iranian nuclear and military infrastructure, additional deployment of missile defense systems to U.S. partners in the Gulf region, increased naval patrols in the Strait of Hormuz, and replenishment of munitions stockpiles consumed during initial operations. Pentagon analysts noted the figure does not include long-term stabilization costs, which could rise to an additional $45 to $70 billion over the 12 months following the initial campaign, depending on the scope of Iranian retaliation. During the hearing, Hegseth issued sharp criticism of lawmakers and policy experts who questioned the necessity of military action against Iran and the accuracy of the cost projection. He dismissed skeptics as “willfully ignorant of the existential threat Iran poses to U.S. personnel, allies, and national security,” referencing repeated attacks on U.S. military bases in Iraq and Syria by Iran-backed militant groups over the past 18 months, which have killed 12 U.S. service members and injured more than 200. Hegseth argued that the $25 billion investment is far lower than the long-term cost of containing a nuclear-armed Iran, which he claimed would require permanent deployment of tens of thousands of additional U.S. troops to the Middle East at an annual cost of more than $80 billion. The projection has sparked fierce bipartisan pushback. Democratic lawmakers pointed to the 2003 Iraq War, where initial Bush administration estimates placed the cost at under $60 billion before final expenditures topped $2 trillion, arguing the $25 billion figure is deliberately understated to win public support for a conflict that would drain domestic resources. Independent analysts from the Center for Strategic and International Studies echoed these concerns, noting the estimate excludes secondary costs including damage to global energy markets – the Strait of Hormuz carries 30% of the world’s seaborne oil trade, and a conflict would likely push global oil prices up by 40% or more, adding an estimated $120 billion in annual fuel costs for U.S. consumers alone. Recent national polling shows only 31% of U.S. voters support direct military action against Iran, with 62% expressing concern that additional war spending would worsen the $34 trillion U.S. national debt and cut funding for domestic priorities including healthcare, public education, and infrastructure repair.