I don't think about anybody. I think about one thing.
Two months into a war that has cost American taxpayers twenty-nine billion dollars, the United States finds itself caught between the claims of victory it has made publicly and the far more complicated reality its own intelligence agencies are quietly documenting. A fragile ceasefire in Lebanon continues to bleed, Iran has reclaimed access to most of its missile infrastructure, and the Strait of Hormuz remains closed to the world's oil trade — all while Congress begins to ask, with growing urgency, who authorized this war and who will pay for it. The distance between a president's assertions and the facts on the ground is, as history often reminds us, where the heaviest costs accumulate.
- The Pentagon's war bill has climbed to $29 billion in just two months, with costs still rising as equipment, personnel, and operational expenses continue to compound.
- American intelligence assessments directly contradict the administration's victory narrative — Iran has restored access to 30 of its 33 missile sites, and the Strait of Hormuz remains effectively closed, strangling global oil supplies.
- In southern Lebanon, 380 people have been killed and over 1,100 wounded since a ceasefire took effect on April 17, including children, women, and two paramedics killed while responding to a strike in Nabatieh.
- Iran is expanding its military footprint, redefining the Strait of Hormuz as a vast operational zone, while Saudi Arabia has quietly carried out its first-ever direct strikes on Iranian soil.
- Congressional Republicans and Democrats alike are challenging the administration — questioning war authorization, NATO commitments, and the economic ruin facing American farmers and families if the strait stays closed.
- Iran has issued an ultimatum demanding acceptance of its 14-point peace plan, while Trump heads to Beijing insisting the situation is 'under control' and that preventing a nuclear Iran is the only consideration that matters.
On a Tuesday in May, the Pentagon's chief financial officer told Congress that the war on Iran had now cost twenty-nine billion dollars — four billion more than just two weeks prior. The increase reflected updated calculations on equipment repairs, replacements, and the sustained cost of keeping American forces in the region. When Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth was pressed on when Congress would receive a full accounting, he offered only that information would be shared 'when relevant and required,' visibly frustrating lawmakers already skeptical of the administration's narrative.
That skepticism deepened as classified intelligence assessments came into view. Far from being 'defeated very soundly,' as the president had repeatedly claimed, Iran had restored operational access to thirty of its thirty-three missile sites along the Strait of Hormuz. Trump's claim of a 'one hundred percent effective' naval blockade also rang hollow — the waterway had been effectively closed for over two months, choking global oil supplies and driving up costs for American consumers and farmers alike.
In Lebanon, the human toll continued to mount despite a ceasefire announced April 17. Israeli strikes had killed 380 people and wounded more than 1,100 since the truce took effect, including children, women, and two Civil Defence paramedics killed in Nabatieh while attempting to save a wounded person. Lebanon's health minister condemned the attacks as a 'complete disregard for all international norms.' The ceasefire agreement, brokered by Washington, had reserved Israel's right to respond to 'imminent threats' — a provision that had effectively kept the war alive.
Elsewhere, Iran declared the Strait of Hormuz a vastly expanded 'operational area,' and Saudi Arabia was revealed to have conducted its first-ever direct strikes on Iranian soil in late March — described by Western officials as retaliation for Iranian attacks on Saudi territory during the conflict.
In the congressional hearing, Republican Senator Lisa Murkowski challenged the White House's claim that the war was over, noting fifteen thousand troops remained deployed and twenty warships were still in position. Hegseth responded that the president held all necessary authority under Article II of the Constitution — a claim that sidestepped the constitutional requirement for congressional war declarations. Democratic Senator Chris Murphy warned that the Strait's closure was already bankrupting American farmers and families, and that time was not on the administration's side.
Iran's parliamentary speaker issued a stark ultimatum: accept Tehran's fourteen-point peace proposal or face continued failure. As Trump prepared to travel to Beijing for talks with Xi Jinping, he downplayed the summit's relevance to the Iran conflict and, when asked how the war's financial toll on Americans factored into his thinking, offered a single-minded answer: 'I don't think about anybody. I think about one thing. We cannot let Iran have a nuclear weapon. That's all.' Senior Republicans, meanwhile, pushed back on the administration's fraying relationship with NATO allies, warning that American power has always been strongest when exercised alongside the nations that share its commitments.
The Pentagon's chief financial officer sat before Congress on a Tuesday in May and delivered a number that had grown by four billion dollars in just two weeks. The war on Iran, he said, had now cost approximately twenty-nine billion dollars. The increase came from updated calculations on equipment repairs, replacement costs, and the ongoing expense of maintaining American military personnel in the region. Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, when pressed on when Congress would receive a full accounting of war expenditures, offered only that the administration would share information "when it is relevant and required"—a response that drew visible frustration from lawmakers already skeptical of the administration's claims about the conflict.
The hearing revealed a widening gap between what the Trump administration was saying about the war and what American intelligence agencies were actually telling policymakers behind closed doors. Classified assessments from early May showed that Iran had regained access to most of its missile sites, launchers, and underground facilities. Of the thirty-three missile sites Iran maintains along the Strait of Hormuz, intelligence indicated the country had restored operational access to thirty of them. This directly contradicted the president's repeated assertions that Iran's military had been "defeated very soundly." Trump had also claimed the American blockade of Iranian ports was "one hundred percent effective," yet the waterway remained effectively closed to shipping after more than two months of conflict, strangling global oil supplies and driving up prices across the United States.
On the ground in Lebanon, the human toll of the conflict continued to mount despite a ceasefire announced on April seventeenth. Israeli strikes in the south had killed three hundred eighty people and wounded more than eleven hundred since the truce took effect, according to Lebanon's health ministry. The toll included thirty-nine women and twenty-two children. On a single Tuesday in May, Israeli attacks killed thirteen people in southern Lebanon, among them two Civil Defence rescue workers who had responded to an earlier strike in the city of Nabatieh and a wounded person they were attempting to save. Lebanon's health minister called the attacks a "complete disregard for all international norms." The ceasefire agreement, brokered by Washington, had explicitly reserved Israel's right to respond to what it deemed "imminent threats," a provision that had effectively allowed military operations to continue.
Meanwhile, Iran was making its own territorial claims. A senior officer in the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps Navy announced that Iran had expanded its definition of the Strait of Hormuz into what he called a "vast operational area" far wider than the narrow stretch of water it had been before the war. The redefinition carried obvious military implications for any nation attempting to move cargo through one of the world's most critical shipping lanes. Saudi Arabia, for its part, had launched a series of unpublicized strikes on Iranian soil in late March, marking the first known instance of the kingdom directly carrying out military action against Iran. The attacks were described by Western officials briefed on the matter as "tit-for-tat" retaliation for Iranian strikes on Saudi territory during the war.
In Congress, the hearing exposed deep fractures in how lawmakers viewed the conflict. Republican Senator Lisa Murkowski of Alaska rejected the White House's assertion that the war was over, pointing out that fifteen thousand American troops remained forward deployed, more than twenty warships were in position, and an active naval blockade was in place. When she asked Defense Secretary Hegseth whether the Trump administration planned to seek congressional authorization to continue the war, he responded that the administration believed the president "has all the authorities he needs under Article II" of the Constitution. This invoked a constitutional provision that permits presidents to launch attacks only in self-defense against an immediate threat; otherwise, Congress alone holds the power to declare war. Trump had consistently claimed, without evidence, that Iran was planning to strike first and that the United States was therefore acting in self-defense.
Democratic Senator Chris Murphy warned Hegseth that the defense secretary was being "way too optimistic" about Iran capitulating to economic pressure. The closure of the Strait of Hormuz was bankrupting American farmers and families, Murphy said. "If this goes on for another thirty days, there are going to be thousands of more farms that will go bankrupt," he told the hearing. "There are going to be families that are going to be ruined. And so time is not on our side." Hegseth countered that the United States controlled the strait because "nothing's going in that we don't allow to go in," a claim that rang hollow given the waterway's effective closure for over two months.
Iran's chief negotiator issued an ultimatum: Washington must accept Tehran's fourteen-point peace proposal or face continued failure. "There is no alternative but to accept the rights of the Iranian people as laid out in the 14-point proposal," Iran's parliamentary speaker Mohammad Bagher Ghalibaf said. "Any other approach will be completely inconclusive; nothing but one failure after another." The statement came as President Trump prepared to depart for Beijing to meet with Chinese President Xi Jinping. Trump downplayed the importance of discussing Iran during the summit, saying the United States had the situation "very much under control." When asked how the war's impact on Americans' personal finances factored into his thinking on negotiations with Iran, Trump offered a stark response: "I don't think about anybody. I think about one thing. We cannot let Iran have a nuclear weapon. That's all."
Republican lawmakers also pushed back against the administration's strained relations with longtime NATO allies. Senator Mitch McConnell, the Republican chair of the Senate appropriations defense subcommittee, told Hegseth that "NATO is the most important military alliance in world history" and expressed concern that European countries believed the United States was reducing its commitment to the alliance. Representative Tom Cole of Oklahoma, the Republican chair of the House appropriations committee, added that "America First has never meant American alone," emphasizing that American power was most effective when exercised in concert with allied nations. The hearings made clear that the war's costs—both financial and diplomatic—were mounting faster than the administration's public messaging could contain.
Citações Notáveis
There is no alternative but to accept the rights of the Iranian people as laid out in the 14-point proposal. Any other approach will be completely inconclusive; nothing but one failure after another.— Mohammad Bagher Ghalibaf, Iran's parliamentary speaker
If this goes on for another thirty days, there are going to be thousands of more farms that will go bankrupt. There are going to be families that are going to be ruined. And so time is not on our side.— Senator Chris Murphy, warning Defense Secretary Hegseth about economic damage
A Conversa do Hearth Outra perspectiva sobre a história
Why does the Pentagon's number keep changing? Is this just accounting catching up, or is something else happening?
Both, really. They're discovering new costs as the war drags on—equipment breaks down faster than expected, people need to be rotated in and out, supply lines get longer. But the bigger issue is that the administration keeps saying the war is over while spending like it's just beginning.
The intelligence agencies are saying Iran still has most of its missile sites operational. How does that square with what Trump is claiming?
It doesn't. The classified assessments show Iran rebuilt faster than anyone expected. But the administration has a political need to declare victory, so there's this strange moment where the public story and the secret story have completely diverged.
Three hundred eighty people dead in Lebanon since the ceasefire started. How is that even possible if there's a ceasefire?
Because the ceasefire agreement lets Israel respond to "imminent threats." That's vague enough to justify almost anything. So technically there's a ceasefire, but the fighting hasn't really stopped.
Congress seems genuinely worried about the economic damage—farmers going bankrupt, gas prices. Why isn't that moving the needle with the administration?
Because the administration's priority is Iran's nuclear program, not the price of diesel fuel. Trump said it plainly: he doesn't think about Americans' financial situation. He thinks about one thing. That's the entire calculus.
What's the real question Congress should be asking but isn't?
Whether the president actually has the authority to wage this war without a declaration from Congress. He's claiming self-defense, but there's no evidence Iran was about to strike. That's the constitutional question that keeps getting buried under the cost arguments.