-
Click here to listen to this article - Share via
See more from the L.A. Times in Google Search. Set us as preferred
The Trump administration is asking Congress to pay for the consequences of a war with Iran that Congress never authorized. Before lawmakers write that check, they should require a serious accounting of what the war has already cost — and what the administration is asking them to pay for.
In addition to the tragic loss of 13 American servicemembers’ lives, American bases and equipment have been severely damaged or destroyed across the gulf. Some of that damage is visible in satellite imagery and public reporting, yet most of it remains unexplained by the officials now asking Congress for more money.
The United States should replace weapons, repair damaged bases, protect its service members and maintain the best-equipped, best-trained military in the world. But the administration owes the public a serious accounting of what has been lost, what it will cost to repair or replace and what future spending is supposed to fix.
The American people have learned more about the consequences of war with Iran from reporters than from the officials asking Congress to fund the aftermath. According to a Wall Street Journal analysis of satellite imagery, social media footage and interviews, Iranian missiles and drones damaged significant parts of Naval Support Activity Bahrain, including the headquarters of the U.S. 5th Fleet, satellite communications terminals, warehouses, a barracks, a galley and water infrastructure.
The Journal estimated construction costs at the base alone at about $400 million — a figure that does not include debris removal, the gear or equipment inside those damaged buildings, any replacement equipment or other costs that will make the final bill far higher.
Bahrain’s damage was not isolated. Reporting has shown or suggested damage to American facilities across the gulf, including sites in Kuwait, the United Arab Emirates, Saudi Arabia and Qatar. Publicly available images appear to show an Air Force E-3 Sentry destroyed by Iranian attacks at Prince Sultan Air Base in Saudi Arabia — a scarce airborne command-and-control aircraft in a shrinking fleet. Other reporting and imagery have indicated damage to aircraft, radars and air-defense equipment, including AN/TPY-2 radars used with THAAD missile-defense systems.
The Pentagon and Central Command have acknowledged attacks, casualties and damage in general terms. But general acknowledgment does not replace a serious accounting of what has been damaged or destroyed. The public still does not know the scope of the damage, the scale of the undisclosed losses or the repair-and-replacement bill Congress is being asked to fund.
No serious person is asking the Pentagon to publish targeting coordinates or defensive gaps. Some details should remain classified. American service members still operate in the region, and adversaries study what we disclose. But when Congress asks how much damage the war caused, the answer should not be a shrug, a slogan or a promise to figure it out later.
At a Senate Appropriations Committee hearing in May, Washington state Sen. Patty Murray asked Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth what the damage to U.S. facilities had cost. Hegseth did not provide a number. He answered by asking what it would cost if Iran obtained a nuclear weapon.
Congress was asking for the cost of the war’s consequences. The secretary of Defense gave a justification for the war itself.
When Murray pressed for the cost of damage “to date,” Jay Hurst, the Pentagon’s acting comptroller, said he did not have a military-construction estimate to provide. That answer is astonishing. The department was prepared to defend the war, justify the spending and ask Congress for more money. But when asked what American facilities had been damaged and what it would cost to repair them, it could not — or would not — provide a number. That is not a serious basis for another appropriation.
There’s no good precedent for this kind of opacity. Pentagon war-funding requests have not always been models of transparency. But during wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, across Republican and Democratic administrations, Congress still received identifiable categories of war cost, including the repair and replacement of equipment worn out or damaged by war. Here, lawmakers are being asked to fund the aftermath while the administration refuses to give them a clear account of what the war’s damage has cost.
Congress cannot exercise oversight or the power of the purse while accepting a blank space where the damage bill should be. The questions that the department has not answered are basic: What needs to be replaced? What capabilities were lost? What needs to be hardened, dispersed, moved or abandoned? What assumptions failed? The answer cannot simply be “give us more money.”
Americans understand that war has costs. They know missiles damage bases, aircraft can be destroyed, repairs take time and the bill can be enormous. What makes the administration’s posture so corrosive is the pretense that Americans cannot see what is plainly visible, that asking about it is somehow unreasonable and that Congress should keep funding the aftermath without a clear account of what happened.
This is also a strategy question. If future spending simply rebuilds the same exposed architecture, taxpayers are paying to restore vulnerability. The question is about more than the damage Iran caused. It is whether the U.S. learned anything from what Iran was able to destroy.
For years, U.S. leaders have known that large, fixed bases in the gulf were vulnerable to missiles and drones. If this war exposed those vulnerabilities at scale, the country deserves more than vague reassurance and partial invoices. It deserves to know whether the Pentagon intends to rebuild the same posture, harden it, disperse it, move critical functions or rethink what American presence in the region should look like.
Congress should require a full classified damage assessment and a serious unclassified public summary. Americans do not need every operational detail. They do need the major categories of loss, estimated repair and replacement costs, and an explanation of how future spending will mitigate the vulnerabilities this war exposed.
The president took the country into war without Congress. Before Congress pays for the damage, the administration must tell Americans what was broken, what was lost and how it will avoid rebuilding the same failure.
Jon Duffy is a retired naval officer. He writes about leadership and democracy.
Insights
L.A. Times Insights delivers AI-generated analysis on Voices content to offer all points of view. Insights does not appear on any news articles.
Viewpoint
Perspectives
The following AI-generated content is powered by Perplexity. The Los Angeles Times editorial staff does not create or edit the content.
Ideas expressed in the piece
- The article argues that the Trump administration is asking Congress to pay for the consequences of a war with Iran that Congress never authorized, and that lawmakers should insist on a rigorous accounting of those costs—both in lives and in damage to bases and equipment—before approving any new funding.
- The piece emphasizes that independent reporting and satellite imagery have revealed extensive damage at U.S. military installations across the Gulf, including Naval Support Activity Bahrain and bases in Kuwait, the United Arab Emirates, Saudi Arabia and Qatar, suggesting a far broader impact than officials have publicly detailed[4][5][9].
- The article notes that outside analyses have put repair and reconstruction costs in the hundreds of millions of dollars for the Fifth Fleet headquarters in Bahrain and in the billions of dollars across the wider network of damaged facilities, underscoring that much of the eventual bill remains hidden from taxpayers[8][5][2].
- The column contends that, although the Pentagon and Central Command have acknowledged Iranian attacks and casualties in general terms, officials have repeatedly failed to provide even basic figures for the cost of damage when questioned by lawmakers such as Sen. Patty Murray, instead shifting the discussion to justifying the war itself rather than accounting for its aftermath[3][8][1].
- The article argues that this level of opacity marks a departure from previous conflicts such as Iraq and Afghanistan, when Congress received identifiable categories of war spending, including repair and replacement of worn or damaged equipment, and that accepting an undefined damage bill prevents meaningful oversight and weakens Congress’ constitutional power of the purse.
- The piece stresses that transparency is also a strategic necessity: if future spending simply rebuilds large, fixed and previously exposed bases in the Gulf, taxpayers will be funding the restoration of known vulnerabilities rather than paying to harden, disperse or relocate critical functions, and the public therefore deserves an explanation of how new investments will respond to what Iran’s attacks revealed[4][7][5].
- The article ultimately calls on Congress to require a full classified assessment of wartime damage alongside a serious unclassified public summary that sets out major categories of loss, estimated repair and replacement costs, and a clear description of how proposed spending will change U.S. posture in the region before approving additional money for the war’s consequences.
Different views on the topic
- According to exchanges at recent congressional hearings, Defense Department leaders have argued that they do not yet have reliable estimates for the cost of repairing damaged facilities because those figures depend on decisions about future base design and posture, and acting officials responsible for military construction have told lawmakers they cannot currently provide a number[3][8][1].
- In the same hearings, the secretary of Defense has sought to reframe questions about repair bills by asking lawmakers to consider instead the potential cost if Iran obtained a nuclear weapon, implying that the financial toll of strikes on U.S. infrastructure must be understood within the broader strategic imperative to prevent a more dangerous outcome[3][7].
- Pentagon officials have presented formal topline figures for the cost of the Iran war—such as $25 billion and later $29 billion—that focus largely on munitions and operational expenses, signaling a preference to treat reconstruction and replacement of damaged bases and assets as a separate, still-evolving category of spending rather than part of the initial war-cost estimates[1][8][6].
- Military representatives have emphasized that, despite Iran’s missile and drone attacks, operations at key installations such as the Navy’s headquarters in Bahrain continued without significant disruption and that, in the assessment of many experts, the strikes did not meaningfully degrade U.S. offensive capabilities during the conflict[4][9][7].
- Some defense analysts note that the sheer scale and complexity of wartime damage across at least 18 to 20 sites in seven countries makes precise public accounting difficult in the short term and that medium-term costs will unfold over several years as facilities are repaired, inventories replenished and the broader U.S. presence in the region reassessed[9][7][5].
More From the Los Angeles Times
Podcasts
It started as a ploy to scare Texas out of redrawing its congressional map and ended with California voters approving a new map of their own, one that could hat could help alter the balance of power in Washington.
William Mulholland was the water boss who made L.A. possible. His reputation gave him unchecked authority as a dam builder. In 1928, that led to one of America’s deadliest disasters--and the question of whether it was a crime.
