US has spent $12bn on Iran war, White House economic chief says, as Pentagon signals escalation

Kevin Hassett gives latest cost since Feb. 28 joint US-Israel strikes; Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth says bombing of Iran is “about to surge dramatically”

Standfirst: The Trump administration faces growing questions over the war’s price tag and purpose. Markets remain on edge over possible Strait of Hormuz disruptions, while Senate Democrats warn of “mission creep.”

The United States has spent $12bn on its war against Iran since launching joint strikes with Israel on February 28, White House National Economic Council Director Kevin Hassett said Sunday on CBS’s Face the Nation.

Hassett presented the figure as the latest cost he had been briefed on to date. He later clarified mid-interview after initially appearing to frame it as a projected total for the entire conflict. CBS anchor Margaret Brennan noted more than $5bn in munitions alone was spent in the first week, a challenge Hassett did not directly address.

Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth, meanwhile, said the bombardment of Iran is “about to surge dramatically,” a signal that costs are likely to rise further.

What is confirmed

• Hassett said US war spending has reached $12bn since February 28.
• He made the comments on CBS’s Face the Nation on Sunday.
• Defense Secretary Hegseth said the campaign against Iran is set to intensify.
• At least 1,444 people have been killed in Iran since strikes began; 13 US soldiers have been killed and more than 140 wounded. The source of the casualty figures was not provided.
• The fighting has spread to Lebanon, and Gulf countries continue to face repeated drone strikes by Iran.
• Some countries, including India, have begun negotiating directly with Tehran to secure tanker passage through the Strait of Hormuz.

Official response

Hassett played down the war’s threat to the US economy, saying financial markets pricing future energy contracts anticipate a swift resolution and lower energy prices, despite consumer concern about rising fuel costs at the pump. “America is not going to have its economy harmed by what the Iranians are doing,” he said, adding that unlike the 1970s, the US is now a major producer. “We have lots and lots of oil.”

He argued any disruption to Gulf shipping would hurt countries more dependent on the region’s oil than the US. Markets remain jittery after Iranian threats to the Strait of Hormuz, through which about 20 percent of the world’s oil supplies pass.

The administration’s stated objectives for the campaign have shifted in recent weeks, from dismantling Iran’s nuclear programme, to degrading its missiles, to threatening its oil infrastructure over shipping through the Strait of Hormuz.

What is not yet known

• How fast the total cost will climb as operations “surge.”
• The administration’s definitive, consistent end goal for the campaign.
• The extent of any near-term disruption to traffic through the Strait of Hormuz.
• The original source for the reported casualty figures in Iran.

Why it matters

The $12bn figure underscores the accelerating financial burden of the conflict even as the White House argues the macroeconomic impact on the US will be limited. Any prolonged threat to the Strait of Hormuz could roil global energy markets and strain economies far more reliant on Gulf crude, while widening hostilities — already reaching Lebanon and prompting drone strikes in Gulf states — risk a broader regional escalation.

What happens next

Hegseth’s warning of a coming surge suggests intensified strikes in the near term. On Capitol Hill, skepticism is mounting. After a classified briefing in early March, Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer said he was “truly worried about mission creep,” calling the session “very unsatisfying” and saying the administration gave “different answers every day” on why the strikes were ordered. Last week, Senator Chris Van Hollen told Al Jazeera the US had taken “the lid off Pandora’s box without any idea where this will land.”

Diplomatically, countries such as India are seeking direct arrangements with Tehran to protect shipping, signaling cracks in Washington’s ability to coordinate a global response as the costs, casualties, and strategic risks of the campaign grow.

Not provided.