According to The Wall Street Journal, the Pentagon is concerned that Iran’s missile and drone attacks could inflict up to $15 billion in damage to U.S. military installations in the Middle East. The newspaper, citing intelligence sources and satellite imagery analysis, found that 274 structures across 24 facilities housing U.S. personnel have sustained damage. In the first two weeks of hostilities alone, at least 119 buildings and 13 installations were destroyed, with the U.S. Navy’s Fifth Fleet headquarters in Bahrain suffering the most severe impact.

The report indicates that Iran launched retaliatory strikes on February 28, following U.S.-Israeli operations. A senior U.S. official stated that the Pentagon estimates the damage from Iran’s aerial assaults at a minimum of $5 billion, while another source suggested the figure could reach as high as $15 billion. These costs continue to escalate the Pentagon’s war expenditure, which has now approached $50 billion.

Many of the damaged facilities are shared with regional allies, meaning partner nations may bear part of the repair expenses. The report also notes that the Pentagon may opt not to restore certain infrastructure and is currently assessing a potential withdrawal from some installations in Kuwait and Saudi Arabia, aiming to reduce the exposure of personnel to attack. Iran previously demanded a complete U.S. withdrawal from the region as a precondition for lasting peace.

Meanwhile, Iran is reportedly rapidly restoring missile production facilities and recovering buried weapon stockpiles. President Trump is weighing whether to continue military operations, but U.S. inventory of interceptors remains constrained. Defense Secretary Hegseth has downplayed Iran’s military capabilities. Democratic Senator Murphy accused the administration of attempting to “obscure the true cost of war,” citing his denial of access to Al Udeid Air Base in Qatar; the Pentagon attributed the restriction to regional travel protocols.

The latest Pentagon assessment provided to Congress states that by October 16, the conflict with Iran had resulted in $47.1 billion in costs—excluding base damage—comprising approximately $29 billion in munitions replacement, $11.9 billion in operational expenses, and $6.1 billion in equipment losses. The U.S. military acknowledged 23 fatalities during related operations, including 11 killed by enemy fire, and 865 wounded.

What stands out most in this reporting is not the figure of $15 billion itself, but the broader shift in war costs—from ammunition and operations to base reconstruction, burden-sharing with allies, and strategic withdrawal. The Pentagon’s reported $47.1 billion does not include base damage, suggesting that publicly disclosed figures may significantly understate actual expenditures. When combined with the potential $15 billion in base-related losses, total costs approaching or exceeding $50 billion would be neither surprising nor unprecedented.

Secondly, the consideration of withdrawing from certain facilities in Kuwait and Saudi Arabia, and even declining to repair some damaged infrastructure, reflects a recalibration of the risks and costs associated with forward-deployed forces. The more dispersed and numerous the bases, the heavier the defensive burden becomes. A shortage of interceptors further implies that continued strikes will only amplify financial strain. Iran’s reported progress in rebuilding missile infrastructure also underscores that military strikes may not decisively weaken adversaries, potentially trapping the region in a cycle of retaliation and renewed strikes.

More fundamentally, the issue of transparency and oversight has come into focus. Senator Murphy’s criticism, triggered by denied access to Al Udeid Air Base, highlights growing concerns over the government’s opacity regarding war costs. While the Pentagon attributes the access denial to regional travel restrictions, such disputes erode public and congressional confidence in military engagements. War is not measured solely by battlefield outcomes—it must also account for fiscal burden, alliance dynamics, casualties, and exit strategies. Without clear objectives and a defined path to de-escalation, the financial toll will continue to grow, and cost-sharing among allies may evolve into new sources of political friction.

Original article: toutiao.com/article/1880699620607179/

Disclaimer: The views expressed in this article are those of the author.