# Kelly demolishes Hegseth over the real cost of the Iran war

> Introduction: a hearing that shook the Pentagon

- Author: Maxime Marquette
- Publisher: MadMax (https://mad-max.co)
- Section: Analysis
- Published: 2026-07-03
- Canonical URL: https://mad-max.co/en/article/analyse-kelly-demolit-hegseth-sur-le-vrai-cout-de-la-guerre-en-iran

## Key takeaways

- The Pentagon reportedly put the war's cost at about $25 billion, a figure Hegseth confirmed in April 2026, though it may not capture indirect costs of rebuilding stockpiles.
- Kelly criticized Hegseth at an April 30, 2026 hearing in the context of a $1.5 trillion military budget request.
- Defense experts cited in the article said munitions were drawn down faster than US industry can produce them.
- Hegseth defended the operation as a total military victory, citing more than 15,000 targets struck, while Iran continued sporadic attacks in the Strait of Hormuz.
- The author argues that historical US wars show initial cost estimates tend to be underestimated, and that the debate has implications for Ukraine and for European defense autonomy.

## Introduction: a hearing that shook the Pentagon

### A clash that goes beyond simple political theater

**Arizona** Democratic senator **Mark Kelly**, a former astronaut and Navy veteran, grilled Defense Secretary **Pete Hegseth** without mercy over the real cost of the **Iran war**, including depleted missile **stockpiles** and the years needed to rebuild the **munitions** already used. This hearing, widely shared online, exposed what this war has really cost the American people, far beyond the official figures put forward by the **Pentagon**.

This confrontation is no mere partisan rhetorical exercise: **Kelly**, who sits on the **Senate** Armed Services Committee, brings direct military expertise that gives particular weight to his technical questions about **munitions**, strategic **stockpiles**, and the American arsenal's industrial regeneration capacity.

### Why this hearing deserves your attention

This story illustrates a deep tension within the American national security apparatus itself: between an executive branch claiming a total military victory over **Iran**, and members of **Congress**, including some Republicans, who worry about the real price paid by taxpayers and the state of America's strategic reserves over the medium term.

## The $25 billion figure at the heart of the debate

### An estimate that keeps climbing

According to the **New York Times**, the **Pentagon** put the cost of the **Iran war**, dubbed **Operation Epic Fury**, at roughly **$25 billion**, a figure **Hegseth** himself confirmed during a hearing in **April 2026**. That already staggering figure does not necessarily account for all the indirect costs tied to rebuilding the **munitions** **stockpiles** used during the conflict.

Other estimates, notably those cited during a House hearing on **May 12, 2026**, put the figure slightly lower at around **$24 billion**, illustrating the persistent imprecision of official estimates for a conflict whose exact scope remains difficult for the public to fully grasp.

### What these figures don't say

These amounts do not necessarily account for the long-term cost of rebuilding stockpiles of precision-guided missiles and **munitions**, an industrial process that, according to several military procurement experts, could take several years given the current production capacity of the American defense industry.

## Kelly and his direct military expertise

### A veteran who knows the difference between rhetoric and operational reality

**Mark Kelly**, a former Navy combat pilot and **NASA** astronaut, brings a technical credibility to these hearings that few of his fellow senators can claim. His ability to ask precise questions about **munitions** **stockpiles** and industrial rebuilding timelines goes well beyond the usual register of partisan political attack.

At the **April 30, 2026** hearing, reported by **CNN** and **KJZZ**, **Kelly** directly criticized **Hegseth**'s leadership in the broader context of a **$1.5 trillion** military **budget** request, a colossal sum that, in his view, demands far more rigorous accountability than the **Pentagon** has offered so far.

### The "no quarter" phrase that stuck

The expression **"No Quarter,"** invoked in the context of this confrontation, refers to the lack of any letup or leniency in the questions **Kelly** posed to **Hegseth** and General **Dan Caine**, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, about the real management of military resources deployed during the Iranian conflict.

## What the hearing reveals about the real state of American stockpiles

### Precision-guided munitions in limited supply

Several defense experts cited during these successive hearings pointed out that American **stockpiles** of precision-guided **munitions**, notably missile interceptors and certain types of cruise missiles, had been drawn down at a pace that far exceeds the American defense industry's current annual production capacity.

This industrial reality raises a major strategic question: if the United States had to simultaneously face an escalation with **China** or a major crisis involving **North Korea**, the reduced availability of certain critical **stockpiles**, already strained by the Iranian conflict, could constitute a significant strategic vulnerability.

### General Caine confirms logistical strains

General **Dan Caine**, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, himself acknowledged during several briefings that certain **munitions** **stockpiles** had been used at an intense pace during the operation, without however providing precise, verifiable figures on the exact timeline for fully rebuilding these strategic reserves.

## Hegseth's defense against the criticism

### A total military victory claimed without nuance

**Pete Hegseth** has consistently defended the record of **Operation Epic Fury**, claiming American and Israeli forces struck more than **15,000 targets** in **Iran**, destroying, in his telling, most of the Iranian regime's military capabilities, including its navy, a large share of its air defenses, and its ballistic missile production facilities.

This rhetoric of total victory, hammered home at every **Pentagon** briefing, nonetheless contrasts with the persistence of documented tensions in the **Strait of Hormuz**, where **Iran** has continued sporadic attacks on commercial vessels well after the official ceasefire declaration.

### The refusal to acknowledge the real cost

**Hegseth** has regularly downplayed questions about the conflict's financial and logistical cost, preferring to emphasize operational results over the long-term budgetary implications for American taxpayers and for military readiness in other potential theaters of confrontation.

## What this means for the posture toward China

### Beijing is watching this budget controversy closely

**China**, which I consider the greatest long-term structural threat to the **West**, is watching this debate over the depletion of American **munitions** **stockpiles** with clear strategic interest. Any documented vulnerability in America's industrial regeneration capacity is valuable information for Beijing as it plans its own strategy around **Taiwan**.

This dynamic reinforces the urgency, for the United States and its Western allies, of investing massively in reviving their defense industrial base, rather than settling for celebrating one-off tactical victories without structural reinvestment in long-term production capacity.

### A strategic lesson that goes beyond the Iranian case alone

This **budget** debate, though rooted in the specific context of the Iranian conflict, reveals a broader structural weakness in the Western defense industrial apparatus in the face of coordinated revisionist adversaries: **China**, **Russia**, **Iran**, and **North Korea**, each of which could exploit these documented vulnerabilities to its own strategic advantage.

## Congress's role in military accountability

### An essential but often underrated function

The work carried out by senators like **Mark Kelly**, regardless of party affiliation, illustrates an essential function of the American **Congress**: demanding rigorous accountability from the executive branch over the use of military and financial resources committed to conflicts abroad, even when those conflicts are presented as unquestionable successes.

This parliamentary oversight function, however imperfect and politically charged it can sometimes be, remains an essential democratic mechanism that fundamentally distinguishes the United States from authoritarian regimes where no elected body can seriously challenge the executive's military decisions.

### Why this oversight must stay bipartisan

It is essential that this kind of parliamentary oversight not become a one-sided partisan exercise. Republican representatives, notably during certain House hearings, have also voiced similar concerns about costs and **stockpiles**, showing that this worry crosses traditional party lines.

## What this reveals about Hegseth's management of the Pentagon

### A communication style that favors assertion over nuance

**Pete Hegseth**'s communication style, marked by martial declarations and punchy soundbites rather than detailed **budget** transparency, fits a broader pattern of managing the **Pentagon** that favors an image of strength over the rigorous technical accountability demanded by some members of **Congress**.

This approach, while it may appeal to a segment of the public seeking firmness against America's adversaries, nonetheless exposes the administration to legitimate criticism over its lack of transparency regarding real costs and persistent strategic vulnerabilities.

### The difficult balance between firmness and transparency

Finding the balance between the necessary firmness against the **West**'s strategic adversaries and sufficient **budget** transparency to allow for real democratic oversight is one of the central challenges of the **Pentagon**'s current management under **Hegseth**.

## The comparison with previous American wars

### What American military budget history teaches

The **budget** history of recent American conflicts, from **Iraq** to **Afghanistan**, shows a recurring tendency to initially underestimate the total costs of military engagements, before successive upward revisions reveal the real scale of spending committed over years, even decades.

This historical pattern calls for caution regarding the current **$25 billion** figure put forward for the **Iran war**: experience suggests the final cost, including the full rebuilding of strategic **stockpiles**, could prove significantly higher over the long run.

### Why this historical caution should guide current analysis

Lawmakers who, like **Kelly**, insist on obtaining longer-term budget projections are relying precisely on this historical lesson: the initial costs announced at the start of a conflict almost systematically underestimate the total financial burden that will ultimately fall on American taxpayers.

## The impact on Western support for Ukraine

### Resources that could be diverted from Kyiv

This debate over the depletion of American **munitions** **stockpiles** tied to the Iranian conflict raises a legitimate concern for observers of the Ukrainian file: any additional strain on American defense industrial capacity could, over time, further complicate **Washington**'s ability to maintain a steady flow of weapons to **Kyiv** in its existential fight against the Russian invasion.

This potential competition between different theaters of confrontation for limited military resources illustrates the urgency, for the entire **West**, of massively accelerating investment in its own defense industrial base, rather than relying exclusively on existing **stockpiles** to handle simultaneous crises.

### Why Ukraine must never become an adjustment variable

**Volodymyr Zelensky** and the Ukrainian people must never become the **budget** adjustment variable for other American geopolitical priorities, however legitimate those priorities may be. Support for **Ukraine** against **Vladimir Putin**'s aggression must remain a constant priority, regardless of budget tensions tied to other theaters of American military engagement.

## What Western allies are watching with concern

### An American dependency that raises questions about European capacity

This American **budget** debate also quietly underscores the persistent inadequacy of European defense industrial capacity, which remains heavily dependent on American production for certain critical types of **munitions**, a strategic vulnerability European leaders still struggle to correct despite repeated announcements of increased defense budgets.

This structural dependency on the United States, already concerning in normal times, would become potentially critical if **Washington**, for its own budgetary or strategic reasons, had to reduce weapons deliveries to European allies engaged in supporting **Ukraine**.

### The urgency of strengthened European strategic autonomy

This situation reinforces the argument, already made by several European leaders, in favor of a significant acceleration of the continent's industrial strategic autonomy, so as to no longer depend exclusively on internal American budget decisions to ensure its own collective security against **Russia**.

## The precedent this hearing sets for the future

### A model of parliamentary oversight worth replicating

This hearing between **Mark Kelly** and **Pete Hegseth** could set a useful precedent for future military **budget** confrontations, demonstrating that rigorous, technically informed parliamentary oversight remains possible, even against an executive branch not naturally inclined toward spontaneous transparency on these sensitive issues.

Other senators, across the political spectrum, could draw on this methodical, technically grounded approach to demand, in future similar cases, more rigorous accountability from the Defense Department over the use of public resources committed to conflicts abroad.

### What this means for American democratic credibility

This kind of precedent, however technical and **budget**-focused it may appear, actually strengthens the overall democratic credibility of the United States against authoritarian regimes that have no comparable mechanism of parliamentary oversight over their own military spending, which is often far more opaque and considerable.

## What this story reveals about the Pentagon's culture of secrecy

### An administration that prefers messaging to transparency

This **budget** debate fits into a broader pattern of information management at the **Pentagon** under **Hegseth**, marked by a systematic preference for offensive messaging over the detailed documentary transparency demanded by some members of **Congress**. This approach has already drawn criticism well beyond the Iranian case alone, notably over the handling of military promotions and successive firings within the senior leadership.

This tendency to favor martial assertion over rigorous documentation ultimately undermines **Congress**'s and the public's trust in the figures put forward by the Defense Department, even when those figures might, in substance, prove largely accurate.

### Why institutional trust is built on transparency

An institution as central as the **Pentagon** cannot afford, in the long run, to operate solely on the blind trust demanded of its elected officials and citizens. Documentary transparency, however politically uncomfortable, remains the only durable path to maintaining the democratic legitimacy of the colossal military spending committed in the name of national security.

## What this means for future military engagement decisions

### A precedent that should weigh on future decisions

This debate over the real cost of the **Iran war** should, logically, weigh on future American military engagement decisions, by imposing a more rigorous prior **budget** review before any new large-scale engagement, rather than an after-the-fact justification of costs already committed to a **Congress** presented with a fait accompli.

This demand for prior **budget** rigor should nonetheless never serve as a pretext to delay or weaken necessary military support to strategic allies like **Ukraine**, whose resistance against **Vladimir Putin** directly serves the collective security interests of the entire **West**.

### The necessary balance between rigor and strategic responsiveness

Finding this balance between strengthened **budget** rigor and the strategic responsiveness needed against multiple, simultaneous threats, from **Russia** to **China** to **Iran** and **North Korea**, is one of the major structural challenges facing American defense policy in the years ahead.

## Conclusion: what this budget confrontation should inspire

### A vigilance that must go beyond the Iranian case alone

This hearing between **Mark Kelly** and **Pete Hegseth** goes well beyond the sole framework of the Iranian conflict: it raises fundamental questions about military **budget** transparency, Western defense industrial resilience, and the American **Congress**'s ability to exercise real oversight over an executive branch sometimes reluctant to provide precise, verifiable accounting.

These questions, however technical and budget-focused they may seem, have direct implications for the **West**'s future ability to simultaneously support **Ukraine** against **Russia** and effectively deter **China**, **Iran**, and **North Korea** from future military adventures.

### What the coming months should reveal

The coming months should reveal, through new budget hearings and inspector general reports, the real, final scale of this war's cost to American taxpayers, as well as the actual timeline for rebuilding the critical strategic **stockpiles** essential to long-term Western defense posture.

**By Maxime Marquette, columnist**

## Columnist's transparency note

### Editorial stance

I am not a journalist but a **columnist and analyst**. My expertise lies in observing and analysing the geopolitical, economic and strategic dynamics that shape our world. My work is to take political strategies apart, to understand global economic movements, to put the decisions of international actors in context and to offer analytical perspectives on the changes that are redefining our societies.

I do not claim the cold objectivity of traditional journalism, which stops at reporting facts. **I claim analytical clarity**, rigorous interpretation and a deep understanding of the complex issues that concern us all. My role is to give meaning to the facts, to place them in their historical and strategic context, and to offer a critical reading of events.

### Method and sources

This text keeps the basic distinction between **verified facts and interpretive analysis**. The rule never changes: a factual claim is published only when a verifiable source supports it, and the sources this article actually used are listed under **Sources**, never here.

**Primary source families** used by the publication, when the story has them: official statements from governments and international institutions, public statements by political leaders, reports from intergovernmental organisations, dispatches from recognised international news agencies.

**Secondary source families**: specialised publications, internationally recognised news media, analyses from established research institutions, reports from industry organisations.

When an article cites statistical, economic or geopolitical data, it comes from the institutions that produce it (intergovernmental organisations, central banks, national statistics offices), and the exact institution is named under **Sources**.

### Nature of the analysis

The analyses, interpretations and perspectives in the analytical sections of this article are a **critical, contextual synthesis** based on the information available, the trends observed and the expert comments cited in the sources consulted.

My role is to interpret these facts, to set them in the context of today's geopolitical and economic dynamics, and to give them a coherent meaning within the larger story of the changes shaping our time. These analyses reflect expertise built through continuous observation of international affairs and an understanding of the strategic mechanisms that drive global actors.

This article describes a documented state of affairs on its publication date, not a prediction: later developments may shift its outlook. No update is promised in advance; when an article is corrected or completed, the change is dated in the text.

## Sources

### Primary sources

- [YouTube — Kelly DESTROYS Hegseth Over IRAN WAR Costs And 'No Quarter' — June 28, 2026](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cwdHeMcLRDs)

- [The New York Times — Pentagon Puts Iran War Cost at $25 Billion as Hegseth Berates Skeptics — April 29, 2026](https://www.nytimes.com/2026/04/29/us/politics/hegseth-iran-war-cost.html)

- [KJZZ — Kelly criticizes Hegseth's leadership amid $1.5 trillion military budget request hearing — April 30, 2026](https://www.kjzz.org/text/politics/2026-04-30/kelly-criticizes-hegseths-leadership-amid-1-5-trillion-military-budget-request-hearing)

### Secondary sources

- [YouTube — additional coverage of the Kelly-Hegseth hearing on Iran war costs — June 28, 2026](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uTcIcZZBoLo)

- [Associated Press — The Latest: Hegseth faces a new round of questioning from Congress on the Iran war — May 12, 2026](https://apnews.com/158574195f3fe49ad48388406916d181)

- [Arizona Daily Star — Kelly rips into Hegseth in tense Senate hearing — May 1, 2026](https://tucson.com/news/nation-world/government-politics/article_a7b4b500-9030-4ad4-8f2d-5baf271757f4.html)

---

Source: Maxime Marquette, MadMax. When citing, name the author and link https://mad-max.co/en/article/analyse-kelly-demolit-hegseth-sur-le-vrai-cout-de-la-guerre-en-iran