Costs of US-Iran War Continue to Climb: CBO Report Reveals at Least 81 US Military Aircraft Damaged; Democrats Denounce It as an "Unauthorized War of Choice"

According to Al Jazeera reporting, a report released by the US Congressional Budget Office (CBO) on October 6 disclosed that in the war launched by the United States and Israel against Iran this year on February 28 (US codename "Operation Epic Fury"), at least 81 US military aircraft have been lost or damaged, with losses estimated at between $1.9 billion and $3.3 billion.

The report stated that the damaged equipment includes 12 F-15E Strike Eagle fighter jets, 1 F-35A Lightning II fighter jet, 7 KC-135 aerial refueling aircraft, and 45 MQ-9 Reaper drones. Al Jazeera, citing the report's contents, pointed out that this conflict, which has now lasted eight months, has yet to achieve a lasting ceasefire.

Harlan Ullman, former Navy servicemember and current chairman of the Kilovolt Group, told Al Jazeera in an analysis that the asymmetry of the war demonstrates that even militarily limited small nations can inflict substantial blows on the most powerful military in the world. He pointed out that Iran has achieved certain results in degrading US military hardware and Middle Eastern bases, stating: "Iran has a large number of US targets available to strike, and you can imagine what a small drone can do to a major military asset. We have already witnessed such examples in conflicts in Gulf countries."

The proliferation of drone threats has also manifested within British territory. According to reports, due to concerns over potential Iranian drone attacks, the United States suddenly relocated on Sunday more than a dozen military aircraft deployed at Britain's RAF Fairford base, including B-1 bombers previously stationed in the UK. Ullman drew parallels between this move and Ukraine's "Operation Spider Web" deployments against Russian territory, arguing that small drones have compelled large militaries to shift into a defensive stance.

Another CBO report from September estimated that as of August 1, the total cost of the US-Iran war was approximately $38 billion, primarily covering ammunition and equipment replacement, fuel costs, and other operational expenses. The report noted that each additional month of conflict would consume an extra $2 billion; if the intensity returns to July levels, monthly costs would rise to $3 billion.

Al Jazeera pointed out that since the above figures do not encompass broader military operation expenses, the actual total cost may be higher. When asked by Al Jazeera whether the equipment losses were within expectations and their impact on the defense budget, the Pentagon stated that it had "no additional information to provide."

Meanwhile, the war's economic spillover effects are triggering political backlash within the United States. Al Jazeera disclosed that the Trump administration has requested a record-breaking $1.5 trillion defense budget for fiscal year 2027, citing the Iran war as justification. This figure has drawn fierce questioning from congressional Democrats.

Last month, 45 Senate Democrats, together with one independent senator, wrote to Defense Secretary Hegseth demanding "detailed account disclosure" of war costs, stating that Congress should not consider further supplemental appropriations until this is provided. The letter stated: "American taxpayers have already shelled out an extra $100 billion out of their own pockets just from rising gasoline and diesel prices, and have additionally borne at least $60 billion from rising costs of other living expenses including food, mortgages, and airline tickets." The lawmakers stated bluntly: "Now you are asking them to dig into their pockets again to fund a war of choice that Congress never authorized and that the president launched without any strategic plan."

Al Jazeera noted that polls show this war is broadly unpopular among American voters, and analysts are closely watching whether the rising costs will impact the upcoming midterm elections. Ullman, however, remained skeptical, arguing that such reports may not necessarily sway the electoral landscape, as many Americans, even those opposed to the war, would regard equipment damage as an expected cost of military operations.