Iran war hearing: Key takeaways as Hegseth faces 2nd day of grilling

WASHINGTON: Defence Secretary Pete Hegseth heads into a second day of intense questioning on Capitol Hill on Thursday, with senators poised to scrutinise his handling of the Iran war after a combative House hearing exposed deep divisions over cost, strategy and leadership.

A day earlier, Hegseth sparred with Democrats — and at times Republicans — during a nearly six-hour session before the House Armed Services Committee, where lawmakers pressed him on the mounting financial and human toll of the conflict, now in a fragile ceasefire phase.

Pentagon officials confirmed the war has already cost about $25 billion, largely driven by heavy use of advanced munitions, even as uncertainty grows over its duration and final price tag.

The Senate Armed Services Committee hearing is expected to revisit those concerns while also focusing on the Trump administration’s proposed $1.5 trillion defence budget for 2027. Hegseth, alongside Joint Chiefs Chairman Dan Caine, is set to argue for increased investment in drones, missile defence systems and naval power — priorities shaped by the ongoing conflict with Iran.

But lawmakers are also likely to widen the spotlight. President Donald Trump has raised fresh tensions with NATO ally Germany, suggesting a possible reduction of US troop presence in Europe, adding another layer of geopolitical strain.

Democrats are expected to intensify their criticism, describing the war as a costly and avoidable conflict launched without sufficient congressional oversight. Republicans, while largely supportive, have shown signs of unease over leadership changes and strategic clarity.

Wednesday’s hearing left several key questions unresolved — from civilian casualties in controversial strikes to troop safety and shifting justifications for the war — setting the stage for another contentious round on Capitol Hill.

Here are the key takeaways:

War cost hits $25 billion — and rising: The Iran war has cost about $25 billion so far, largely driven by heavy use of missiles and precision munitions, according to Pentagon comptroller Jay Hurst in figures cited by The New York Times. Law-makers warned the true cost could climb sharply when factoring in troop deployments, replenishing depleted weapons stockpiles and the wider economic impact of higher energy prices.

Munitions stockpiles under strain: The conflict has consumed a significant share of the Pentagon’s long-range conventional arsenal, including air-launched stealth cruise missiles and Precision Strike Missiles. Officials and lawmakers signalled concern that sustained operations could strain US readiness and limit its ability to respond to other global threats.

Death toll edges up amid discrepancies: Gen. Dan Caine said 14 US service members have died in the war, though official Pentagon systems still listed 13, highlighting gaps in real-time reporting. The discrepancy underscored broader concerns in Congress about transparency around casualties and battlefield risks.

Hearing marked by sharp partisan clashes: Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth opened with a combative tone, calling critics the biggest “adversary,” and repeatedly sparred with Democrats, who questioned both his handling of the war and his fitness for the role. Exchanges grew heated at times, prompting interventions from committee leadership, as reported by The Hill.

Republicans largely hold back criticism: Despite earlier signs of frustration over strategy and briefings, most Republican lawmakers avoided direct confrontation during the hearing, focusing instead on military capabilities and budget priorities. A handful, however, raised concerns about leadership decisions and the clarity of long-term war objectives.

Pentagon leadership firings spark backlash: Lawmakers from both parties pressed Hegseth over the removal of senior military officials, including Army chief Gen. Randy George, questioning the rationale behind the shake-up. Critics warned the dismissals could undermine morale within the ranks and create instability at a time of active conflict.

Controversial rhetoric and legal concerns raised: Hegseth defended a hardline approach to the war, including remarks critics said implied a “no quar-ter” stance — a term associated with denying surrender. Lawmakers cautioned that such rhetoric could conflict with US military law and international humanitarian norms, raising concerns about rules of engagement.

-- With AP inputs