Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth Hints at Largest Strike Yet as Costs Mount and Funding Could Top $200 Billion.

The United States has no defined timeline for ending its war against Iran, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth said Thursday, signaling that the military campaign may deepen even as costs surge and regional instability widens.

Speaking at the Pentagon, Hegseth said more than 7,000 Iranian targets have been struck since the U.S.-Israeli offensive began three weeks ago. He warned that Thursday would bring “the largest strike package yet,” describing it starkly as “death and destruction from above.”

Asked about an exit strategy, Hegseth declined to provide one. “We wouldn’t want to set a definitive timeframe,” he said, adding that President Donald Trump would decide when U.S. objectives had been achieved.

Those objectives, he said, remain unchanged: dismantling Iran’s missile-launch capabilities, crippling its defense-industrial base and naval fleet, and preventing it from acquiring a nuclear weapon.

The conflict has steadily expanded. In the Gulf, U.S. aircraft and naval forces have targeted dozens of vessels, including mine-layers and submarines, as Washington attempts to reopen the Strait of Hormuz, effectively shut down by Tehran in the early days of the war. A-10 aircraft are hunting fast-attack craft in the waterway, while Apache helicopters in Iraq are striking Iran-aligned militias.

The financial burden is mounting. The first six days of operations reportedly cost nearly $13 billion. Hegseth did not deny reports that the Pentagon may seek more than $200 billion in additional funding from Congress, saying only that “it takes money to kill bad guys” and that funding discussions are ongoing.

Oil prices have surged amid attacks on Gulf energy infrastructure, and Trump’s approval ratings have slipped as the campaign intensifies. Yet Hegseth rejected suggestions of mission creep, calling such claims media distortions and insisting the strategy remains “on track.”

He ended the briefing with an appeal for Americans to pray for U.S. troops, underscoring the administration’s view that the campaign is both necessary and morally justified.

For now, the message from Washington is clear: the war is expanding, the price tag is rising, and the end — whenever it comes — will be determined not by a calendar, but by the president’s judgment of victory.

Missiles falling. Billions flowing. Congress sidelined.

Emergency Approvals for UAE, Kuwait and Jordan Bypass Congress as Iran Strikes Intensify.

The United States has approved a sweeping series of emergency arms sales to Gulf and Middle Eastern allies, bypassing the standard congressional review process as Iranian missile and drone attacks continue across the region.

The largest package, valued at more than $8 billion, was cleared for the United Arab Emirates.

It includes a $4.5 billion Terminal High Altitude Area Defense (THAAD) system designed to intercept ballistic missiles, $2.1 billion in counter-drone capabilities through the FS-LIDS system, $1.22 billion in Advanced Medium-Range Air-to-Air Missiles (AMRAAMs), and $644 million in F-16 munitions, including precision-guided bombs such as GBU-39 small diameter bombs and Joint Direct Attack Munitions.

In parallel, Washington approved an additional $8 billion sale to Kuwait for advanced Lower Tier Air and Missile Defense Sensor Radars aimed at strengthening early-warning and missile-tracking capabilities.

Jordan also received emergency approval for a $70.5 million package covering aircraft support and munitions to maintain operational readiness.

All transactions were designated as emergency measures, allowing the administration to circumvent the usual congressional notification requirements. U.S. officials framed the move as necessary to rapidly reinforce regional air and missile defense systems amid evolving threats.

The approvals come as Gulf states face repeated ballistic missile and drone launches attributed to Iran. Energy infrastructure and urban centers have been targeted in recent weeks, raising concerns about broader instability and potential disruption to global oil and gas markets.

By accelerating these deals, Washington is signaling that it intends not only to defend its own forces in the region but to strengthen the deterrent capacity of key partners.

The scale and speed of the approvals reflect the administration’s assessment that regional defenses must be upgraded immediately, rather than over the slower timeline of traditional arms-transfer procedures.

While the emergency designation avoids immediate congressional scrutiny, it also underscores the urgency U.S. officials attach to the current security environment. The strategic message is clear: as missile threats expand, so too will American military backing for Gulf allies.

Foreign Minister Says Trust With Tehran Is “Shattered” as Riyadh Reserves Right to Retaliate.

For the first time in weeks, Riyadh heard the blasts itself.

Saudi Arabia has warned that it reserves the right to take military action against Iran after ballistic missiles targeted Riyadh, marking one of the most direct confrontations between the regional rivals in nearly three weeks of escalating war.

Speaking after an emergency meeting of regional foreign ministers in Riyadh, Faisal bin Farhan Al Saud accused Tehran of “premeditated hostile actions” against Gulf states and said any remaining trust had effectively collapsed.

“This pressure from Iran will backfire politically and morally, and certainly we reserve the right to take military actions if deemed necessary,” he said, adding that Saudi Arabia still preferred diplomacy but warned that continued attacks would leave “almost nothing” to rebuild bilateral confidence.

The remarks came hours after Saudi authorities said air defenses intercepted four ballistic missiles aimed at Riyadh. Debris reportedly fell near a refinery south of the capital.

Witnesses described interceptors lighting up the night sky near the hotel hosting diplomats from roughly a dozen countries, including Turkey, Qatar, the United Arab Emirates and Jordan.

The missile launches followed Iranian threats to strike Gulf energy infrastructure in retaliation for what Tehran says was an Israeli strike on facilities in the massive South Pars gas field.

Oil prices surged on fears of wider disruption to global supplies as Qatar, the UAE and Saudi Arabia reported attacks on oil and gas sites.

Saudi officials say the kingdom has faced hundreds of Iranian missiles and drones since the conflict began, most intercepted before causing damage. But Wednesday’s barrage marked the first time many residents in Riyadh reported hearing explosions or receiving emergency text alerts.

The confrontation threatens to unravel a fragile diplomatic thaw between Riyadh and Tehran. The two countries restored relations in 2023 after years of rivalry that saw them back opposing factions across the Middle East.

Now, as the U.S.-Israeli campaign against Iran enters its third week, Saudi officials are signaling that patience is running thin.

Regional diplomats acknowledge that de-escalation remains elusive. With energy infrastructure under threat and missile exchanges edging closer to civilian centers, the Gulf’s uneasy balance appears increasingly fragile — and the risk of direct Saudi-Iranian confrontation no longer hypothetical.

Washington says $12 billion. History says trillions.

The Intercept Says Official Estimates Dramatically Understate Long-Term Financial Burden of Operation Epic Fury.

The financial cost of the U.S. war against Iran may be far higher than publicly acknowledged, potentially reaching into the trillions of dollars over time, according to an analysis by The Intercept.

The report argues that early estimates from the Trump administration significantly understate the true expense of the campaign, particularly when long-term obligations such as veterans’ care and interest on war-related debt are factored in.

President Donald Trump has suggested that the military campaign—dubbed Operation Epic Fury—could be sustained indefinitely using existing Pentagon stockpiles. His economic adviser, Kevin Hassett, put the cost at roughly $12 billion.

But defense analysts and unnamed government officials cited by The Intercept say the numbers tell a different story. They estimate that a three-week war could cost between $60 billion and $130 billion in direct expenditures alone. If fighting stretches to eight weeks, those costs could rise to $250 billion.

Crucially, those projections do not include the months of military buildup in the Middle East before the first strikes in late February, nor do they account for the longer-term economic consequences of sustained deployment.

The U.S. military budget already exceeds $830 billion for fiscal year 2026, the largest in the world. Lawmakers are reportedly considering adding at least $50 billion to a $1.5 trillion defense request for fiscal year 2027.

Historical precedent offers a cautionary tale. The George W. Bush administration initially projected that the Iraq War would cost about $40 billion. Subsequent independent assessments have placed its total price tag at roughly $8 trillion by 2021, once long-term medical care, disability payments and borrowing costs were included.

Meanwhile, U.S. national debt is nearing $39 trillion, up sharply over the past year. Trump campaigned on pledges to avoid “endless wars” and reduce government debt, promising to cut wasteful spending rather than embark on costly foreign conflicts.

The financial debate intensified this week after Joe Kent, director of the National Counterterrorism Center, resigned in protest. Kent argued that Iran posed “no imminent threat” and accused the administration of being pressured into war.

As missile exchanges escalate in the Gulf and energy markets react to instability, the military dimension of the conflict dominates headlines. But behind the scenes, economists warn that the longer-term fiscal fallout could reshape U.S. finances for decades — long after the bombs stop falling.

Deep-Penetrator Bombs Target Iranian Coastal Missile Sites as Tensions Escalate in Strategic Waterway.

The fight for Hormuz just went underground — literally.

The United States military has dropped multiple 5,000-pound deep-penetrator bombs on hardened Iranian anti-ship missile positions near the Strait of Hormuz, escalating efforts to secure one of the world’s most critical energy chokepoints.

US Central Command said Tuesday that the strikes targeted coastal defense cruise missile sites capable of threatening international shipping. Roughly 20 percent of global oil supplies pass through the narrow waterway linking the Persian Gulf to the Gulf of Oman.

“The Iranian anti-ship cruise missiles in these sites posed a risk to international shipping in the strait,” Centcom said in a statement.

U.S. officials confirmed that the munitions used were GBU-72 Advanced Penetrators — heavy bunker-busting bombs designed to destroy deeply buried and reinforced targets. The weapon was developed to address hardened military infrastructure and can be deployed by both fighter jets and bombers.

The strikes come as Iran continues attacks on vessels in the strait and maintains its effective blockade of the waterway. Iran’s new supreme leader, Mojtaba Khamenei, has said the strait will remain closed in response to joint U.S.-Israeli air operations launched on Feb. 28.

Energy markets remain on edge. Disruptions to oil transit have driven up gasoline prices in the United States and globally, intensifying political pressure in Washington and abroad.

Iran’s ability to deploy low-cost drones, lay sea mines and fire anti-ship cruise missiles has complicated Western planning. European allies have so far hesitated to join U.S.-led efforts to reopen the strait, citing the risk of asymmetric retaliation.

Sen. Lindsey Graham, a Republican ally of President Donald Trump, criticized European reluctance this week, warning of “wide and deep” repercussions for alliances. Trump, in a social media post Wednesday, suggested that if the U.S. were to “finish off” what he called the Iranian regime, other nations reliant on Hormuz energy flows would have to assume responsibility for securing the strait.

The deployment of heavy penetrator bombs signals a shift from surface-level engagements to direct strikes on Iran’s coastal missile infrastructure. Whether the move deters Tehran or provokes further escalation will shape the next phase of a conflict already rippling through global energy markets.

Finland has no direct stake in Hormuz. So why is its president talking about joining the fight?

President Alexander Stubb Signals Openness to Backing U.S. Operations — With Ukraine in Mind.

Finland’s president, Alexander Stubb, has emerged as one of the few European leaders openly suggesting that the European Union should consider supporting U.S. efforts in the Strait of Hormuz. His reasoning has less to do with Iran than with Ukraine.

While most major EU powers — including France, Germany and Italy — have stressed restraint and declined to commit forces to the Gulf, Stubb has said countries with “the capacity and the will” should help Washington secure maritime trade routes.

In London, he went further, reacting positively to the idea that European naval support in the Gulf could be leveraged to extract stronger U.S. backing for Kyiv in its war with Russia.

At the heart of Stubb’s calculus is concern that the U.S.-Israeli war with Iran is diverting American military resources and political attention away from Ukraine. Rising oil prices, driven in part by instability in the Strait of Hormuz, also benefit Russia by boosting energy revenues. From Helsinki’s perspective, anything that weakens Western focus on Ukraine strengthens Moscow’s hand.

The proposal has met skepticism inside Europe. German Defense Minister Boris Pistorius publicly questioned what a handful of European frigates could accomplish that the U.S. Navy cannot. European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen has said there is “no appetite” in Brussels to widen EU naval operations beyond existing missions.

Finland’s own naval capabilities are limited: a small fleet of missile boats and minesweepers, designed primarily for Baltic Sea defense. The Baltic states that have echoed Stubb’s posture — Estonia and Lithuania — field similarly modest forces. Any deployment would be symbolic rather than decisive.

Still, symbolism may be the point. For Stubb and like-minded leaders, visible alignment with Washington in one theater could help maintain U.S. engagement in another. The risk, critics argue, is entanglement in a conflict far from Europe’s core security interests.

Public support within the EU for involvement in the Iran conflict remains weak. Larger military powers such as France and Poland have ruled out participation in combat operations, though some have left open the possibility of maritime escort missions once hostilities subside.

For now, Stubb represents a small but vocal bloc that sees strategic linkage between the Gulf and Eastern Europe. Whether that linkage persuades Washington — or alienates other European partners — remains to be seen.

Revolutionary Guards Warn of Imminent Attacks on Saudi, UAE and Qatari Infrastructure as Oil Prices Surge.

The war has moved to the energy heartland. Now the Gulf’s refineries and gasfields are in the crosshairs.

Iran has threatened to strike major energy facilities across the Gulf after Israeli missiles reportedly hit the country’s largest gasfield, marking a sharp escalation in the widening regional conflict.

The targeted site, the South Pars gas field, contains the world’s largest known natural gas reserves and forms the backbone of Iran’s gas production. It is jointly shared with Qatar, making it one of the most strategically sensitive energy assets in the Middle East.

Iran’s Revolutionary Guards warned that facilities in Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates and Qatar would become “direct and legitimate targets” in the coming hours.

State media identified Saudi Arabia’s Samref refinery and Jubail petrochemical complex, the UAE’s al-Hosn gasfield, and Qatar’s Mesaieed and Ras Laffan industrial hubs as potential targets. Authorities urged workers and residents near those sites to evacuate immediately.

Until now, U.S. and Israeli operations had largely avoided direct strikes on Iran’s oil and gas sector, a restraint seen as an effort to prevent a full-scale economic shock. The attack on South Pars appears to signal a shift.

Global markets reacted swiftly. Oil prices climbed toward $110 a barrel on Wednesday amid fears that the conflict could engulf the Gulf’s energy infrastructure, which underpins a significant share of global oil and liquefied natural gas exports.

The continuing blockade of the Strait of Hormuz — through which roughly one-fifth of the world’s oil flows — has already strained supply chains.

Eskandar Pasalar, governor of Iran’s southern Asaluyeh region, described the attack as a turning point. The “pendulum of war has swung” into what he called a “full-scale economic war.”

Qatar condemned threats to energy infrastructure. Government spokesperson Majid al-Ansari warned that targeting such facilities would endanger not only regional populations but global energy security.

Israeli media reported that the strike on South Pars was carried out with U.S. consent, though neither government immediately provided detailed confirmation.

If Iran follows through on its threats, the conflict could move decisively from military confrontation to economic warfare, placing the Gulf’s vast energy network — and the global economy — at direct risk.

If Iran falls, who stands next in line? In Ankara, that question is no longer theoretical.

Ankara Fears Crushing Tehran Could Trigger a New Phase of Regional Power Struggles.

As the war between Israel, the United States and Iran deepens, officials in Turkey are asking a stark question: if Tehran is broken, what comes next — and who?

From the first days of the open strikes on Iran in late February, President Recep Tayyip Erdogan condemned the attacks as violations of international law and warned that the conflict risked spiraling into a regional catastrophe.

Foreign Minister Hakan Fidan reinforced that message, cautioning that escalation could destabilize energy markets and disrupt the Strait of Hormuz, a chokepoint critical to global oil flows — and to Turkey’s import-dependent economy.

But Ankara’s concerns run deeper than fuel prices.

Turkish officials argue that forcibly dismantling Iran would not bring stability. Instead, it could collapse one of the region’s major power centers, triggering internal fragmentation and unleashing a chain reaction from Iraq and Syria to the Caucasus and the Eastern Mediterranean.

For Turkey, which has absorbed the spillover of wars in Iraq and Syria for two decades — from refugee waves to cross-border militancy — the prospect of chaos inside Iran is viewed as an existential strategic risk.

The fear is not ideological alignment with Tehran. Turkey and Iran compete across multiple theaters, from Syria to the South Caucasus. Rather, Ankara sees the regional balance — tense and imperfect though it may be — as preferable to a vacuum.

There is another layer to Turkish anxiety: the belief that Israel’s campaign may not end with Iran. Israeli political figures have publicly identified Turkey as a growing regional rival.

In Ankara’s strategic calculus, if Iran is decisively weakened, attention could shift toward other independent regional actors — with Turkey foremost among them.

Recent incidents have reinforced that sense of proximity. Iranian missiles have reportedly entered Turkish airspace during regional exchanges, prompting diplomatic protests.

For Ankara, the war is no longer distant. It is edging toward its borders.

At the same time, Turkey faces domestic economic fragility. Rising energy costs, inflationary pressure and market volatility could compound existing challenges. A prolonged regional war would translate quickly into higher import bills, strained budgets and social tension.

Ankara’s response has therefore followed a dual track: vocal diplomatic opposition to escalation and quiet reinforcement of defensive preparedness. Erdogan has repeatedly called for a ceasefire and mediation, framing diplomacy as the last barrier before a broader conflagration.

In Turkish strategic thinking, the destruction of Iran would not conclude a conflict. It would reset the Middle East into a far more combustible phase — one in which alliances shift, power vacuums open and rivalries intensify.

For now, Turkey speaks the language of restraint. But behind that language lies a sober calculation: if the region’s fire is not contained, it will not stop at Iran’s borders.