Published on 4/30/2026
|
Last update: 12:10 (Mecca time)
In a scene that looked like a political “arena of conflict,” US Secretary of War Pete Hegseth stood up yesterday, Wednesday, to find himself in the middle of a storm of interrogations led by Democratic representatives.
In his first testimony before Congress since America and Israel launched a war against Iran on February 28, the discussion turned into something resembling a public trial of the feasibility of the war and its high cost, in light of questions about the map for getting out of a “quagmire” that threatens the prestige of the superpower.
In this report, we monitor for you the most important scenes that took place in the testimony of the US Secretary of War before the Armed Services Committee of the US House of Representatives during a hearing entitled “The Ministry of War’s budget request for the fiscal year 2027.”
The true estimate of the cost of the war on Iran
CNN quoted three people it described as insiders as saying that a senior Pentagon official’s estimate of the total cost of the war on Iran so far, which has reached $25 billion, is a low number and does not include the cost of repairing the severe damage to American bases in the region.
The network quoted one source as saying that the real estimate of the cost is closer to 40 to 50 billion dollars when factoring in the costs of rebuilding US military facilities and replacing destroyed assets.
She explained that the Iranian strikes caused significant damage to at least 9 American military sites within just 48 hours, and that the Iranian raids apparently destroyed many vital American radar systems and other equipment throughout the Middle East.
CNN reported that Democratic Representative Ro Khanna questioned the estimate of the war’s cost of $25 billion, describing it as “completely inaccurate.”
She indicated that Pentagon officials previously informed Congress that the war cost about $11 billion in the first six days alone, and that the department asked the White House last month to approve a request submitted to Congress to obtain more than $200 billion in additional military funding for the ongoing war.
New York Times: Acts described as war crimes
As for the American newspaper The New York Times, it said that Hegseth defended actions that legal experts described as war crimes.
In response to a question about whether he still stands by his statement that American forces will not allow “escape or mercy to our enemies,” Hegseth said that the army under his command is “fighting for victory.”
This term historically refers to the killing of enemy combatants, even if they surrender, which is a war crime under international law.
Democratic Representative from Massachusetts, Seth Moulton, noted that such an order constitutes a war crime under the Uniform Military Code and international law.
Representative Ro Khanna also asked Hegseth a question about the American strike that targeted a school in Minab, Iran, which resulted in the deaths of dozens of children.
The Intercept website quoted Annie Schell, director of the US division at the Center for Civilians in Conflict, as saying, “Secretary of War Hegseth oversaw an expansion in US military operations, causing massive harm to civilians globally, from Yemen, Iran, and Somalia to extrajudicial killings in the Caribbean and Pacific.”
US Secretary of War: The Iran war is not a quagmire
In one of the most heated debates, Hegseth became enraged when Democratic Rep. John Garamendi described the war as a “quagmire” and “a political and economic disaster at all levels.”
On the other hand, Hegseth accused the representative of “providing propaganda to our enemies,” saying: “The biggest challenge, and the biggest opponent, we face at this stage are the reckless, irresponsible, and defeatist words of Democrats in Congress and some Republicans.”
Later in the hearing, Rep. Seth Moulton seized on Hegseth’s words, asking: “Do you think Congress was smart or negligent when it failed to ask the Bush administration tough questions and give a blank check to Iraq?” In reference to the war on Iraq.
“It’s a false comparison,” Hegseth replied, and Moulton responded by saying “it might be a good idea” for Congress to ask tough questions.
General George was dismissed
In this context, the American website “The Hill” mentioned that Hegseth was under pressure from many lawmakers because of his order to dismiss the Chief of Staff of the Ground Forces, General Randy George, who spent more than 4 decades in the US Army.
“Why was he fired?” Rep. Chrissy Holahan (D-Pa.) asked, to which Hegseth responded: “We got rid of too many public officers in this administration, because we need new leadership.”
The Democratic representative responded to the Secretary of War: “You have no way of explaining why you fired one of the most distinguished men. Your answer is a very immature way of responding to my request.”
The Hill website indicated that General George’s dismissal came amid the escalation of the influence war between Hegseth and Army Secretary Dan Driscoll.
Trump’s mental stability
The hearing witnessed a sharp confrontation between Representative Sarah Jacobs and the Minister of War, and it turned into an exchange of political and personal accusations about the management of military operations and the stability of the country’s senior leadership.
During the session, the representative – who represents the city of San Diego – said that President Trump threatened to destroy Iran’s bridges and power plants, and wrote that an entire civilization would die, and she continued by asking the Secretary of War: “Do you believe that the president has enough mental stability to be the Supreme Commander of the Armed Forces?”
Tension escalated between the two parties, as the representative said: “How do I explain to my voters that their loved ones are in danger while their leader publishes unbalanced blogs?”
At the conclusion of her intervention, the representative stressed that “the psychological stability of the leader is extremely important,” considering that there was a “failure in managing military files,” before directly attacking the minister, saying: “If you believe that this failure is a form of victory, then perhaps we should question your own mental stability,” adding that “perhaps he (the minister) is responsible for this failure and the president must replace him.”
