With the arrival of May 1 and the expiration of the 60-day war powers authorization, a highly tense session was held in Congress that, more than anything else, revealed the depth of political divisions and social anxiety in the United States. Attended by the Secretary of Defense and the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, the session quickly turned into a forum of verbal clashes, serious doubts, and unresolved questions about the war with Iran—a war that has not only failed to achieve its stated objectives but has also imposed heavy economic and political costs on both the United States and the wider world.

What drew the most attention during the session was the sharp dispute over the true costs of the war. The Pentagon cited approximately $25 billion as the cost to date, a figure that many lawmakers argued represents only a fraction of reality. It was acknowledged even during the session that this number primarily reflects munitions costs and does not account for more concealed expenses such as rebuilding damaged bases, troop deployments, and logistical support. Unofficial estimates place the total cost between $40 billion and $50 billion, while some figures have even spoken of sums approaching $1 trillion.

This statistical gap has itself become a symbol of a growing crisis of trust within the United States. Many members of Congress believe the administration is understating costs to ease public pressure. Yet conditions on the ground suggest otherwise. Iranian counterstrikes in the early days of the war damaged several US military bases in the region, with reconstruction costs alone estimated in the billions of dollars.

Alongside these disputes, the atmosphere of the session was highly charged. Sharp criticism from Democratic representatives, particularly John Garamendi’s verbal attack on the Secretary of Defense, demonstrated that the war is no longer merely a foreign policy issue but has evolved into a domestic crisis. Garamendi described the situation as “another quagmire in the Middle East,” accusing the administration of incompetence and of creating a political and economic disaster. The Defense Secretary’s angry response further escalated tensions, turning the session into a rare display of open confrontation.

Yet perhaps the most significant consequences of the war are visible not in congressional halls, but in global markets and everyday life. The closure of the Strait of Hormuz, one of the world’s most vital energy corridors, has dealt a severe blow to the global economy. A substantial share of the world’s oil passes through this narrow waterway, which has now become a focal point of instability, sending shockwaves through international markets.

The unprecedented surge in oil prices is a clear indicator of this disruption. Brent crude has approached $120 per barrel, a level rarely seen in recent years. This spike has directly affected the cost of living worldwide, fueling inflation across many countries. In the United States, rising fuel and essential goods prices have intensified public dissatisfaction and placed additional pressure on the government.

Notably, even US officials appear to have reached an impasse. Trump’s recent statement that reopening the Strait of Hormuz would require $2 billion per day drew sharp reactions from senators. A simple but critical question emerged: if the strait had been open before the war, why was the war initiated in the first place? This question underscores a deeper strategic confusion within US decision-making.

More broadly, the war has once again brought the issue of US economic priorities to the forefront. As Bernie Sanders has pointed out, while vast financial resources are consistently available for wars, sectors such as education, healthcare, and housing continue to face funding shortages. This contradiction has fueled public discontent and widened the gap between the government and the people.

Taken together, these developments paint a picture of a costly, inconclusive, and attritional war. Despite extensive financial and military expenditures, the United States and Israel have failed to achieve their objectives. Meanwhile, the repercussions, from the closure of the Strait of Hormuz to the spike in oil prices, have affected not only the region but the global economy as a whole.

Now, as the legal deadline for war powers approaches, the Trump administration finds itself in a difficult position: on one hand, pressure from Congress and public opinion is mounting; on the other, exiting the crisis without incurring further costs is far from straightforward. What is clear is that this war, met by Iran’s striking military and social resilience, has placed the United States and Israel in a position of profound surprise. Rather than constituting a “historic victory,” it has evolved into a deep challenge to the political and economic credibility of the United States.