Iran war sparks sharp divide in US defence debate

Washington: A heated debate over the Trump administration’s war in Iran dominated proceedings on Thursday as the US House Armed Services Committee considered the fiscal 2027 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA), exposing deep divisions over the conflict’s cost, strategy and impact on America’s global priorities.

During a Congressional markup, Democratic lawmakers repeatedly challenged the administration’s handling of the war, arguing that Congress and the American public still lack a clear accounting of its financial and strategic consequences.

Representative Seth Moulton said Congress should know “what this war costs” and argued that lawmakers could not properly exercise their oversight responsibilities without a full accounting of military spending linked to the conflict.

Moulton sought to require the Pentagon to provide a detailed financial assessment of military operations against Iran. Moulton said Americans deserved transparency as they faced rising fuel prices and economic uncertainty.

Representative Jason Crow backed the proposal, saying Congress had a duty to know how much the war was costing taxpayers. “It is a duty of this committee to seek this information,” he said.

Representative Adam Smith, the committee’s top Democrat, argued that lawmakers could not perform effective oversight without greater transparency from the Pentagon.

“We need really to know what the cost is and where it’s going,” Smith said. He also criticised what he described as a lack of clarity about the administration’s broader objectives in Iran.

Republicans strongly defended the administration’s actions.

Committee Chairman Mike D Rogers rejected characterisations of the conflict as a “war of choice” and said military operations had significantly degraded Iran’s capabilities.

“Operation Epic Fury delivered a devastating blow to those conventional military capabilities,” Rogers said. He argued that President Trump’s approach had brought the United States close to a deal that could permanently eliminate the threat posed by Iran’s nuclear ambitions.

Congressman Joe Wilson also defended the administration, describing Iran as a longstanding threat and arguing that US military action was necessary to protect American interests and allies in the region.

The committee ultimately rejected Moulton’s amendment by a vote of 30-27.

IANS