'What Are the Goals?' Some Republicans Questioning $200 Billion for Iran War.

With the Pentagon's track record, lawmakers are right to be skeptical.

The Pentagon is seeking $200 billion for President Donald Trump's war in Iran, and at least a few Republicans in Congress seem skeptical about writing that check.

"I am so tired of spending money elsewhere. I'm tired of the industrial war complex getting all of our hard-earned tax dollars," Rep. Lauren Boebert (R–Colo.) told reporters last week. "The path that we're going doesn't look very promising."

Others, like Rep. Thomas Massie (R–Ky.), say they have a lot of questions about the conflict. "How long do they plan to be there? What are the goals? Is this the first $200 billion? Does this turn into a trillion?" Massie told CNN.

Those are good questions—ones that the Trump administration ought to answer, regardless of whether Congress approves the additional spending. The war in Iran has now entered its fourth week, and there is still little indication of any long-term plan or strategic goal for the conflict. The entire war has unfolded without congressional authorization for the use of force or a declaration of war.

The lack of clarity from the Pentagon and White House is a sticking point for Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R–Alaska), who told reporters last week that she doesn't know what to tell her own constituents when they ask questions about the war.

"Before I can do my Article I responsibility in terms of helping to fund a war effort, I want to know some of the answers to the questions that Alaskans are asking me," she said. "The world is feeling the impact of this war, so Congress has a role here."

The Republican votes for any supplemental Iran war spending bill will be the ones to watch, since Democrats are likely to vote unanimously against it. "If the Trump Administration wants this money, they should pay for it by reversing the trillions of dollars in tax breaks for the wealthy and large corporations they enacted last year," Rep. Rosa DeLauro (D–Conn.), the ranking Democrat on the House Appropriations Committee, said in a statement.

You don't need a new war to get Democrats talking about taxing the rich, of course. It just needs to be a day that ends in y.

Even so, DeLauro is adjacent to a good point. If you want to have a war, you have to find a way to pay for it.

In the past, that meant raising taxes or generating revenue via "war bonds" and other such mechanisms. America drifted away from that principle in the late 20th century and has never looked back. The past 20 years have been marked by wars abroad and tax cuts at home. The post-9/11 wars in the Middle East cost about $8 trillion, and nearly all of that amount was borrowed and added to the debt.

Actually covering the cost of a new $200 billion war would require Congress to also consider the opportunity cost of the war.

As California Democratic Gov. Gavin Newsom pointed out in a post on X, the $200 billion price tag for the war in Iran would be enough to extend the Affordable Care Act's health insurance subsidies for another seven years. (His math might be a little off, but he's in the ballpark of the estimated $350 billion price tag for a 10-year extension.) It could also finance a $3,500 tax break for the middle class, Newsom claimed.

Every member of Congress should ask their constituents what they'd rather have: a tax break, a health insurance subsidy, or another war in the Middle East. I have a pretty good idea about which option would finish last in that poll.

"Obviously, it takes money to kill bad guys," is how Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth pitched the $200 billion spending plan last week.

That may very well be true, but there isn't an endless supply of money, and budgeting is about setting priorities. Given the open-ended, vague nature of the conflict with Iran and the Pentagon's track record of being a terrible steward of taxpayer dollars, lawmakers are right to be skeptical.

Credit to Rep. Eric Burlison (R–Mo.) for finding the most novel and responsible approach. Burlison told CNN last week that the Pentagon should "pass an audit" before Congress votes for any supplemental war funding. "Then I'll know that at least they're keeping track of the dollars," he added.

Sounds like a fair deal to me.