Here's a situation that tends to worry people: spending a lot of money on something without a clear plan for how it ends. Senator Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) emerged from a closed-door congressional briefing on the U.S. military operation against Iran on Tuesday and suggested that's exactly what's happening.

"Here we are well into the second week, and it is still the case that the Trump administration cannot explain the reasons that we entered this war, the goals we're trying to accomplish and the methods for doing that," Warren told reporters.

It's the kind of statement that makes you pause. A war, by definition, is a major undertaking. You'd hope there was a strategy session or two about the "why" and the "how long" before the first missile was launched. According to Warren, those basic questions remain unanswered for lawmakers. "I'm very worried about how long this will drag on," she said. "We are hearing no logical estimates about when it will be over."

And then there's the bill. Warren put a startling price tag on the daily operations: about $1 billion per day spent on airstrikes. She framed it as a question of national priorities. "There's no money for health care. There's no money for child care," she said. "But there's a billion dollars a day to go to the Middle East and drop bombs on Iran for military purposes that no one can describe."

She doubled down on that contrast in a post on X, writing, "He [Trump] won't spare a cent for the 15 million Americans who will lose their health care, but he'll spend a billion dollars a day bombing Iran." The reference to healthcare cuts connects to a separate but related fiscal fight; last month, four Democratic-led states filed a lawsuit to block the Trump administration's proposed $600 million in public health funding cuts.

The financial concerns extend far beyond the daily sortie cost. A report cited by Reuters indicated the administration told congressional committees that the U.S. used $5.6 billion in munitions during just the first two days of strikes. That pace has lawmakers worried about rapidly draining U.S. weapons stockpiles. The chatter in Washington is that the White House may soon need to ask Congress for a massive new infusion of war funding—potentially around $50 billion.

If you're thinking the long-term price could be even more eye-watering, you're not alone. Economist Peter Schiff has warned that the broader economic impact, factoring in the war and potential reconstruction costs, could ultimately reach hundreds of billions of dollars. In a worst-case scenario, he suggested the total bill could even approach $1 trillion.

So, to recap the concerns from Capitol Hill: a conflict with no clearly explained endpoint, costing a billion dollars a day to run, burning through expensive munitions at a ferocious rate, and threatening to balloon into one of the most expensive engagements in recent memory. It's enough to make any senator—or taxpayer—ask a few more questions.