Bahman Barati – Defense affairs expert

The War Against Iran and the Revelation of the Actual Capacity of the American Arsenal

One of the most important topics discussed in Washington’s strategic circles following the expansion of the war against Iran is the extent of pressure on US ammunition stockpiles and advanced systems. Contrary to narratives speaking of the “exhaustion of stockpiles” or an “imminent crisis,” credible sources present a more complex picture. US officials and published reports have indicated a significant reduction in some advanced munitions stockpiles, but there is disagreement regarding the strategic implications of this situation.

The American-Israeli think tank JINSA, citing assessments from some military officials and defense experts, has warned that the extensive consumption of long-range precision missiles and interceptor defense systems in the war with Iran could affect US deterrence capability in other regions. The report focuses on systems such as Patriot interceptors, THAAD, Tomahawk cruise missiles, and long-range precision munitions, arguing that these equipment, unlike conventional munitions, cannot be quickly replaced.

In contrast, the Responsible Statecraft website, affiliated with the American Quincy Institute, does not attribute the reduction in stockpiles solely to the Iran war, assessing it as the result of the simultaneity of several major US military commitments, including support for Ukraine, defense of the Israeli regime, and increased military presence in the Persian Gulf. According to this view, the main issue is not a specific operation, but the cumulative pressures arising from multiple simultaneous crises.

From a military perspective, the reduction in stockpiles of some interceptors or long-range missiles does not necessarily reduce overall US combat capability, but it can limit commanders’ freedom of action and necessitate prioritization among different fronts; therefore, the issue is not merely ammunition shortages, but the limitation of the capacity to respond simultaneously to multiple major crises.

Reports from the British news agency Reuters have also spoken of significant consumption of long-range precision missiles, Patriot and THAAD interceptors, and a portion of Tomahawk missiles in the months-long war with Iran, and this issue has raised concerns about America’s readiness for future crises. These reports and analyses have provoked a passive reaction from the US administration, which has sought to downplay the significance of such analyses.

Pressure from Washington’s Simultaneous Commitments

The importance of this issue becomes clearer when considering that the United States has over the years sought to sell security as a commodity and has established contractual commitments with some countries. Washington has simultaneously provided military support to Ukraine, supports the Israeli regime, maintains its deterrence against China in the Indo-Pacific region, and for many years has sold security promises to Arab countries of the Persian Gulf in the form of expensive packages. Each of these missions requires systems that are time-consuming, costly to produce, and dependent on complex supply chains.

Therefore, the reduction of advanced munitions stockpiles could compel US decision-makers to balance among different priorities. This situation increases the cost for the United States of maintaining a simultaneous presence on multiple fronts; an issue that both JINSA and Responsible Statecraft, despite their intellectual differences, have emphasized.

The Questioning of US Deterrence Capability

One of the main questions is whether the warnings about the reduction of US military stockpiles reflect a real problem or are part of the efforts of defense institutions and the military industry to increase the budget? JINSA views the reduction in stockpiles as a direct threat to the credibility of US deterrence and argues that if China, Russia, or even regional actors conclude that Washington faces limitations in the use of its strategic munitions, they may revise their calculations regarding the cost of confronting the United States. From this perspective, the perception of others regarding America’s capacity is important alongside the number of missiles, because deterrence also has a psychological and political dimension.

In contrast, Responsible Statecraft assesses this situation less as a sign of US military weakness and more as the result of the US policy of “making commitments beyond its capacity.” Therefore, the solution, in addition to increasing capacity, includes a review of strategic priorities and a reduction in military commitments. This approach differs from JINSA’s emphasis on increasing military capacity and defense budgets.

The Capacity of the Defense Industry and Strategic Implications

The United States still possesses the world’s largest defense industry, and companies such as Lockheed Martin and RTX (Raytheon) are increasing their production capacity for some missiles and interceptors. However, technological complexity, limitations in some components, supply chain dependencies, and long production lead times turn increased production into a process spanning months or even years. The US Department of War has also asked the defense industries to provide urgent plans for increasing production, indicating the need for rapid replenishment of stockpiles.

In this same framework, the Lexington Institute economic think tank emphasizes that the rate of ammunition consumption in high-intensity wars has revealed the United States’ need to reform defense planning and increase production capacity.

In sum, available evidence indicates that the US war against Iran has placed significant pressure on a portion of America’s advanced munitions stockpiles. The main issue is the increased cost of maintaining simultaneous commitments on multiple fronts and the revelation of the limitations of production capacity in the face of rapid consumption of advanced munitions.

For Washington, the main challenge will be to balance rebuilding stockpiles, maintaining deterrence against China and Russia, and continuing support for Ukraine, the Israeli regime, and Arab partners in the Persian Gulf. If ammunition consumption continues and production increases are not achieved at the same pace, this pressure could transform from an operational issue into a strategic constraint in US foreign policy.