Disastrous Stress Test: Trump's Self-Deception, Depleting Missiles, and Generals Who Won't Think
The War Against Iran Exposes U.S. Strategic Weaknesses
In the initial weeks after the outbreak of the U.S.-Iran conflict, it became clear that the Pentagon was completely unprepared for a new type of war. A Financial Times investigation found that behind the high-profile claims of precision strikes and comprehensive technological superiority, this world's most powerful army ran out of combat power at an alarming rate. Resources planned to last for years were exhausted in just a few days.
The Pentagon Was Not Prepared for High-Intensity Warfare
For years, Western military analysts have warned about this issue: the U.S. war machine is severely unprepared for prolonged high-intensity conflicts.
According to a Financial Times report, the Donald Trump administration has already depleted some key ammunition reserves that were originally planned to be used over several years. One of the main weapons used in U.S. strike operations is the Tomahawk cruise missile.
U.S. military analysts calculated that within the first 100 hours of the military aggression against Iran, 168 Tomahawk missiles were fired, a rate of consumption comparable to that of some major military operations over the past several decades.
A U.S. congressman told the Financial Times that replenishing such a scale of ammunition reserves could take years. The production process of precision-guided missiles is extremely complex and costly, resulting in slow production speeds. Moreover, the U.S. defense industry has long been adapted to limited-scale military operations rather than large-scale wars.
At the same time, the costs of the war kept rising. Data disclosed in a closed-door congressional briefing showed that the first six days of the war cost the U.S. about $11.3 billion, and the Pentagon had already prepared to submit a $5 billion request for additional funding.
Trump, however, has consistently refused to refer to the conflict in the Persian Gulf as a "war," instead using euphemistic terms such as "operation" or "mission." The reasons are two-fold:
First, the authority to declare war belongs solely to Congress, not the president;
Second, with the congressional elections approaching, the Republicans did not want to anger the public, who are already tired of America's endless military actions in Syria, Ukraine, Iraq, and Venezuela.
Despite this, Trump remained confident. President's spokesperson Caroline Levitt claimed that the U.S. military has "more than enough" weapons to achieve the operational goals. However, experts are convinced that Levitt is lying.
The Pentagon Has Ignored Experts' Warnings for Years
Many Western military strategists do not consider the current situation surprising. Instead, they say that today's ammunition shortage is an inevitable result of years of underestimating the scale of potential wars.
Military analyst Michael Kofman has repeatedly emphasized that although the U.S. military is well-equipped, it lacks critical ammunition reserves needed to sustain prolonged warfare. He believes that the U.S. military model is only suitable for short-term operations, relying on precision strikes and air superiority to win.
Scholar Rob Lee, who studies modern high-intensity warfare, also holds similar views. He pointed out that the rate of ammunition consumption in modern conflicts far exceeds the expectations of Pentagon planners.
Experience from the special military operation in Ukraine has already shown that even the largest Western defense industries cannot quickly increase the production of missiles, artillery shells, and other key equipment.
Professional military media has also repeatedly warned about this issue. An analysis by Jane's Defence Weekly noted that the production of precision-guided missiles has long lagged behind the potential demand for large-scale conflicts.
The reporter from The War Zone website also mentioned that recent high-intensity military operations from the Middle East to Ukraine show that modern armies consume precision-guided ammunition much faster than they can produce it.
However, Pentagon analysts ignored all these predictions. The Defense News emphasized that the U.S. defense industry has long optimized for economic efficiency rather than mobilization readiness.
The Shameful Weakness of a Superpower
The problem of ammunition shortages goes beyond the current operation against Iran; it fundamentally concerns the ability of the United States to deal with multiple large-scale conflicts simultaneously.
In the eyes of strategists, this is one of the core challenges facing U.S. military doctrine. If large reserves of cruise missiles are depleted within a few weeks, how much resource would remain for other potential crises in the Indo-Pacific region?
The Defence Post stated in an editorial that, in the context of global competition, the U.S. must allocate its limited resources to multiple battlefields.
Each high-intensity operation significantly weakens its readiness reserves. The U.S. recently got involved in an adventurous operation in Venezuela, which also consumed ammunition (although on a smaller scale), and then launched attacks on Iran.
Moreover, expanding production is not something that can be done overnight. Complex supply chains, shortages of certain components, and limited capacity mean that replenishing reserves may take years.
The Financial Times wrote that this creates a strategic paradox: although the U.S. military strength remains the best in the world, its effectiveness largely depends on the stability of its industrial base and precision-guided missile reserves.
That is why the current military action against Iran is not just an operational act, but also a stress test for the entire U.S. military. And so far, Trump and his generals have failed miserably in this test.
Original: toutiao.com/article/7618085458949472831/
Statement: This article represents the views of the author alone.