AhlulBayt News Agency (ABNA): Reports published by The Guardian, The Washington Post, The New York Times, and The Atlantic all agree that the U.S. war against Iran has entered a very sensitive phase. This is because the war has transformed from a military operation that Donald Trump expected to be short and decisive into a prolonged conflict that has depleted U.S. weapons stockpiles, weakened Washington's deterrent capability, and increased the concern of its allies. At the same time, the U.S. administration has been forced to seek a path for negotiation and exit from a conflict in which it has achieved none of its declared objectives.
According to a report by Al Jazeera Net, The Guardian, in an article by Robert Tait from Washington, writes that the war has become like a film for Trump in which one scene is repeated over and over: a major military threat followed by a last-minute retreat with the argument that there is an opportunity for negotiation.
The newspaper says that Trump has repeated this pattern at least seven times since the start of the war against Iran. The latest case was the cancellation of an attack that, according to him, was supposed to be the largest since World War II. Trump cited the existence of an opportunity to reach an agreement with Iran as the reason for this decision.
The Lack of a Clear U.S. Strategy
The Guardian believes that the problem is not limited to the repetition of threats and retreats, but the lack of a clear U.S. strategy for the war against Iran has also become a fundamental issue.
The objectives that the Trump administration had set at the beginning of the war against Iran have gradually changed. Instead of talking about regime change in Iran or encouraging the Iranian people to overthrow the government, Trump has increasingly focused on reopening the Strait of Hormuz. A strait that was essentially open before the war, and its closure has now become one of the most important consequences of the conflict between Iran and the United States.
The newspaper, citing Mehrzad Boroujerdi, a professor of political science at the Missouri University of Science and Technology, writes that Trump has made a fundamental error in understanding the nature of Iran's system; because he has treated this system as if it could be easily brought to surrender under the pressure of bombing and threats.
Boroujerdi, who has studied Iran's political elites for over two decades and compiled a database of about 2,700 figures from these elites, says that many of Iran's current leaders have a deep connection with the system because the 1979 revolution created a position and influence for them. Therefore, preserving the system is a vital and existential issue for them.
The Guardian also, citing Ali Vaez, the deputy director of the Middle East and North Africa program at the International Crisis Group, says that in the absence of a clear decision-making process in the U.S. administration, it has become difficult to understand Trump's policy based on a clear strategic logic.
According to Vaez, America's military options are also becoming limited due to the attrition of offensive and interceptor missile stockpiles, while Iran has strengthened its position in the negotiations, especially on the issue of the Strait of Hormuz.
The Most Dangerous Part of the Story
But according to The Washington Post, the most dangerous part of the war is the transfer of the crisis from the level of political decision-making to the level of actual military capability.
Brancho Verma, in a report, has revealed that the Pentagon is pressuring defense industry companies to accelerate the production of weapons and munitions, because some weapons stockpiles have reached concerning levels as a result of the war.
According to The Washington Post, Deputy Secretary of Defense Steven Feinberg, in a memo to the executives of defense industry companies, has given them 21 days to present plans to increase production and accelerate delivery timelines. He emphasized that weapons development cycles that take years are no longer acceptable, and production capacity must be increased now.
The newspaper explains that the Pentagon held a meeting in late July with senior executives of defense companies including Lockheed Martin, Northrop Grumman, and Boeing, as well as startups in technology and military industries such as Anduril and Palantir. U.S. officials asked these companies to pressure members of Congress to increase defense spending.
The Pentagon has also concluded what it describes as framework agreements to increase the production of low-cost munitions and air defense systems, including Patriot and THAAD.
Attrition and the Funding Barrier
However, these plans face a major obstacle: funding. Framework agreements are not binding contracts and cannot be converted into actual purchases until Congress approves the required budget.
Verma, citing Tom Karako, the director of the Missile Defense Project at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, says the problem is that almost nothing has been contracted, because the required budget has not yet been approved by Congress.
The Washington Post's statistics show the extent of the attrition of U.S. stockpiles. In the first month of the war against Iran, the United States fired more than 850 Tomahawk missiles, more than 1,000 Patriot and THAAD interceptor missiles, and also more than 1,300 tactical ballistic missiles.
According to an analysis by the Center for Strategic and International Studies, the U.S. Patriot missile stockpile has declined from about 2,200 before the war against Iran to fewer than 827, and the THAAD missile stockpile has declined from 452 to fewer than 278.
The New York Times, in an article by Anton Troianovski, Jonathan Swan, Eric Schmitt, and Julian Barnes, also emphasizes that the effects of this attrition have extended beyond the Middle East. The United States has been forced to withdraw missiles, air defense systems, ships, aircraft, and military units from Europe and Asia and transfer them to the region. An action that has raised concerns about the readiness of U.S. forces to deal with other crises.
Concern of Allies in Europe and Asia
The New York Times writes that the U.S. bombing of Iran has consumed thousands of expensive missiles, and countering Iranian missiles has also depleted U.S. air defense stockpiles.
As a result, Washington has begun to delay or reconsider the delivery of some weapons to its allies, an issue that has particularly raised concerns in Europe and Asia.
Ukraine is one of the first victims of this shortage. Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky has said that the amount of defense missiles his country receives from Western allies has decreased to about one-third of last year's level.
At the same time, Russia is increasing its missile production, an issue that widens the gap between Moscow's ability to produce missiles and the West's ability to provide interception systems.
In Asia, according to The New York Times, the transfer of long-range weapons, Tomahawk missiles, and air defense systems from the Indo-Pacific region to the Middle East has raised questions about America's ability to protect Japan, South Korea, and other allies in the event of a crisis with China or North Korea.
According to the newspaper, Moscow and Beijing are closely monitoring this attrition and may use it to reassess the strengths and weaknesses of the American arsenal.
Damage to the Credibility of U.S. Deterrence
These concerns align with the discussions in The Atlantic's "Washington Week" program. ABC News senior Washington correspondent Jonathan Carl warned that Trump has damaged the credibility of U.S. deterrence by repeatedly threatening escalation and then backing down.
He said that repeating this behavior seven times will cause America's rivals to take the U.S. President's threats less seriously in the future.
Macy Ryan, an Atlantic writer and Pentagon affairs expert, also says that the ammunition crisis is not merely a result of the war against Iran, but a problem that has accumulated over several decades.
After the end of the Cold War, the priority of munitions procurement decreased, and at the same time, the shrinking and consolidation of the U.S. defense industry since the 1990s has weakened companies' ability to quickly increase production. The United States has also consumed a large volume of its weapons during support for Ukraine and other military operations.
The Atlantic says that rebuilding these stockpiles, even with funding, will take years. The Pentagon has signed a contract worth up to $58.6 billion with Lockheed Martin to triple production of Patriot PAC-3 missiles by 2030, but these plans do not solve the short-term problem.
The Electoral Burden and an Indifferent Trump
The crisis is not limited to the military domain and is gradually becoming a political problem for Trump and the Republican Party.
Carl Hulse, the Washington senior correspondent for The New York Times, says that congressional Republicans view the war as an electoral burden ahead of the November midterms, especially due to rising oil prices and pressure on the budget.
There are also disagreements within the Republican Party over how to fund the war against Iran and increase defense spending. Meanwhile, U.S. Secretary of War Pete Hegseth has demanded huge sums but has not provided sufficient details on how these funds will be spent, an issue that has raised concerns even among some Republicans.
The Atlantic adds that Trump, simultaneously with declining popularity, economic weakness, and internal party problems, has become significantly preoccupied with issues such as redesigning the White House, building a new hall, and creating a reflecting pool in Washington.
Zolan Kanno-Youngs, a White House correspondent for The New York Times, believes that this preoccupation shows a gap between the U.S. President's priorities and the issues that Republicans should focus on to regain voter support.
Participants in the program warned that the continuation of the war against Iran and the deaths of more American soldiers could impose additional political costs on the White House before the November elections.
According to what was raised in this Atlantic discussion, 20 American soldiers have so far been killed in operations related to the war against Iran, and with the continuation of the conflict, the possibility of this number increasing remains.
A Crisis Beyond the War
In summary, the four sources present a comprehensive picture of a crisis that goes beyond the war itself.
The Guardian believes that Trump is repeating the cycle of threat and retreat because he has failed to develop a clear strategy toward Iran.
The Washington Post shows that the Pentagon is urgently trying to rebuild America's defense industrial base and accelerate weapons production, but funding has not yet been secured.
The New York Times warns that the attrition of the American arsenal not only threatens the current operation but has also weakened America's deterrence in Europe and Asia, creating an opportunity for Russia and China.
The Atlantic also highlights the political dimension of the crisis, where the war against Iran, the ammunition crisis, economic problems, and internal party disagreements could become a heavy electoral burden for Republicans.
Thus, after more than five months, the war against Iran is not only a test of America's ability to achieve its military objectives, but also a test of its ability to maintain strategic stockpiles, reassure allies, deter rivals, and convince voters that the Trump administration knows where it is heading.
The main paradox that these four sources highlight is that a country that still spends trillions of dollars on defense has now been forced to ask its military industries to rebuild stockpiles that may take years to replenish, while continuing a war that, according to initial Trump administration estimates, was supposed to end within a few weeks.
**************
End/ 345E
