How the war with Iran is depleting America’s arsenal and testing its global power

A report published by The New York Times describes an accelerated and unprecedented depletion of the US arsenal, with figures that show a extreme pressure on reserves.

SEE ALSO: How a “lone wolf” infiltrated the correspondents’ dinner hotel without raising suspicions

In just weeks, The United States has deployed about 1,100 JASSM-ER long-range stealth missiles (leaving about 1,500 in reserve), more than 1,000 missiles Tomahawk —about 10 times its annual purchasing rate—more than 1,200 interceptors Patriot (when it produces around 600 a year) and more than 1,000 land missiles Precision Strike and ATACMS.

Added to this is the intensive use of non-detailed ammunition in more than 13,000 attacked targets, a estimated expenditure of between 28,000 and 35,000 million dollars (almost 1,000 million daily) and peaks like $5.6 billion in just two days, in addition to material losses such as aircraft for about 275 million dollars.

The Times recalled that only in Navy SEAL Team 6’s operation to rescue an officer whose plane was shot down in Iran, The military had to destroy two MC-130 cargo planes and at least three MH-6 helicoptersafter the planes’ front landing gear got stuck in the wet sand of a makeshift landing strip.

The report also indicates that This massive consumption of ammunition has forced the Pentagon to urgently redistribute weapons from Asia and Europe to the Middle Eastleaving key commands less prepared against powers such as Russia and China.

In Asiaeven strategic systems such as interceptors have been removed Patriot and THAADwhile in Europe the deterrence capacity on the flank of the NATO.

The problem is worse because the defense industry cannot quickly replenish inventories: At current rates, the recovery could take years and depends on additional funding from Congress that has not yet materialized, notes the New York Times.

The war also exposes a critical dependence on extremely expensive munitionssuch as air defense interceptors, and raises questions about the ability to produce cheaper alternatives, such as drones.

USA and the new logic of war

The international analyst Roberto Heimovits maintains that the rapid depletion of missiles and ammunition in the United States is not a new phenomenon, but a trend that has been dragging on since the war in Ukraine and that has intensified with the conflict in Iran.

As explained to The Commerceone of the key factors is the growing asymmetry on the battlefield: while countries like Iran use relatively cheap drones or missiles – tens or hundreds of thousands of dollars – Washington is forced to respond with much more expensive defensive systems, such as Patriot interceptors, which can be worth millions per unit.

“The United States needs to use projectiles that cost millions of dollars to shoot down much cheaper threats, and that is why its replenishment capacity is strained”he points out.

However, Heimovits introduces a nuance: The shortage mainly affects certain types of ammunition, but this situation must be evaluated together with the military impact achieved.

“While defensive projectiles and attack missiles such as those Tomahawkit must also be specified that The attacks have caused significant damage to Iran”, he states. He adds that there is a need to analyze both sides of the equation.

In strategic terms, Heimovits considers that This reduction of arsenals could influence the calculation of powers such as Russia and Chinaalthough it would not be a decisive factor in triggering new wars, given that Moscow remains focused on Ukraine and Beijing shows no immediate signs of an offensive on Taiwan.

For the analyst, The problem of the United States is real but temporary, not structural. Remember that the country has the largest economy in the world and relatively low defense spending in historical terms, so, with a budget increase – like the one announced by the Trump government -, could replenish its arsenals in the medium term.

In this context, he maintains that The main challenge is not only to produce more, but to adapt to a new logic of war: Develop cheaper and more efficient systems, such as laser technologies or lower-cost defenses, and improve operational understanding of the adversary to maximize impact with fewer resources.

The erosion of US military power

For the international analyst Francesco Tucciprofessor of Political Science and International Relations at the UPC, the rapid exhaustion of US precision missiles and munitions reveals a deeper structural weakness that goes beyond the Iranian front: the difficulty of sustaining a high-intensity war without a clear strategic objective or a defined “exit”.

“Despite having a great firepower, if there are no clear objectives, you will not win,” emphasizes.

In his opinion, the conflict has demonstrated the limits of American air superiority and firepower against an adversary like Iran that, despite heavy losses, resist through asymmetric tactics, the use of drones and attrition strategies.

“Air operations are limited; “In certain conflicts, if you want to win, you need asymmetric strategies and sometimes troops on the ground,” emphasizes.

“Today we are seeing that cheaper technologies, such as drones, can generate a significant strategic impact compared to systems that cost millions to intercept them. “Iran has opted for an asymmetric war, with drones and low-cost tactics, and that is making a difference compared to the traditional model based on expensive weapons.”he maintains.

Also remember that USA It has virtually destroyed Iran’s entire conventional navy. However, he maintains that There are still thousands of operational speedboats.

“These boats use swarm tacticswhich makes it very difficult to completely neutralize them. Iran continues to have a presence in the Strait of Hormuz with these units, that can attack or undermine sea routes. This demonstrates the difference between destroying a conventional force and facing more flexible and asymmetric threats.precise.

This situation, explains Tucci, not only forces the Pentagon to restrict operations due to the shortage of ammunition, but also reveals problems in the planning and political communication of the conflict.

Tucci argues that the consequences are both military and geopolitical. On the one hand, Arsenal reduction and resource shift from Asia and Europe weaken US global operational capabilities and complicate its role as a hegemonic power capable of supporting multiple fronts.

On the other hand, he says that Rival powers such as China and Russia are closely observing this erosion: Moscow indirectly benefits from the reduced pressure on the Ukrainian front, while Beijing could interpret the situation as a window of strategic opportunity, especially in the Pacific, although without necessarily opting for immediate action to take Taiwan by force.

“The United States already has several open fronts: the Ukrainian one, the war with Iran and the risk of a third opening in Asia. If a front were to open in Taiwan, the United States would have a serious problem, since no country can support three fronts at the same time. We are facing a scenario in which the response capacity is distributed in too many theaters of operations. To remain a hegemonic power, the United States should be present in all crises, but now it is weakening in several sectors at once.”he explains.

At the same time, he emphasizes that the lack of a clear exit strategy could transform the war into Iran in a conflict of attrition that ends up eroding US military capacity without achieving concrete political objectives.

In this context, he concludes, Arsenal wear and tear is not only a logistical problem, but a symptom of a broader strategy that today faces increasing limits.