Can the US military sustain a long war in Iran?
Can the US military sustain a long war in Iran?
President Donald Trump has claimed that the United States has an “effectively boundless” arsenal of weaponry, while Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth asserted that Iran holds “no hope” of outlasting American forces. However, the reality of weapon stockpiles may challenge these assurances. The conflict began on February 28 with the initiation of Operation Epic Fury, followed by a relentless campaign of strikes targeting Iran’s infrastructure and military assets.
Within days, the US and its allies executed thousands of attacks across the country, deploying over 20 weapon systems via air, land, and sea. The first wave of strikes saw the death of Iran’s Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei, marking a significant escalation. Trump initially projected the war could last four to five weeks, but hinted at a longer duration, stating the US has the “capability to go far beyond that.” This confidence was echoed by General Dan Caine, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, who noted the military’s stockpiles of both offensive and defensive munitions.
“There’s no shortage of munitions,” Hegseth remarked during a visit to US Central Command in Florida on March 5. “Our reserves are robust enough to maintain this campaign indefinitely.”
“We have sufficient precision munitions for the task at hand,” Caine added, aligning with Hegseth’s stance.
Yet, Trump acknowledged potential vulnerabilities in a post on Truth Social on March 2, noting that while medium-grade weapons are in ample supply, the highest-grade systems—particularly long-range missiles and interceptors—are limited. “We have a good supply but are not at our optimal level,” he wrote, suggesting the situation is more complex than publicly stated.
Experts like Kelly Grieco, a senior fellow at the Stimson Center, emphasize that the most critical limitations lie in top-tier weaponry. “The highest-grade missiles and interceptors are the ones causing concern,” she said, highlighting the inefficiency of defending against Iran’s Shahed-136 drones. Each drone costs between $20,000 and $50,000 to produce, yet countermeasures like fighter jets armed with AIM-9 missiles are far pricier, with each shot costing $450,000 and operating the plane requiring $40,000 per hour.
“The cost of operating a fighter jet for an hour matches the price of a Shahed drone,” Grieco explained. “This isn’t a favorable exchange rate.”
Grieco suggested the US could learn from Ukraine’s approach, which employs cheaper interceptor drones. “The US has tested this technology, but it hasn’t scaled production sufficiently,” she argued. In contrast, the more expensive Patriot missiles—priced at around $3 million each—are used to intercept ballistic threats, raising questions about their availability.
Mark Cancian, a senior adviser at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, noted the rapid depletion of Patriot stocks. “Initially, there were about 1,000 Patriots in inventory, and we’ve used a significant portion,” he said, estimating 200-300 have already been deployed. Production of these high-grade interceptors has been slow, with Lockheed Martin delivering just 620 PAC-3 missiles in 2025. “If you asked for another Patriot today, it would take at least two years to get one,” Cancian added.
For shorter-range weapons like bombs, JDAM kits, and Hellfire missiles, the situation appears more stable. Cancian stated, “Militarily, we could sustain the conflict for a very long time. The ground munitions are sufficient.”
On March 6, Trump convened with defense manufacturers, announcing plans to quadruple production of top-tier weaponry. The White House emphasized this was a long-planned effort. However, Grieco questioned the urgency of the announcement, stating, “I found this to be more of a routine update. Most of these deals had been in the works for months.”
To view this video, enable JavaScript and upgrade to a web browser supporting HTML5 video.
