Widening war with Iran threatens US with depletion of air defense missile stocks — NYT

Trump Shelves Iran Escalation Over Interceptor Stockpile Concerns

US President Donald Trump has set aside plans for a sharp escalation of military action against Iran, according to multiple reports, as concerns mount over the depletion of the Pentagon's antimissile interceptor stockpiles. The decision, reported by The New York Times and cited by other outlets, follows a meeting with key advisers on July 25 to discuss the shrinking inventory of Patriot interceptors in the Middle East.

General Dan Caine, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, cautioned that resuming major combat operations against Iran was feasible but would dangerously deplete interceptors available to the military's Central Command, according to sources cited by The New York Times and the Associated Press. The information was delivered to Trump alongside various scenarios for further military action, the AP reported.

The pause comes after 13 consecutive days of bombing, according to the Wall Street Journal, which reported that Trump decided over the weekend not to renew strikes despite military plans for a large-scale offensive that could have lasted up to two weeks. The officials added that Trump could still order an attack, noting that "the situation remains fluid."

Trump, however, denied that munitions shortages were behind his decision. "We have far more munitions than anyone in the world, and far more than we need," he asserted in a statement to the Wall Street Journal.

Concerns Over Interceptor Depletion and Regional Fallout

Recent White House discussions have centered on the depletion of the US's interceptor missiles, particularly since three US soldiers were killed in Jordan after an Iranian missile got through American air defenses, according to officials cited by The New York Times. The incident underscored the vulnerability of US forces and allies to Iranian attacks.

The US administration is concerned about the prospect of an expansion of the war, the complication of relations with allies in the Persian Gulf, vulnerable to Iranian attacks, as well as the aggravation of the energy and migration crisis, The New York Times concluded.

Few if any in Trump's inner circle believed that escalation would be wise, the sources said. One senior official expressed doubt that resuming major combat operations would drive Iran back to the bargaining table. The official said the strikes have the opposite effect of what is intended, keeping Iran cohesive and allowing Iranian leaders to focus attention on the external threat.

Differing Views Within the Administration

While Trump denied munitions shortages were behind his decision, other top US officials have indicated otherwise, according to the Wall Street Journal. Officials told the paper that General Caine is concerned about the declining inventory, but believes a shortage would pose an added risk should strikes resume, rather than completely hindering an operation. Several other officials added that US Central Command Commander Adm. Brad Cooper thinks in a similar vein, believing the US would be able to deal with a shortage because any American attacks would significantly damage Iran's missile-launching capability.

White House Statement and Diplomatic Path

White House communications director Steven Cheung told The New York Times that Trump has been "consistent in saying he prefers a diplomatic solution, but he continues to retain all options if Iran continues terrorist activities in the Strait of Hormuz or against allies." Cheung added that "it would be wise for Iran to work towards a negotiated deal; otherwise, they know what will happen."

Expert and Strategist Perspectives

According to the Financial Times, the resumption of military aggression against Iran increases the likelihood that the Middle East conflict will devalue Trump's second term in office. "Trump has seemed to come to the end of his rope on [Iran]," Ron Bonjean, a Republican political strategist, told the publication. "Reality is setting in that this is going to take a while. It could be months or years before this conflict gets resolved," he said. It remains unclear how the US leader intends to "limit the economic, political and diplomatic costs of the latest escalation, particularly as the autumn midterm elections loom," the publication said.

"Escalation to de-escalate <…> hasn't proven to be very successful in the past," Becca Wasser, a defense strategy expert at the Center for a New American Security think-tank in Washington, noted. "There's continuing to try and squeeze Iran economically as part of a long game. But thus far that hasn't been as successful as President Trump would like," she added.

According to Elizabeth Dent, former director for the Gulf and Arabian Peninsula in the office of the US secretary of defense, "the entire conflict has now become about the Strait of Hormuz rather than about what we initially went to war over, which was the nuclear programme, the ballistic missile and cruise missile programme <...>".

Earlier reports indicated that Trump had a discussion with key administration officials on July 14 on the topic of expanding the scale of military operations against Iran. In an interview with Fox News, the US president asserted that Washington is prepared to destroy all Iranian bridges and power plants if Tehran does not agree to negotiations, stressing that such strikes could be carried out next week.

Perspectives

• US Administration: White House communications director Steven Cheung emphasized Trump's preference for a diplomatic solution while retaining all options. Trump himself denied munitions shortages were behind his decision, asserting the US has more munitions than anyone in the world.

• Military and Officials: General Dan Caine and other officials expressed concerns about interceptor depletion, with some believing a shortage would pose an added risk to resumed strikes. Others, like Adm. Brad Cooper, suggested the US could manage the shortage.

• Analysts and Strategists: Experts like Ron Bonjean and Becca Wasser cast doubt on the effectiveness of escalation, while Elizabeth Dent argued the conflict has shifted focus away from its original aims toward the Strait of Hormuz.