The United States is now 11 days into an unrelenting campaign of strikes against Iran, and there is still no clear endpoint — or, more troubling, any obvious strategic goal that can realistically be achieved.
What was initially framed as a fast route to victory has slid into the familiar misery of a prolonged war of attrition. The absence of a coherent plan is not merely a political problem; it is imposing a serious and growing cost on U.S. national security.
Each day, American aircraft and warships strike bridges, tunnels and civilian infrastructure across Iran. Yet Tehran appears able to repair, replace and reload almost as quickly as the weapons are launched. The attacks are inflicting damage, but they are not loosening the regime’s grip on power or forcing Iranian leaders to capitulate. It has become a display of tactical force dressed up as strategic determination.
The uncomfortable truth is that the U.S. campaign is not eliminating Iran’s vast “missile cities” hidden across the country. These underground networks, cut deep into granite mountains, shelter the ballistic missiles and long-range drones that have helped keep the Strait of Hormuz closed, driven up global oil prices and raised fears of a severe worldwide recession.
So why have those facilities not been destroyed? Because, in practical terms, they cannot be. U.S. missiles are not capable of reliably punching deep enough into granite mountain complexes to neutralize such heavily fortified sites, regardless of how much firepower is expended.
The White House and the Pentagon appear to be brushing past that hard physical limit. Washington has largely exhausted its realistic military options for defeating Iran, while the President remains unwilling to pursue serious give-and-take diplomacy with a regime he has denounced as “evil” and “scum.” That refusal by civilian and military leaders to confront the facts on the ground is alarming career national security officials and civil servants — and prompting some to speak publicly.
One official, quoted in a stark excerpt published by The Washington Post, put the concern bluntly: “We do not have enough (missiles) to safely sustain operations, and I don’t think the White House is aware of that,” the official said.
A senior White House source also told me in a recent exchange that some officials at the highest levels believe the current approach is not only failing, but opening a dangerous new gap: eroding America’s capacity to defend itself if a sudden conflict erupts with a near-peer adversary such as Russia or China.
One highly placed White House source revealed to me in a recent exchange that officials very high up the food chain believe the current policies are not just ineffective, but creating a new vulnerability
Day after day, American aircraft and warships pound bridges, tunnels and civilian infrastructure across Iran (Pictured: Damaged bridge in Iran’s Hormozgan Province on June 17)
In April, it was reported that Vice President JD Vance was concerned that Secretary of War Pete Hegseth was misinforming the President on the actual conduct of the war. One of the specific concerns reported by VP Vance was the alarming reduction in US missile stockpiles.
In response to this reporting, White House Communications Director Steven Cheung told the Daily Mail: ‘The entire National Security team always provides the President with timely and accurate information so he can make informed decisions. There is absolutely no concern about the United States’ military capabilities and its ability to be lethal and effective under the President’s direction.’
Chief Pentagon Spokesman Sean Parnell said: ‘America’s military is the most powerful in the world and has everything it needs to execute at the time and place of the President’s choosing.’
I assess this concern to dangerously understate the depth of the self-imposed vulnerability.
It does not matter what political leaders want to do in time of war; it only matters what America’s forces can and cannot do. Fantasy is not a strategic plan. President Trump – and apparently Secretary of War Pete Hegseth – do not appear to recognize any limits to US military power and are reportedly considering returning to full-scale war against Iran, somehow expecting a different outcome from the first 40 days.
If Washington slides back into a major, sustained campaign, we will do so by burning through our already dangerously depleted stockpiles of JASSM (offensive, joint air-to-surface standoff missiles), Tomahawk (offensive, land attack cruise missiles), THAAD (defensive, terminal high altitude area defense interceptors) and PAC-3 (defensive, patriot advanced capability-3 missile Interceptors) weapons.
Every time the US Navy’s Arleigh Burke-class destroyer fires a multi-million-dollar salvo of interceptors to shoot down low-cost drones or missiles, every time a strike jet releases a standoff cruise missile against an easily repairable Iranian bridge, America’s global deterrence shrinks. These specialized munitions take years, not months, to manufacture and replace.
In April, it was reported that Vice President JD Vance was concerned that Secretary of War Pete Hegseth was misinforming the President on the actual conduct of the war
Every time the US Navy’s Arleigh Burke-class destroyer (above) fires a multi-million-dollar salvo of interceptors to shoot down low-cost drones or missiles, America’s global deterrence shrinks
Daniel L Davis is a retired Army Lt Col with four combat deployments, senior fellow at Defense Priorities and host of the Daniel Davis Deep Dive show on YouTube
By extinguishing our stockpiles, or simply burning them down to critical red levels, we are plunging the United States into existential danger should we be forced to face a peer competitor.
If the unthinkable happens and we are dragged into a major war against Russia, China, or North Korea, we will urgently require every single offensive and defensive missile in our inventory. And given the sheer scale of a Great Power conflict, even our full baseline inventory might not be enough. Further, our defense industrial base is not able to produce new weapons at scale in anything less than multiple years as well.
Meaning, if we get into an unexpected war that isn’t our choice, we may literally run out of offensive and defensive weapons in a matter of weeks and our forces would be near defenseless against a better stocked enemy. Ultimately, it matters little how many advanced fighter jets we have, cutting edge warships, or launch systems if we don’t have missiles to fire.
By continuing to drain these precious reserves on a meaningless mission in the Middle East that simply cannot be accomplished, we are effectively disarming ourselves. We are leaving our forces in the Indo-Pacific and Europe exposed, inviting adversaries to test our resolve at the exact moment our magazines are running empty.
The dangers to our nation from continuing this failing campaign against Iran are grave, immediate and worsening with every passing day. We cannot bomb our way out of geographic and physical realities, nor can our defense industrial base magically produce years’ worth of advanced air-defense interceptors overnight.
Washington must abandon political posturing and confront the military math. To sacrifice America’s primary global strategic deterrence for a pointless, unwinnable excursion in Iran is not just poor leadership – it is to willingly plunge into an unprecedented risk to national security. It is time to halt this unsustainable drain on our nation’s firepower before the damage becomes irreversible.
Daniel L Davis is a retired Army Lt Col with four combat deployments, senior fellow at Defense Priorities and host of the Daniel Davis Deep Dive show on YouTube
