Monday, June 1, 2026

Decided to Stop or Forced to Stop?

The US pounded Iran and was on the verge of total destruction of Iran’s political and military power and then, inexplicably, stopped attacking in favor of pursuit of a peace agreement.
 
As we’ve often noted, you don’t negotiate with an enemy, you utterly destroy them and then impose whatever surrender terms you want. 
 
Since WWII, the US has failed to pursue ultimate victory in every conflict it’s been involved in and the results have always come back to bite us.
 
Keeping that in mind, let’s change gears.
 
ComNavOps has frequently offered estimates of weapon inventory levels by examining budget documents for the preceding years.  In very brief terms, our weapons have historically had inventories in the low to mid thousands with production rates in the low hundreds.  However, that balance has been upset by the recent heavy expenditures of weapons off Yemen, around Israel, and against Iran.  In other words, our inventories are being depleted far faster than production can replenish.
 
Now, the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS) has done exactly what ComNavOps has done and has issued a report estimating weapon inventories prior to the Iran conflict, specific weapon expenditures during the conflict, and speculation about the amount of time required to rebuild the inventories.
 
As one example, here are the figures for Tomahawk missiles.  As reported by TWZ website, CSIS estimated a pre-war Tomahawk inventory of 3100 missiles and an expenditure of 1000+ missile, thus far.[1]
 
Think about that expenditure rate and note that was against a helpless, fourth rate enemy who was being pounded by other countries and other weapons.  Now, consider how that would change against China.  We’d be expending Tomahawks at a rate of a thousand per week!  But, I digress …
 
What about Tomahawk inventory replenishment ?  It’s not encouraging.
 
Tomahawk procurement “averaged 86 missiles in the past 10 fiscal years (FY 15–FY 26), with most orders coming from the Navy,”  CSIS noted. [1]
 
 … the recent annual production rate is less than 200 … [1]

It’s worse than that, though.  A significant chunk of production is slated for sales to foreign countries, as noted below.
 
Another factor to consider are foreign military sales, with nearly 800 due to Japan, Australia and the Netherlands.[1]

So, we have a very small production capacity which is further “eroded” by deliveries to other countries.  It’s going to take many years to recover our Tomahawk inventory levels.  How much worse will this be during a war with China?  But, again, I digress …
 
The same trends hold true, to varying degrees, for all other weapons in the US military.
 
With low inventories and dismal replenishment rates in mind and returning to the first sentence in this post, we can now legitimately ask whether the seemingly inexplicable pause on the verge of total victory was due to some [misguided] desire for a premature peace or due to having reached a state of weapons depletion that became unacceptable given the constant threat of war with China and the need to maintain a “sufficient “ stockpile of weapons.  In other words, did we choose to stop or were we forced to stop by low weapon inventories?  Did we hit the minimum “safe” inventory levels and had to stop?
 
There’s no way to know the answer but logic suggests that we stopped because we reached a point where we felt we couldn’t expend any more weapons without depleting our inventories to unacceptable levels.  If this is the case, then all the talk of the US being ready and willing to resume attacks is just public relations propaganda for the masses and Iran is in no real danger of further heavy, sustained attacks and that would certainly change the negotiation strategies on both sides.
 
What do you think?  Decided to stop or forced to stop?
 
 
Note:  This is not a post about the “rightness” of the Iran strikes, just the military aspects of those strikes.  Political comments will not be allowed.
 
 
 
________________________________
 
[1]The War Zone website, “Severity Of America’s Depleted Advanced Weapons Stockpiles Detailed In New Report”, Howard Altman, 28-May-2026,
https://www.twz.com/news-features/severity-of-americas-depleted-advanced-weapons-stockpiles-detailed-in-new-report

9 comments:

  1. No boots, no victory. Iran is a serious adversary and cannot be bullied economically, politically or militarily. The regime has to be defeated, and that is not going to happen from the air.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I have to disagree. It can be done from the air, and we have no business entering a ground war. Its not that they are a serious adversary... theyre not. But they have layers of ideological/ theological leaders that must be eliminated. We did good things in going after leadership, and frankly it's just a matter of continuing til every rabid more senior leader is gone. We should've never stopped, and I only hope our intel services have stayed on the ball locating and tracking leadership for future strikes.

      Delete
    2. "cannot be bullied economically, politically or militarily."

      They most certainly can but it requires a commitment to seeing the job all the way through and we have stopped short of that.

      Delete
    3. Our main war objective appears to have been to eliminate Iran's nuclear potential and we appear to have largely done that with the exception of obtaining/destroying their enriched fuel which, depending on the report you read, may be buried, nearly unreachable, under collapsed earth which would make it "destroyed".

      Our secondary objective appears to have been to eliminate the political leadership which we certainly did. However, instead of continuing to eliminate new leaders until we find some who are willing to cooperate (they don't have to like us, just be cooperative), we've stopped. The attacks were working quite well but we stopped. Had we continued, we'd have likely eliminated all the radical leaders by now (I have great faith that between our intel and Israel's, we could find and target the leaders as they pop up) and found cooperative ones.

      Delete
    4. This is an example of the proverb that half measures never produce full results.

      Delete
  2. I think that the inventory is likely a big reason for the halt. But with ownership of the air... where all those dumb munitions?? And the "bomb kits" to make them guided?
    Also, I bet the TLAM numbers are even worse. My understanding is that we built NO Tomahawks last year- only 50 TLAM were converted to antiship variants by the factory. But either way... we need to massively increase production, and get a TLAM successor spun up real quick. ( among other things)

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "My understanding is that we built NO Tomahawks last year"

      Bear in mind that there are multiple definitions of "built" in a given year. Funds can be appropriated ("built") and those funds may or may not be actually spent. Orders can be places but the resulting products won't be delivered that same year (depending on the specific weapon). We can take delivery of weapons in a given year. So, the number of weapons "built" depends on what your definition of "built" is. I always look at several years worth of "production" (a decade or more, preferably) to really get a feel for the average production rate.

      Delete
  3. There was a country that was in a war for 4 years, had become starved economically, had a hungry population, had suffered as many human losses as the enemy, and was starting to loose captured territory with no way to stop the advances. And it agreed to change the regime as part of the settlement. The result 15 years later was not what anyone wanted or foresaw.

    Study history or else repeat it.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I cited that example in my post on "True Victory".

      Delete

Comments will be moderated for posts older than 7 days in order to reduce spam.