The Pentagon Has a Problem Trump Can’t Ignore

America’s shrinking stockpile of critical missiles is raising an uncomfortable question for the Trump administration: Has the United States burned through too much of its military firepower during the prolonged conflict with Iran?

After months of fighting, reports indicate that supplies of some of the Pentagon’s most important offensive and defensive weapons have fallen sharply. The situation could limit President Trump’s options if he decides to launch another major campaign against Iran — while also creating concerns about America’s ability to respond to threats from Russia or China.

For critics, the situation has also put Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth under increasing scrutiny, with questions emerging about whether the Pentagon adequately prepared for a conflict that lasted far longer than the administration initially expected.

Former Defense Secretary Leon Panetta described the depleted stockpiles as evidence of poor planning, warning that the United States is facing a dangerous situation at a time when potential threats remain on multiple fronts.

“This is a dangerous moment for the United States to have these reduced stockpiles of key weapons,” Panetta said.

The weapons at the center of the concern include Army Tactical Missile Systems, or ATACMS, and the newer Precision Strike Missile, known as PrSM. These weapons give U.S. forces the ability to strike targets from significant distances without placing pilots directly over heavily defended areas.

Reports indicate that the Army has used virtually all of its available ATACMS and PrSM missiles during the conflict.

ATACMS, manufactured by Lockheed Martin, can be fired from mobile HIMARS launchers and reach targets nearly 200 miles away. The newer PrSM is designed to eventually replace ATACMS and has a range exceeding 300 miles.

The problem with PrSM is particularly significant because supplies were already limited before the Iran conflict began. A defense analysis estimated that the United States had roughly 90 PrSM missiles before the first strikes in late February.

If Trump were to authorize a major new bombing campaign, the dwindling supply of precision missiles could force American commanders to rely more heavily on manned aircraft and conventional bombing missions.

The defensive side of the arsenal is facing pressure as well.

The United States has reportedly used a substantial portion of its THAAD missile interceptors and Patriot interceptors since the war began. Those systems are among America’s most important defenses against incoming ballistic missiles and other threats.

That creates a difficult strategic calculation for the administration. Every additional missile fired at Iran could mean fewer weapons available if another crisis erupts elsewhere.

China remains the most obvious long-term concern. Any major confrontation involving Taiwan could require enormous quantities of precision weapons, missile defenses and other advanced munitions. Russia also remains a potential threat.

That means Iran is not the only country watching America’s weapons inventories.

Some defense analysts argue Tehran likely understood the limits of the U.S. arsenal well before the information became public. Jennifer Kavanagh of Defense Priorities said Iran may have calculated that extending the conflict could eventually place greater pressure on Washington.

“The shortages affect U.S. leverage,” Kavanagh said.

Ari Cicurel of the Jewish Institute for National Security of America similarly warned that America’s limited stockpiles could give Iran greater leverage during negotiations while sending a message to Beijing about how long Washington could sustain a major conflict.

The issue is particularly awkward for the Trump administration because the president has repeatedly portrayed American military power as overwhelming.

Trump and Hegseth have pushed back strongly against reports that the United States is running dangerously low on weapons. Trump has also attacked government officials and others accused of leaking information about military stockpiles, warning that those responsible would face serious consequences.

But the underlying challenge is harder to dismiss: Rebuilding sophisticated weapons inventories cannot happen overnight.

Defense companies are increasing production, but industry experts have warned that returning the nation’s stockpiles to prewar levels could take years.

That has put additional attention on Hegseth and the Pentagon’s preparation for the Iran conflict. Reports have suggested Trump questioned Hegseth about the extent of the weapons shortage during a July 31 meeting at Camp David, although the White House and Pentagon have denied reports of a confrontation.

Trump has continued to defend Hegseth, saying he is extremely satisfied with the defense secretary’s performance and rejecting reports that the two have clashed over weapons supplies.

Still, the questions surrounding the stockpiles are unlikely to disappear.

The Pentagon has begun pushing defense contractors to move faster. Officials have demanded plans for significantly increasing production and shortening delivery schedules for critical weapons.

The department has also announced agreements involving Lockheed Martin and Northrop Grumman intended to increase production of Patriot PAC-3 and THAAD interceptors.

But defense experts caution that announcements alone do not replenish an arsenal.

Congress still needs to provide the money required to turn production plans into actual weapons, and expanding complex manufacturing networks can take years.

That leaves Trump facing a difficult balancing act.

The president has threatened major additional strikes against Iran several times but has repeatedly stepped back in favor of diplomacy. With negotiations over the Strait of Hormuz continuing, the administration is attempting to pressure Tehran while avoiding a military escalation that could consume even more of America’s limited stockpiles.

Iranian officials, meanwhile, have presented demands that include lifting sanctions, ending the U.S. naval blockade, withdrawing American forces from the region, releasing frozen Iranian assets and paying war reparations.

Those demands are unlikely to be easily accepted by Washington.

The larger problem for Trump is that military strength is most useful as leverage when an adversary believes the United States has the ability and willingness to use it.

If America’s most advanced weapons are in short supply, that leverage can begin to weaken.

And that is why the growing debate over the Pentagon’s depleted stockpiles has become more than a question about missiles. It is now a question about America’s ability to fight — and sustain — more than one major conflict at a time.

For Trump, the political challenge is equally serious. He campaigned on projecting overwhelming American strength and restoring military readiness. If the Pentagon cannot rapidly rebuild the weapons consumed during the Iran conflict, critics will inevitably ask whether the administration underestimated the cost of a war that has lasted far longer than expected.

The question surrounding Hegseth is therefore becoming harder to avoid: Was the Pentagon prepared for a prolonged conflict, or did the administration plan for a war that was supposed to be over much sooner?

The answer could have consequences far beyond Iran.