Can the US sustain its war in Iran?

Can the US sustain its war in Iran?

On February 28, the U.S. initiated “Operation Epic Fury” against Iran, marking the start of a sustained military campaign. In the days that followed, thousands of strikes were executed across the country, utilizing over 20 different weapon systems through air, land, and sea operations. The first wave of attacks, involving U.S.-Israeli forces, resulted in the death of Iran’s supreme leader, Ali Khamenei.

Despite the scale of the operation, President Donald Trump emphasized that the U.S. has “virtually unlimited” weaponry available, while his defense secretary claimed Iran would “have no hope” of enduring the conflict. However, concerns have emerged about the availability of high-grade defensive systems. Trump later noted on social media that while medium-grade munitions are abundant, “we are not where we want to be” with the most advanced options.

“We’ve got no shortage of munitions,” stated Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth during a visit to US Central Command. “Our stockpiles of defensive and offensive weapons allow us to keep this campaign going as long as needed.”

“We have sufficient precision munitions for the task at hand, both on the offense and defense,” added General Dan Caine, the Joint Chiefs of Staff Chair.

Yet, the economic strain of maintaining high-grade systems has raised questions. Kelly Grieco, a senior fellow at the Stimson Center, pointed out that the most expensive missiles and interceptors are the ones facing depletion. “There are real limitations on stockpiles there,” she said, highlighting the inefficiency of using fighter jets and their AIM-9 missiles against Shahed 136 drones, which cost between $20,000 and $50,000 each.

According to CENTCOM, the U.S. struck over 3,000 targets in Iran within the first week, with Iran retaliating by launching thousands of Shahed drones and hundreds of missiles at U.S. and allied facilities. “The cost of operating a fighter jet for an hour equals that of a Shahed drone,” Grieco noted, suggesting a need for more cost-effective alternatives like the Ukrainian-developed interceptor drones.

Mark Cancian of the Center for Strategic and International Studies warned that the Patriot missile system, crucial for countering ballistic threats, is being rapidly consumed. “I think we’ve already used up 200-300 of the 1,000 Patriots that were available at the start,” he estimated. Lockheed Martin, the primary supplier, delivered just 620 PAC-3 interceptors in 2025, with production delays extending delivery times by at least two years.

While the situation is dire for high-grade weapons, shorter-range systems like bombs and Hellfire missiles appear more resilient. Cancian argued that the U.S. has ample ground munitions to continue the campaign indefinitely. This contrasts with the urgency seen in the Patriot supply chain, where rapid depletion could hinder long-term operations.

On March 6, Trump convened with defense manufacturers, announcing plans to quadruple production of top-tier weapons. The White House claimed the agreement had been in place for weeks, but Grieco questioned its significance, stating, “I found that to be like a non-announcement because most of these had already been announced.” Lockheed Martin’s commitment to increase Patriot PAC-3 production from 600 to 2,000 per year remains public, though its impact on supply remains uncertain.