Incompetence of the Democratic and Republican Parties in Running the US Terrorist Army
TEHRAN (Defapress) - In recent years, America's strategic challenges in facing regional and global crises have become a common topic of discussion in political and research circles. Among the most important issues raised are the state of weapons stockpiles and their impact on major U.S. military and foreign policy decisions, especially following the regional war involving Iran. In this context, the American Enterprise Institute (AEI) published a comprehensive analysis of the various dimensions of this challenge, the historical roots of the ammunition shortage, and the strategic imperatives facing the U.S. government. This study takes a closer look at common propositions and misconceptions regarding defense capabilities and procurement constraints.
The full text of this analysis is as follows:
On July 25, The New York Times reported that Donald Trump had shelved plans to resume military strikes against Iran due to concerns over further depleting U.S. air defense interceptor inventories. This report has sparked intense debate around a strategic question: How can the U.S. defend its interests worldwide while suffering from ammunition shortages? Answering this question is only possible by addressing certain notions about ammunition shortages that have emerged in recent days.
America's retreat from escalation on the Iranian front is not merely due to an ammunition shortage; the strategic issue is that even if the U.S. had no ammunition problems, there is still no guarantee it would resume military strikes against Iran. The primary reason for Washington avoiding renewed military attacks on Iran has been Tehran's resistance to previous tensions. The U.S. has clearly realized that air and missile strikes cannot force Iran into submission or bring this conflict to an end in a manner satisfactory to the U.S.
The U.S. ammunition shortage has been a predictable issue for rival and adversary nations for several years. Recent news reports revealed nothing that Iran, China, or Russia were unaware of. On the other hand, this issue does not matter to Iran. Tehran is determined to maintain control over the Strait of Hormuz, and the extent of U.S. military capability and the size of Washington's arsenal do not impair Iran's resolve in the slightest.
Although Iran stands in the way of U.S. interests in West Asia, the U.S. cannot simply abandon all its global interests by exhausting vital ammunition stockpiles in the regional war with Iran. Tom Rogan of the Washington Examiner puts it well: those advocating the argument that the ammunition shortage does not affect the confrontation with Iran are either deceiving themselves about the imminent threat of China, or they believe Iran poses a larger threat. In either case, these individuals are largely fools.
In reality, it will take years to replenish the ammunition spent in the regional war involving Iran and other recent operations. Furthermore, it will take even more years for ammunition inventories to get close enough for a conflict with China, and all of this assumes everything goes right in the supply chain. That means Congress approving the administration's requests for increased Pentagon funding, the Pentagon quickly contracting with arms manufacturers and providing them with timely and proper financial support, and defense contractors being able to deliver the required weaponry to the U.S. Department of War in the shortest possible timeframe.
Although Operation Epic Fury exacerbated this shortage, the deficit was evident for more than a decade prior. The U.S. has never possessed enough ammunition for a sustained, high-intensity fight against a capable adversary like China or Iran.
While Joe Biden did not cause the U.S. ammunition shortage, his administration did not do enough to mitigate it. Withdrawals from arsenals often outpaced replenishment, and funding allocated to initiatives to offset the shortage appeared to be meaningfully inadequate.
The ammunition shortage existed before Trump's election. During his first presidential term, Trump took incremental, though ultimately insufficient, steps to increase ammunition supplies. In his second presidential term, he has also made numerous efforts to compensate for the shortage. Still, ultimately, due to various tensions he provoked across multiple regions of the world, not only was the shortage not resolved, but it has now manifested as a full-blown crisis.
