The stockpile of missiles and interceptors of the USA is being eroded by the defense of Israel

According to the same sources, Kaine raised his concerns in a meeting held last week at the White House with Trump and his senior staff. He noted that any large-scale operation against Iran would encounter considerable challenges, among other things because the United States’ arsenal has been significantly eroded against the background of the ongoing defense of Israel and military support for Ukraine. Kaine’s remarks at this meeting have not been previously reported.

Despite the concerns and reports, the American president hastened to refute the speculations in a post on the TruthSocial network he owns, and rejected the claims outright: “Many stories from the fake news media have been circulated according to which General Daniel Cain, sometimes known as Razin, opposes us going to war with Iran,” he wrote.

“Razin Kane is a great fighter, and represents the strongest military anywhere in the world. He didn’t talk about non-attack against Iran, or even the fake limited strikes I read about, he knows only one thing, how to win, and if he is told to do so, he will lead the pack. Everything written about a potential war with Iran is written incorrectly, and with the first intention.”

Fear of the scope of the campaign and American losses

In other discussions held this month at the Pentagon, Kane expressed concern about the possible scope of a campaign against Iran, its inherent complexity and the possibility of losses among American forces. According to him, the lack of support from allies will only exacerbate the operational difficulties.

In an official announcement, Kane’s office said that in his role as the president’s senior military adviser, he presents to the political echelon “a variety of military options, alongside secondary considerations and accompanying consequences and risks”, and that the options are delivered discreetly.

Different goals – completely different system

The possible scope of a campaign against Iran may change dramatically depending on the president’s goals. Hitting the Iranian missile program would require an attack on hundreds of targets across a country three times the size of Iraq. Among the possible targets: launch sites – many of them mobile – supply depots, air defense systems and transportation networks used to transfer weapons.

At the same time, the administration concentrated a significant strike force in the Middle East. Trump admitted that he is also considering a limited attack designed to pressure Tehran to reach an agreement that would limit the nuclear program under conditions favorable to Washington. Iran has expressed willingness in principle for the deal, but disputes remain – among other things around the issue of uranium enrichment. Talks between American and Iranian representatives are set to resume this week in Geneva.

Internal debate and cracks in the regional arena

Among American officials, there is a controversy surrounding the idea of ​​the limited attack. Its opponents warn of degenerating into a violent and unpredictable round of reactions and counter-reactions, including Iranian strikes against American military and diplomatic targets in the region. Its supporters point out that in the past Iran reacted with relative moderation to American and Israeli attacks, sometimes with indirect coordination aimed at reducing casualties.

However, Arab countries in the Gulf have made it clear to Washington that they will not allow the use of their bases for an attack against Iran. An Iranian threat to retaliate against any country that assists the operation also raises questions about the possibility of obtaining air rights of passage – a critical component of a large-scale operation.

Lack of armaments and unprecedented preparation

Two central interception systems for defense against ballistic missiles – THAAD and Patriot – have been deployed on a large scale in various arenas in the Middle East. The US Navy also used a large amount of SM-2, SM-3 and SM-6 missiles in the framework of protecting vessels in the Red Sea and protecting Israel from ballistic missiles. The production of these missiles is complex and sometimes takes more than two years per unit, and there is currently no quick solution to the shortage.

According to sources in Washington, the stockpile of armaments has dwindled to such an extent that last year the Ministry of Defense requested a budget increase of approximately 30 billion dollars for the purchase of advanced missiles and interceptors – a request that was only partially granted.

At the same time as the discussions, the United States concentrated the largest military force in the Middle East since the invasion of Iraq in 2003. This week, Washington even ordered the evacuation of non-essential workers and their families from the US embassy in Lebanon, fearing that Hezbollah would be drawn into the conflict.