Skip to Content Facebook Feature Image

Missile Shortage Forces Trump to Halt Iran Strikes

Blog

Missile Shortage Forces Trump to Halt Iran Strikes
Blog

Blog

Missile Shortage Forces Trump to Halt Iran Strikes

2026-07-28 15:35 Last Updated At:15:35

Trump’s attacks on Iran have looked like shadowboxing in the dark. The direction changes daily, and the strategy is so unpredictable that it can seem chaotic. Perhaps that is the essence of “Trumpian strategy”: if he does not know what he is doing, how could his enemy know?

After 13 straight days of US strikes on Iran, Trump had signaled a much larger air campaign. Then he abruptly hit the brakes and told the military to hold fire. What forced such a sudden reversal?

A New York Times report offers an explanation. At a recent White House war room meeting, officials warned that stocks of Patriot and other air-defense interceptors were running dangerously low. If Iran kept retaliating, US forces in the region could struggle to protect themselves. The risk pushed Trump from escalating to retreating.

Low interceptor stocks forced Trump to halt strikes, fearing US casualties and political disaster.

Low interceptor stocks forced Trump to halt strikes, fearing US casualties and political disaster.

The Wall Street Journal separately reported that Iran has used a cheap, accurate, and fast medium-range missile in large numbers against US bases. The weapon can break through American defenses. If both sides keep trading strikes, US casualties could climb, placing even greater political pressure on Trump.

From Green Light to Hold

US forces had been pounding Iran for days. Each afternoon, Trump personally approved the military’s proposed attack plan, which was then executed within hours. But last Friday, after receiving the latest plan, he withheld the green light and ordered the military to hold off.

It turned out that same day, Trump convened selected cabinet members and advisers for a White House war room meeting. Officials warned that stocks of Patriot and other interceptor missiles were dwindling rapidly and had fallen to dangerous levels.

The meeting also revisited the earlier attack on a US base in Jordan, where three soldiers died. An Iranian missile penetrated US air defenses and struck its target directly. The incident underscored the increasingly serious shortage of interceptor missiles.

For Trump, another successful strike on a US base and more American deaths would carry a steep political price. He could not ignore that prospect.

Tit for Tat

After Trump resumed the airstrikes, Iran hit back hard, firing missiles at US bases across the region and deploying drones. The two sides traded blows like boxers in the ring, neither willing to yield. A US air base in Jordan, Sarti, was hit, killing three soldiers and quickly fueling a domestic backlash in the United States.

Trump’s advisers warned that further US airstrikes would invite more Iranian missile retaliation. US bases in Jordan, Kuwait, Bahrain, and the United Arab Emirates could all become targets. Regional air-defense systems were already under growing strain, while the likelihood of American casualties kept rising.

The timing could hardly be worse. Just when the United States needs more interceptors, its supplies are dwindling. The New York Times said the Pentagon has used 1,200 Patriot missiles since the offensive began, at about US$4 million apiece, bringing inventories to an alarming level.

The latest round of US-Iran fighting has consumed another batch and moved supplies closer to the danger line. Keep fighting at this pace and US forces could be left effectively exposed. More military deaths could follow, with potentially grim consequences for the midterm elections.

Gen. Dan Caine, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, has also privately expressed concern about interceptor stocks running dry. He worries that a large-scale offensive could leave the Middle East short of deployable interceptors.

Gamblers have an old rule: when you’re winning, let it ride; when you’re losing, cut your losses. Trump, a gambler by nature, has gone from letting it ride to cutting his losses. The shift suggests his hand is weakening, with the shortage of interceptor missiles among his worst cards.

Iran’s Strong Card

By contrast, Iran still has some strong cards to play. Its missile reserves can sustain continuing launches, and it has rebuilt assembly plants to replenish its arsenal. What worries Washington most is Iran's extensive use of a cheap, accurate, and rapid medium-range missile that can penetrate defense systems.

The Wall Street Journal reported that Iran has relied on the Kheibar Shekan missile as its main medium-range ballistic weapon against US regional targets. Those targets include the recently attacked US base in Jordan.

The missile has a range of 900 miles. It climbs into the atmosphere before diving on its target at speeds of up to 6,000 mph, and it can alter its trajectory in flight. That makes interception more difficult.

Cheap, fast, and mobile, Iran’s Kheibar Shekan missiles easily penetrate defenses to strike US bases.

Cheap, fast, and mobile, Iran’s Kheibar Shekan missiles easily penetrate defenses to strike US bases.

The Kheibar Shekan has several advantages. Its production cost is lower than that of US interceptor missiles, it can be fueled in advance and quickly loaded onto mobile launchers, and its mobility helps it evade US and Israeli attacks.

The missile can also adjust its speed to confuse US defenses. In this conflict, some Kheibar Shekan missiles have used these features to break through US defenses and strike their targets successfully.

US and Israeli estimates indicate that Iran had about 2,500 of these missiles before the war. Israel says it has intercepted most of them. Yet the Wall Street Journal said Iran continues firing them at Israel, including at Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s office and the Israeli Air Force command.

If Israeli air defenses leave even a small opening, a Kheibar Shekan strike could hand Iran a major symbolic victory.

Trump’s strategic shift suggests that the military balance is gradually reversing. If the fighting continues, the United States may find itself less able to endure, and a rough military parity could open the way to peace.

Lai Ting-yiu




What Say You?

** 博客文章文責自負,不代表本公司立場 **

A New York Times writer asked a good question yesterday: "Why the United States Can’t Quit Its Wars?" Quite rightly so. From Iraq and Afghanistan to Iran, the United States can never escape the fate of "easy to start a war, hard to pull the troops out."

The harder it strikes, the stronger its enemies grow. The more allies those enemies attract, the deeper Washington sinks. It has no choice but to keep raising the stakes. The Iran war is now trapped in exactly this vicious cycle.

The Wall Street Journal reports today that Iran's "Axis of Resistance" has expanded further of late. The al-Qaeda branch entrenched in Somalia, Africa, has stepped up its alliance with the Houthis, Iran's "sworn brothers." The pair could choke off the Red Sea exit at any moment. That would sever the other oil shipping lane beyond the Strait of Hormuz. Should that happen, America's troubles will multiply, and pulling out will become harder still.

Al-Qaeda's Somali branch joins the Houthis. Washington's headache grows.

Al-Qaeda's Somali branch joins the Houthis. Washington's headache grows.

According to the report, al-Shabaab, al-Qaeda's branch in Somalia, is the wealthiest of them all. It controls local ports, roads and gold mines, and it is raking in money hand over fist. Annual revenue exceeds US$100 million.

Yet bulging coffers are not enough. The group lacks advanced weapons, and its fighters need proper military training. Which is why it has cut frequent "deals" in recent years with the Houthis in Yemen, Iran's "sworn brother." Since the US attacked Iran, the two have grown closer still, united by common enemies in America and Israel.

Al-Qaeda was founded by bin Laden in 1988. It began as a "jihadist organization" resisting the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan, covertly funded, no less, by the CIA. When the Soviets went down in defeat, the United States took over the role of "invader." Al-Qaeda promptly turned its guns on America.

In 2001 Al-Qaeda orchestrated 9/11, the terrorist attack of the century. Washington has regarded it as the greatest threat ever since.

In recent years, its leaders have been killed by the US one after another. Rival "jihadist groups" keep grabbing its turf, leaving it in steady decline. Yet al-Qaeda remains powerful in parts of the Middle East and Africa. The Somali branch is a case in point. The US has long seen it as a mortal danger, and the American military has struck it as many as 40 times.

The "Perfect Partners"

To build up its military muscle, the group has in recent years bought large batches of advanced weapons from the Houthis through intermediary arms dealers. It has also sent fighters to Yemen for military training, learning, among other things, how to operate attack drones. The Houthis, for their part, have dispatched instructors to Somalia to pass on combat skills.

The US went to war against Iran in late February this year. That pushed the "deadly duo" into even closer contact. Al-Qaeda belongs to Islam's Sunni branch, while the Houthis are Shia. The two are age-old foes. But faced with the common enemies of America and Israel, both are willing to set aside their feud and point their guns outward in unison.

What is more, each side of the "deadly duo" has something the other craves. The Houthis need hard cash to fund their war effort. Al-Qaeda, keen to sharpen its fighting power to consolidate its grip, must acquire advanced weapons and military technology. This mutually beneficial relationship has turned the two into "perfect partners."

To Washington, two "terrorist organizations" banding together is a real nightmare. It is enough to rob it of sleep and appetite. The Houthis are entrenched in Yemen, facing Somalia, home of the al-Qaeda branch, across the Gulf of Aden. That is the gateway through which oil is shipped via the Red Sea. If the pair join forces, they could lock down this shipping lane for good.

The Choke Point

The Strait of Hormuz is already firmly in Iran's grip. If this other lane is cut as well, Saudi Arabia and the rest will lose their alternative route for shipping oil. Global energy supplies will go from bad to worse. Remember: 12 percent of the Middle East's oil is transported through this passage. The impact must not be underestimated.

The "deadly duo" could shut Saudi Arabia's backup oil route.

The "deadly duo" could shut Saudi Arabia's backup oil route.

Worryingly, the "deadly duo" genuinely possesses the capability to seal the strait. The Houthis have precision missiles and large fleets of attack drones. They are now helping al-Qaeda install radar in Somalia and supplying it with attack drones and more. The two could coordinate operations down the road, striking merchant vessels and US warships that try to force their way through.

Whether the American military could juggle that many fronts at once would then be a big question mark.

America's current predicament recalls 2010. President Obama decided then to send 30,000 more troops to Afghanistan to fight the Taliban. The deputy assistant secretary of defense at the time, Lavoy, raised doubts. "Afghanistan has countless tribes, and every one of them harbors resentment towards America," he said. "Even if the Taliban did not exist, there would still be an insurgency in Afghanistan."

No matter how many troops were poured in, the war could not be won. Better to simply withdraw.

Those words describe the Iran war today just as aptly. By attacking Iran, America has opened a "Pandora's box," and "demons" like al-Qaeda have come pouring out. How many of them, one has to ask, can America possibly fight at once?

Lai Ting-yiu

Recommended Articles