At a time when questions are rising about the readiness of the United States for the post-confrontation phase with Iran, American analytical reports have revealed worrying gaps in the military and strategic structure, raising question marks about Washington’s ability to engage in larger conflicts in the near future.
In this context, the “Responsible Statecraft” website considered that the war with Iran showed that the American army “is completely unprepared for a broader conflict,” noting that the recent confrontation has greatly depleted American missile stocks, which opens the door to questions about the military institution’s ability to continue defending national interests.
The report explained that the debate within Washington has become focused on the extent of losses in the military arsenal, especially after a large portion of it was depleted during operations, pointing out that this reality threatens the foundations on which the American military strategy is based.
Despite recording some tactical successes during the confrontation, the site noted that the results of the conflict “severely undermined the basic principles of American strategy,” and raised doubts about the effectiveness of plans drawn up to deal with major crises.
He also pointed out the extent of the damage to US bases in the Middle East, where infrastructure, air defense systems and radars were subjected to significant damage, in addition to the disruption of advanced military aircraft, including refueling aircraft and early warning aircraft, which negatively affected operational readiness.
According to the report, the risks reached a level that prompted US forces to reduce their direct presence in some bases and resort to working remotely, an indication of the fragility of the field situation.
This assessment comes at a time when US President Donald Trump continues to manage the Iranian file with a mixture of military and diplomatic pressure, as he extended the ceasefire with Tehran until the end of the negotiations, in parallel with his talk about receiving an Iranian offer on “more favorable” terms, which Tehran denied.
On the other hand, Iranian President Masoud Pezeshkian confirmed, during a call with Pakistani Prime Minister Shahbaz Sharif, that his country “will not enter into negotiations under pressure, threat, or naval blockade,” in a position that reflects Iranian intransigence in the face of American pressure.
This scene comes in light of increasing complexity in the course of the confrontation between Washington and Tehran, as military calculations overlap with negotiating paths, amid fears that continued attrition will weaken the American ability to deter.
In light of these facts, the next stage seems open to multiple possibilities, between trying to rebuild American military capabilities, or sliding into broader confrontations if the diplomatic path fails, which makes assessing military readiness a pivotal issue in formulating future policies.
