After days of threatening to launch the largest US attack on Iran since the war began, President Donald Trump abruptly changed course. Instead of beginning an air campaign that could have lasted two weeks, US strikes stopped and negotiations returned to the forefront.
The American administration maintains that the decision was intended to give diplomacy room to operate. US reports, however, point to another factor of comparable importance: declining stocks of American defensive munitions. This has raised questions over the real reason Washington suspended the escalation.
The Official Account
According to The Washington Post, the White House said Trump wanted to give negotiations with Iran “some space” while keeping all military options available.
US Ambassador to the United Nations Mike Waltz said talks were continuing at several levels. He denied that the suspension of strikes was connected to ammunition shortages and insisted that the US military possessed everything it needed to continue its operations if a political decision were made.
The diplomatic efforts coincide with Gulf mediation led by Oman and Qatar to reopen channels of dialogue, while Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu prepares to discuss Iran with Trump in Washington.
Concerns Behind the Scenes
The Wall Street Journal, however, reported that the decision to postpone the attack was not driven by diplomacy alone.
Citing US officials, the newspaper said the military had been prepared to begin an intensive campaign lasting between 10 and 14 days before the operation was delayed to allow the political process to continue.
The decision was also influenced by an internal administration debate over the effect of depleting Patriot missile stocks and other air defence systems.
According to the report, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff General Dan Caine informed the White House that declining stocks of interceptor missiles would not prevent operations from resuming. However, they would weaken Washington’s ability to confront other adversaries, particularly China, and increase the military risks.
Although Trump denied that any crisis existed, experts at the Center for Strategic and International Studies estimate that the United States has used at least 1,500 Patriot missiles since the war began, leaving fewer than 1,000 remaining.
Gulf states are also experiencing reductions in their interceptor missile stocks after using them during the confrontations, a development that has become a source of concern for the Pentagon.
A War That Drained US Defences
Concerns extend beyond the size of existing stockpiles to the nature of the Iranian threat itself.
US officials said Iranian missiles have begun using different trajectories and speeds that make interception more complicated, increasing the consumption of air defence missiles, according to The Wall Street Journal.
Despite statements by US Secretary of War Pete Hegseth that Iran’s missile programme had been “effectively destroyed”, US and Israeli intelligence assessments indicate that Iran still possesses thousands of ballistic missiles stored in underground facilities.
The strike on a US base in Jordan, which killed American soldiers, also intensified concerns that any renewed escalation could further exhaust US defensive systems while Washington faces other challenges involving the deterrence of Russia and China, the newspaper reported.
The Limits of American Power
An analysis published by The New York Times went further, arguing that the decision to halt the escalation reflected a strategic predicament facing Trump.
David Sanger, the newspaper’s White House and national security correspondent, said the war had exposed the limits of American power. Trump had failed to control rising oil prices or contain their impact on financial markets.
Although Trump threatened to attack Kharg Island, the principal outlet for Iranian oil exports, or seize Iran’s stockpile of enriched uranium buried underground, he publicly acknowledged that there was no appetite in the United States for deploying ground forces to Iran.
This admission reflects the limits of the military options available to him.
Based on accounts from people close to Trump, Sanger said these constraints had left the US president deeply frustrated and had made his decisions more erratic, even by the standards of his established style, as he remained unable to achieve the war’s objectives or find a rapid exit.
Domestically, the war has also become a political burden for Trump as public support for his handling of Iran declines.
A poll conducted by The Washington Post and Ipsos found that only 29 per cent of Americans approved of his management of the war.
Prominent Republican figures have also begun calling for the conflict to end. House Speaker Mike Johnson urged the administration to “bring it to an end”, while Trump still lacks a clear strategy for doing so, according to the analysis.
Three Limited Options
Sanger outlined three main options available to the US president, none of which provides an easy way out of the crisis.
The first is military escalation through the resumption of a broad bombing campaign against Iran. Military officials, however, warn that such an operation may fail to achieve decisive results, could cause large numbers of civilian deaths and would further deplete American military capabilities.
The second is to intensify economic pressure and sanctions against Iran while continuing to target its oil exports. This strategy would require considerable time and has failed over previous years to overthrow the Iranian government or end its nuclear programme.
The third is to declare victory and withdraw. While this could limit US losses, it would carry major risks if Iran retained its stockpile of highly enriched uranium and continued to exercise influence over the Strait of Hormuz. The war would then appear to have failed to achieve its principal objectives.
The analysis concluded that the war with Iran had demonstrated that American military power, despite its scale, was not sufficient by itself to secure political objectives.
Trump, who built his image around decisiveness and the use of force, now faces a more complicated reality in which every available option carries substantial costs and none offers an easy exit from the crisis.
