How depleted weapons stockpiles could affect the Iran conflict
How Weapon Stockpiles Might Shape the Iran Conflict
Amid escalating tensions, the availability of arms has emerged as a critical concern. US President Donald Trump asserted that his nation possesses a “virtually unlimited supply” of essential weaponry. In contrast, Iran’s defense ministry emphasized its ability to endure beyond initial expectations, challenging US strategic assumptions. While stockpiles alone may not determine the war’s outcome, their dwindling levels are becoming a pivotal factor.
High Tempo of Combat
The conflict has seen intense operations from the outset. Both parties are depleting their arsenals at a faster rate than they can replenish. According to the Tel Aviv-based Institute for National Security Studies (INSS), the US and Israel have executed over 2,000 strikes, each requiring multiple munitions. Meanwhile, Iran has launched 571 missiles and 1,391 drones, though many have been intercepted. As the war prolongs, sustaining this pace will grow increasingly difficult.
Iran’s Strained Capacity
Iran appears to be struggling to maintain its initial aggressive output. Western analysts note a sharp decline in missile activity, with numbers dropping from hundreds to dozens since the conflict began. Before the war, Iran was believed to hold more than 2,000 short-range ballistic missiles. However, the US military has already recorded an 86% reduction in Iranian missile launches compared to the first day, and a 23% drop in the last 24 hours. The country’s drone attacks have also fallen by 73%, raising questions about whether this is a strategic pause or a calculated conservation effort.
Weapon Production Challenges
Despite US and Israeli air superiority—achieved by dismantling most of Iran’s air defenses—destroying all of its weapons stockpiles remains a formidable task. Iran’s vast territory, three times the size of France, allows for hidden reserves. Yet, even with this advantage, the US has shifted to more affordable “stand-in” weapons, such as JDAM bombs, following the use of costly long-range systems like Tomahawk cruise missiles. This transition may signal a broader strategy to stretch resources.
Historical Lessons
Recent history underscores the limits of aerial warfare. Israel’s three-year campaign against Hamas has not fully eradicated the group, and Yemen’s Houthi rebels survived a year of US bombing. These examples suggest that air dominance does not guarantee total destruction of an adversary’s capabilities. While the US retains unparalleled military power, its reliance on precision-guided munitions—produced in limited quantities—could strain logistics over time.
“After the initial attack from a distance, the US can now use less expensive missiles and bombs,” said Mark Cancian, a former US Marine colonel with the Washington-based Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS). He added that the US could “keep that level of fighting going on almost indefinitely” if supplies hold.
As the war continues, the list of viable targets shrinks, slowing operations gradually. Trump’s planned meeting with defense contractors highlights concerns about sustaining the effort. While close-range strikes may ease pressure, the long-term viability of the campaign depends on replenishing Iran’s stockpiles and dismantling its production facilities—a goal now prioritized by US Central Command (Centcom).