Several senior US military leaders reportedly warned Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth that prolonging large-scale operations against Iran was unsustainable and could weaken the military’s ability to respond to threats elsewhere, including against the US homeland.The assessment was prepared for Hegseth and recorded in the August 14 edition of the Secretary of Defense Orders Book (SDOB), weeks before the latest escalation in fighting between the United States and Iran, according to The Wall Street Journal citing sources. It reflected concerns over the continued deployment of US forces to the Middle East as the Iran conflict entered its sixth month.The heads of the Army, Navy and Air Force, along with the four-star commanders overseeing US operations in Europe, Asia and Latin America, raised concerns over the strain the prolonged operation was placing on troops, equipment and military readiness, the people said.The SDOB, typically produced twice a month, tracks the worldwide availability of US warships, aircraft, personnel and weapons systems and helps inform Pentagon decisions on force deployments.At the time of the assessment, US Central Command had more than 50,000 troops on alert in the region as President Donald Trump continued to demand that Tehran reopen the Strait of Hormuz and accept US terms for ending the conflict. Trump had also kept open the possibility of further military action.The August 14 orders book directed some forces in the Middle East to remain deployed through September and others into 2027. That prospect prompted several senior commanders to formally object to extending their forces, while saying they would carry out the orders.The commanders of US European Command, US Pacific Command and US Southern Command, along with the Navy’s top admiral, issued what the document described as a “non-concur”; indicating disagreement with the deployment extensions but an intention to execute them.The military leaders warned that the Iran operation was drawing ships, aircraft and other equipment away from other theatres, limiting their ability to conduct missions and maintain training.Army and Air Force leadership agreed with extending their deployments but warned that doing so carried significant risks.Overall, the assessment described the Iran operation as “too much for too long,” according to one person familiar with it, as quoted by WSJ.
Navy under mounting strain
The Navy has borne a particularly heavy burden, supplying dozens of vessels for the Iran campaign, including for combat operations, defence against Iranian attacks and the enforcement of Trump’s blockade of Iranian ports.Some ship and crew deployments had already been extended by months.Adm. Daryl Caudle, the chief of Naval Operations, told Hegseth that the Navy could not sustain its current level of support for the Iran conflict because there was no anticipated end date, according to people familiar with the assessment.Caudle also indicated that barely one-fourth of the Navy’s destroyer fleet was ready to deploy, a sharp decline from prewar levels. Continued demands from the Iran operation were also jeopardising ship maintenance and the fleet’s availability for other potential conflicts.At a recent event in Norfolk, Caudle described the deployment extensions as “very challenging for our sailors.”“I typically am not a big fan of extensions, and I push back hard on that, but the enemy gets a vote,” he said, according to a Navy transcript.The strain was also being felt by other branches of the military.The commanders of European and Southern commands warned that providing ships and surveillance aircraft to Central Command had degraded their ability to fulfil homeland-defence responsibilities.Adm Samuel Paparo, head of Pacific Command, objected to the level of support his command was continually required to provide, including an aircraft carrier strike group and destroyers.The Army was also preparing to extend deployments. Elements of the 82nd Airborne Division, which mobilised 2,000 soldiers in March in response to the Iran war, were set for deployments lasting up to a year. Those troops would be central to any potential ground invasion of Iran.Units operating Patriot air-defence systems were also expected to have their deployments extended.The prolonged war has meanwhile depleted key U.S. military stocks. The Pentagon has faced shortages of Patriot and Terminal High Altitude Area Defense interceptors, as well as long-range Tomahawk missiles. About 25% of the Pentagon’s Reaper drone fleet had also been lost, while U.S. bases in the Middle East had suffered billions of dollars in damage, according to earlier reports.The Trump administration has rejected reports that the U.S. is facing significant munitions shortages.
Latest escalation came despite warnings?
The concerns in the August 14 assessment predated the latest escalation in the US-Iran conflict, which means the most recent US strikes on Larak Island late Sunday and promopting Iran’s retaliation.The assessment nevertheless highlights the military readiness dilemma facing the Trump administration: sustaining a prolonged campaign against Iran could leave fewer forces and weapons available to respond to other threats, particularly in Europe and the Indo-Pacific.A Pentagon spokesman said decisions on the scope and duration of deployments are based on the current threat assessment, presidential priorities and advice from senior military commanders.The Pentagon declined to discuss the SDOB or specific “concurrences, non-concurrences, or risk assessments” provided during force-allocation deliberations.
