Saturday, April 25, 2026

Something to Know - 25 April

Another way of looking at Trump's War and his way of conducting it is that it has compromised our military readiness in case of a real need.   There is no real need to have gone off ill-prepared into Iran.   What have we learned from it so far?   High prices, shortage of petrol-related products, a blocked strait of Hormuz, and a loss of ammunition and weapons.   What if our country faces a definite threat?   We have blown our capability to respond.   Expensive missiles and bombs created a veritable lethal zone destroying human life and infrastructure, but the Irani's are still in control of their country. We are no better off than when the Obama administration held a better position with no loss of life or disruption to economies and standards of living.   The Trump-Hegseth big box of 4th of July firecrackers is almost gone, and we have nothing to show for it.  For sure, Trump runs his show like he ran his casinos.   The only problem is that it is not HIS bankruptcy.  It is OUR problem, and fixing it will be very expensive.   The only ones better off are the corrupt and grifting clowns who share Trump's playpen. 





A man standing in the rubble of a large building.
The remains of a university building in Tehran. Two independent groups say the U.S. expense of the war in Iran so far is between $28 billion and $35 billion.Credit...Arash Khamooshi for The New York Times

Iran War Has Drained U.S. Supplies of Critical, Costly Weapons

The Pentagon’s rush to rearm its Mideast forces makes it less ready to confront potential adversaries like Russia and China, administration and congressional officials say.

By Eric Schmitt and Jonathan Swan

Reporting from Washington

  • April 23, 2026

Since the Iran war began in late February, the United States has burned through around 1,100 of its long-range stealth cruise missiles built for a war with China, close to the total number remaining in the U.S. stockpile. The military has fired off more than 1,000 Tomahawk cruise missiles, roughly 10 times the number it currently buys each year.

The Pentagon used more than 1,200 Patriot interceptor missiles in the war, at more than $4 million a pop, and more than 1,000 Precision Strike and ATACMS ground-based missiles, leaving inventories worrisomely low, according to internal Defense Department estimates and congressional officials.

The Iran war has significantly drained much of the U.S. military’s global supply of munitions, and forced the Pentagon to rush bombs, missiles and other hardware to the Middle East from commands in Asia and Europe. The drawdowns have left these regional commands less ready to confront potential adversaries like Russia and China, and it has forced the United States to find ways to scale up production to address the depletions, Trump administration and congressional officials say.

The conflict has also underscored the Pentagon’s overreliance on excessively expensive missiles and munitions, especially air-defense interceptors, as well as concerns about whether the defense industry can develop cheaper arms, especially attack drones, far more quickly. 

The Defense Department has not disclosed how many munitions it used in 38 days of war before a cease-fire took effect two weeks ago. The Pentagon says it hit more than 13,000 targets, but officials say that figure masks the vast number of bombs and missiles it used because warplanes, attack planes and artillery typically strike large targets multiple times.





White House officials have refused to estimate the cost of the conflict so far, but two independent groups say the expense is staggering: between $28 billion and $35 billion, or just under $1 billion a day.

In the first two days alone, defense officials have told lawmakers, the military used $5.6 billion of munitions.

To restore the U.S. global stockpile to its previous size, the United States will have to make tough choices about where to maintain its military strength in the meantime. “At current production rates, reconstituting what we have expended could take years,” Senator Jack Reed of Rhode Island, the top Democrat on the Armed Services Committee, said this week.

“The United States has many munitions with adequate inventories, but some critical ground-attack and missile-defense munitions were short before the war and are even shorter now,” said Mark F. Cancian, a retired Marine Corps colonel and a senior adviser at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, which recently published a study estimating the status of key munitions.

Advertisement

Karoline Leavitt, the White House press secretary, said in a statement that “the entire premise of this story is false.” She added: “The United States of America has the most powerful military in the world, fully loaded with more than enough weapons and munitions, in stockpiles here at home and all around the globe, to effectively defend the homeland and achieve any military operation directed by the commander in chief.”

Sean Parnell, the Pentagon’s chief spokesman, declined to comment on “any specific theater requirements or detail our global resource capabilities,” citing operational security.

Some Republicans, including Senator Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, the chairman of the subcommittee that funds the Pentagon, have pressed for an increase in spending on munitions production over several administrations. Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth has made that goal a top priority during his tenure.

Making things more perilous for the Pentagon, officials say, is that the Defense Department is waiting for Congress to approve additional funding before it can pay weapons manufacturers to replenish the depleted American supply. In January, the administration announced that it had secured seven-year agreements with major defense contractors, including Lockheed Martin, to increase production capacity for defense systems like missile interceptors.

The agreement called for quadrupling the production of precision-guided munitions and THAAD missile interceptors. Defense manufacturers, for their part, agreed to fund factory expansions in exchange for secured long-term orders.

Advertisement

But officials said there had been no movement to actually begin the expanded production, because the Pentagon was scrambling to find the funding.

In the meantime, the military is using its existing weapons supplies at steep rates to meet Central Command’s immediate needs in the Iran war. Certain munition levels are shrinking faster than others.

The Pentagon, for example, has committed most of its inventory of stealthy, long-range cruise missiles to the fight against Iran. These missiles, called Joint Air-to-Surface Standoff Missile-Extended Range, or JASSM-ER, are launched from fighters and bombers and have a range of more than 600 miles. They are designed to penetrate hard targets outside the range of enemy air defenses.

Since the war started, the military has used about 1,100 JASSM-ER missiles, which cost roughly $1.1 million apiece, leaving roughly 1,500 in the military’s inventories, according to internal Pentagon estimates, a U.S. military official and a congressional official who spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss confidential combat assessments.

ImageA missile leaving the deck of a gray warship.
A Tomahawk missile fired from the Mediterranean Sea last month. The long-range missiles cost about $3.6 million each.Credit...U.S. Navy, via Getty Images

Tomahawks, which cost about $3.6 million each, are long-range cruise missiles that have been widely used for U.S. warfighting since the first Persian Gulf War in 1991. They remain a key munition for potential future wars, including one in Asia.

Advertisement

“While sufficient munitions exist to wage this war, high expenditure of Tomahawks and other missiles in Operation Epic Fury creates risks for the United States in other theaters — particularly the Western Pacific,” concluded a C.S.I.S. study, which estimated the remaining Tomahawk stockpiles to be around 3,000 missiles.

Patriot interceptor missiles can cost nearly $4 million each. The United States produced about 600 of them in all of 2025. More than 1,200 have been used in the war so far, according to internal Pentagon estimates and congressional officials.

Overall, the cost of the war so far is between $25 billion and $35 billion, according to a study this month by the American Enterprise Institute compiled by Elaine McCusker, a senior Pentagon official during the first Trump administration. Mr. Cancian of C.S.I.S. said in an email that he and his analysts put the cost of the conflict so far at about $28 billion.

The military is also incurring unexpected costs from damaged or destroyed aircraft. In the Navy SEAL Team 6 operation to rescue a downed Air Force officer in Iran, the military had to destroy two MC-130 cargo planes and at least three MH-6 helicopters inside them after the planes’ nose gear got stuck in the wet sand of a makeshift airstrip. Mr. Cancian estimated the total cost of the lost aircraft at about $275 million. Three replacement planes eventually flew the airman and the commandos to safety, but the Pentagon did not want sensitive technology from the aircraft to fall into Iranian hands.

Advertisement

All regional military commanders are feeling the strain of shrinking munitions stocks.

In Europe, the war has led to depletions in weapons systems critical for defending the eastern flank of NATO from Russian aggression, according to Pentagon information reviewed by The New York Times.

A problem described as serious was the loss of surveillance and attack drones. The demands of the Iran war have also curtailed exercises and training. According to military officials, this hurts the ability to mount offensive operations in Europe, as well as deterrence of potential Russian attacks.

Asked about the shortcomings, Gen. Alexus G. Grynkewich, the head of U.S. European Command, said in a statement, “Our warfighters are proud of the support we’ve provided to USCENTCOM in support of President Trump’s historic operations against Iran.”

But the biggest impact has been on troops in Asia.

Image
Tan military vehicles and missile launchers in a field.
The launch vehicle of a THAAD system in Seongju, South Korea. Patriot missiles and interceptors from THAAD have been redirected to the Middle East.Credit...Yonhap/EPA, via Shutterstock

Before the war with Iran started, American military commanders redirected the U.S.S. Abraham Lincoln carrier strike group from the South China Sea to the Middle East. Since then, two Marine Expeditionary Units, each with about 2,200 Marines, have been sent to the Middle East from the Pacific. The Pentagon has also moved sophisticated air defenses from Asia to bolster protection against Iran’s drones and rockets.

Advertisement

The redirected weapons include Patriot missiles and interceptors from the THAAD system in South Korea — the only Asian ally hosting the advanced missile defense system, deployed by the Pentagon to counter North Korea’s growing missile threat. Now, for the first time, the system’s interceptors are being moved away, according to American officials.

U.S. readiness in the Pacific was hurt earlier by the Pentagon’s deployment of warships and aircraft to the Middle East after the Israel-Gaza war began in October 2023 and after Houthi militia forces in Yemen started attacking ships in the Red Sea to support the Palestinians, the officials say.

The monthlong bombing campaign against the Houthis last year — an operation the Pentagon called Rough Rider — was much larger than the Trump administration initially disclosed at the time. The Pentagon used up about $200 million of munitions in the first three weeks alone, U.S. officials said. The costs of the overall operation far exceeded $1 billion when operational and personnel expenses were taken into account, the officials added.

The American ships and aircraft, as well as the service members working on them, are being pushed at what the military calls a high operating tempo. Even basic equipment maintenance becomes an issue under those grinding conditions.

A spokeswoman for Adm. Samuel J. Paparo Jr., the head of the military’s Indo-Pacific Command, declined to comment on the arms diverted from Asia to the Middle East.

Admiral Paparo largely sidestepped the issue of stockpile shortages during a Senate hearing on Tuesday, acknowledging only that “there are finite limits to the magazine.”

Michael Schwirtz and Adam Goldman contributed reporting from London. John Ismay, Helene Cooper and Maggie Haberman contributed reporting from Washington.

Eric Schmitt is a national security correspondent for The Times. He has reported on U.S. military affairs and counterterrorism for more than three decades.

Jonathan Swan is a White House reporter for The Times, covering the administration of Donald J. Trump. Contact him securely on Signal: @jonathan.941

--
****
Juan Matute
R.B.R.
C.C.R.C.


Friday, April 24, 2026

Somehting to Know - 24 April

There is more to Trump's War than him just deciding to bomb Iran.     The collateral damage is not just horrible human and infrastructure casualties.    Mary Geddry's newsletter brings many long-term issues to our attention.    America has lost much, and it will be much more over a long period of time.   He has no idea of the damage he caused.   While playing with his ballroom, reflecting pool, and other diversions, he successfully earned the title of the Worst President Ever.     He even fired his Secretary of the Navy for failing to build an aircraft carrier fast enough so that Cadet Bone Spurs could paint his name on the vessel.   Sick !!

Geddry’s Newsletter a Publication of nGenium marygeddry@substack.com 

6:16 AM (5 hours ago)
to me
Forwarded this email? Subscribe here for more

The World Is Starting to Plan Around American Collapse

As allies doubt our commitments, weapons stockpiles run thin, oligarchs toast “press freedom,” and Trump melts down over a ballroom bunker, America’s credibility crisis goes global.

Apr 24
 
READ IN APP
 

Good morning! If you’re looking for a unifying theme today, it’s this: the rest of the world is no longer asking what America will do; they’re starting to plan for what happens if America doesn’t show up at all.

Let’s start in Europe, where Poland just asked the quiet part out loud. Prime Minister Donald Tusk, leader of one of America’s most loyal NATO allies, is now openly questioning whether the United States would actually honor its defense commitments in the event of a Russian attack.

Poland is a country that spends heavily on defense, sits on NATO’s eastern flank, and has historically treated the U.S. alliance as existential. And now its leader is essentially saying: we’d really like to believe you’ll be there… but we’re not entirely sure anymore.

While Europe is asking whether America would actually show up, Russia is busy testing the answer in real time. Putin has now sent the frigate Admiral Grigorovich through the English Channel escorting Russian vessels, including the Sparta, a cargo ship previously linked to transporting military equipment to Syria. Britain has threatened to crack down on sanctioned “shadow fleet” vessels helping fund Russia’s war machine, but Moscow appears to be treating those threats less like a red line and more like a polite suggestion written in disappearing ink.

That’s the context for Tusk’s warning. Europe is watching Russia probe NATO’s edges, test Britain’s resolve, and flaunt sanctioned ships in one of the world’s most sensitive waterways, while America burns through weapons in Iran and Trump turns alliance management into open-mic night at the apocalypse lounge.

And here’s the part that should make everyone sit up a little straighter: this isn’t just about Trump’s rhetoric anymore.

Even if Trump woke up tomorrow, had a sudden personality transplant, and decided to fully honor NATO commitments, big if, enormous if, Waffle House-at-2am-if, the United States may not actually have the capacity to follow through.

The war with Iran has quietly burned through a staggering share of America’s high-end munitions: over a thousand long-range stealth cruise missiles, more than a thousand Tomahawks, more than a thousand Patriot interceptors, and a similar number of precision strike systems. Weapons you need for a real war with a real adversary.

To keep the Middle East campaign going, the Pentagon has reportedly been pulling resources from Europe and Asia, meaning the very regions we’d need to defend against Russia and China are now less prepared to do exactly that. When Tusk asks whether America would show up, the answer is no longer just political, it may be logistical.

Which brings us to the next problem: even when Trump does show up, he’s increasingly showing up like a guy live-posting from inside a diplomatic incident. Case in point: India. Ahead of a planned visit by Secretary of State Marco Rubio, Trump decided to share a four-page screed from a conservative podcast host referring to countries like India as “hellholes.”

India’s foreign ministry responded with the diplomatic equivalent of “what on earth is wrong with you people,” calling the remarks uninformed, inappropriate, and in poor taste.

This is the world’s largest democracy. A key strategic partner. A country successive administrations have carefully cultivated as a counterweight to China, and Trump is out here signal-boosting racist podcast rants like a guy who just discovered the reply-all button. It’s strategically illiterate in addition to be offensive. When the U.S. needs stable alliances, Trump is actively eroding them, sometimes deliberately, sometimes accidentally, but always loudly.

Back home Paramount Skydance CEO David Ellison hosted a lavish dinner “in celebration of the First Amendment” honoring Trump and members of the press because nothing says free speech like a $110 billion media merger waiting on regulatory approval while executives toast the guy who controls the regulators.

Outside, members of Congress and protesters gathered to call it what it was. Jamie Raskin called it “a lavish oligarch’s dinner for Donald Trump” and said the merger was “crafted to consolidate old and new media in the interests of the MAGA movement and the Donald Trump family.”

Norm Eisen twisted the knife even better, saying the dinner “resembles a celebration of the first amendment the same way a book burning is a celebration of the written word.”

Inside, they were raising glasses to “press freedom.” Outside, people were actually exercising it.

Speaking of things being “handled,” the DOJ Inspector General is finally stepping in to review how the department managed the release of the Epstein files. Which is overdue, considering the DOJ’s version of transparency involved missing its legal deadline, dumping heavily redacted documents weeks late, and somehow managing to expose victims’ personal information while still concealing almost everything else. A real gold medal performance in failing both directions at once.

The IG says the audit will assess the department’s compliance with the Epstein Files Transparency Act, including how DOJ “identified, collected, produced and redacted” the records. It will also scrutinize the “processes for redacting and withholding material,” which is bureaucratic speak for: did you do your job, or did you just hit “publish” at 11:59pm and hope no one noticed the black boxes?

Remember, the law does not allow records to be withheld, delayed, or redacted because they might cause “embarrassment, reputational harm, or political sensitivity” including to “any government official, public figure, or foreign dignitary.” Which makes the black-marker-palooza around powerful people feel like a cover story with formatting issues.

Congressional oversight continues to function like a sitcom subplot. Former Attorney General Pam Bondi was subpoenaed, promptly fired, and then DOJ said the subpoena “no longer obligates” her to testify because, wouldn’t you know it, she doesn’t have the job anymore.

Finally, for a little schadenfreude, though honestly, it’s getting harder to tell where the comedy ends and the concern begins, we have Trump’s ongoing meltdown over his White House ballroom.

After a federal judge blocked construction, Trump began posting furiously about how the ballroom is not just a ballroom but also, somehow, a critical piece of national security infrastructure. In one post read, Trump reportedly described the project as a “safe and secure large-scale meeting place” with “bomb shelters,” “state-of-the-art hospitals,” “protective missile resistant steel columns,” “drone proof ceilings,” and “ballistic and blast proof glass.”

There you have it, the one thing standing between America and catastrophe is a chandelier. The legal argument, if we’re being generous and calling it that, is that the ballroom and an underground bunker are effectively inseparable. Trump reportedly claimed the “underground portion is wedded to and serves the upper portion,” which is a very fancy way of saying: no bunker without the ballroom, no national security without the canapés.

What makes this more than just absurd is the pattern: inflate a personal vanity project into a national security crisis, attack the courts, flood the zone with nonsense, and hope something sticks.

It’s funny until you remember this is the same person with command authority over the military, the economy, and the nuclear arsenal.

Europe is questioning whether America would defend it. US weapons stockpiles are being drained faster than they can be replaced and key allies are being publicly insulted. Media power is consolidating around political loyalty and the president is arguing that a ballroom is a missile defense system.

This is a credibility crisis, material, moral, and mental, and the world is starting to act accordingly.




--
****
Juan Matute
R.B.R.
C.C.R.C.