Connect with us

Middle East

Pentagon’s top general warns Trump of munitions shortages ahead of potential Iran strike

Published

on

As the Trump administration weighs military options against Tehran, the nation’s highest-ranking military officer has privately warned President Donald Trump and senior officials that critical munitions shortages and a lack of allied support could jeopardize US personnel and the success of any operation.

General Dan Caine, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, delivered the sobering assessment during a high-level meeting at the White House last week, according to sources familiar with the discussions. Caine emphasized that the sustained defense of Israel and ongoing military aid to Ukraine have significantly depleted US missile inventories, creating a strategic vacuum that would complicate a large-scale offensive against Iran.

During series of Pentagon briefings this month, Caine reportedly voiced deep anxieties regarding the complexity and sheer scale of a potential campaign. He pointed to the high probability of US casualties and noted that the absence of a broad international coalition would leave Washington to shoulder the operational burden alone.

In a statement, the Chairman’s office noted that, in his capacity as the president’s principal military advisor, Caine “provides a range of military options along with their secondary assessments, implications, and risks to civilian leaders.” The office added that these evaluations are provided in a classified setting. White House spokesperson Anna Kelly stated that Trump “listens to a wide spectrum of views on every issue” and makes decisions based on what is best for US national security, describing Caine as a “talented and highly valued member” of the team.

Following reports of the briefing, Trump took to social media to dismiss assertions that Caine is “opposed to war with Iran.” The president claimed that while the general would prefer to avoid conflict, he believes any such engagement would be a “fight that could be easily won.” However, sources speaking on the condition of anonymity provided a starkly different account of Caine’s warnings, suggesting a level of institutional caution that contrasts with the president’s public optimism.

The Tuesday meeting at the White House included Vice President JD Vance, Secretary of State Marco Rubio, CIA Director John Ratcliffe, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, and White House advisor Stephen Miller. Caine’s counsel carries significant weight within the administration, bolstered by his successful oversight of two major recent operations: the summer strikes on Iranian nuclear facilities and the January extraction of Venezuelan leader Nicolás Maduro.

The scope of a military campaign would depend entirely on Trump’s strategic endgame. Neutralizing Iran’s missile program alone would require strikes on hundreds of targets across a geography three times larger than Iraq. According to a former defense official, this list includes mobile launchers, supply depots, air defense batteries, and the logistics networks used to transport hardware.

If the objective shifts toward regime change—the ousting of Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei—the target list would expand into the thousands, encompassing command-and-control centers, security apparatus headquarters, and key government buildings. Such a campaign could last months, require vast quantities of precision-guided munitions, and expose US forces to intensive retaliatory strikes.

While the US has deployed a massive strike force to the region, Trump has acknowledged considering a limited “surgical” strike designed to force Tehran into a nuclear deal on favorable terms. Although Iran has signaled a marginal openness to talks, fundamental disagreements persist over its uranium enrichment capacity. Negotiators from both sides are scheduled to reconvene in Geneva this week.

Some officials remain staunchly opposed to a limited strike, fearing it could trigger an uncontrollable cycle of violence against US diplomatic and military personnel. Proponents of the “limited” approach point to Iran’s historically measured responses to previous US and Israeli actions. Conversely, critics argue that Trump’s open discussion of regime change, coupled with the rising influence of hardliners within the Iranian military, makes a disproportionate and violent response far more likely. Regional allies who met with Trump last week also expressed concern that any attack would permanently scuttle the diplomatic track.

A military move against Iran would further strain ties with regional partners. A senior Gulf official indicated that several Arab nations have informed Washington they will not permit their bases to be used for strikes against Iran. Threats from Tehran to retaliate against any country facilitating a US operation have made neighbors wary of even granting airspace transit rights.

“If Arab countries do not open their airspace, how do we execute this?” asked one former Pentagon official. “How do you hit hundreds, perhaps thousands, of targets across the country without that access?”

The US faces a critical shortage of the very interceptors needed to protect its own troops. The Terminal High Altitude Area Defense (THAAD) and Patriot systems have been utilized at a high tempo in recent regional operations. Patriot missiles, in particular, are in high demand in Ukraine. Ryan Brobst, of the Foundation for Defense of Democracies, noted that the US produces only a few hundred of these interceptors annually—well below the projected needs of a sustained conflict.

The Navy faces a similar “magazine depth” issue with its Standard Missile family. Interceptors like the SM-2, SM-3, and SM-6 have been rapidly expended in the Red Sea against Houthi rebels and in the defense of Israel. Mackenzie Eaglen of the American Enterprise Institute warned that due to complex manufacturing requirements, replacing these sophisticated missiles can take two years or longer.

Katherine Thompson, a recently departed Pentagon official, warned that the US is not currently structured to finance or sustain simultaneous high-intensity conflicts. A protracted war with Iran would require severe trade-offs in other theaters of higher priority.

While the US has executed its largest military buildup in the Middle East since the 2003 invasion of Iraq, the situation remains a volatile stalemate. On Monday, the US ordered the departure of non-essential personnel and families from its embassy in Lebanon. As tensions peak, Trump’s Special Representative Steve Witkoff questioned why Iran has not yet succumbed to the pressure of military threats. Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi replied via social media: “You wonder why we don’t surrender? Because we are Iranians.”

Middle East

Iran resumes ballistic missile assembly using stockpiled parts

Published

on

Iran has resumed ballistic missile production in underground facilities, despite statements by Israeli and US authorities asserting that this capacity had been completely eliminated.

According to a report by The Wall Street Journal citing US and Middle Eastern officials, the Tehran administration is utilizing pre-stockpiled components in the manufacturing process.

Officials report that despite strikes on missile sites and industrial installations at the beginning of the war, Iran continues the assembly of both solid- and liquid-fuelled missiles.

Intelligence data indicates activity at numerous underground centres, including the Khojir complex in the southeast of the country, along with efforts to establish additional underground assembly points to protect against new air strikes.

Current assembly operations are being maintained at lower volumes compared with pre-war levels, as US and Israeli operations destroyed several facilities and a naval blockade has impeded the import of components and solid-fuel ingredients.

Assessing the process, Tal Inbar, a senior analyst at the US-based Missile Defense Advocacy Alliance, stressed that damaged infrastructure can be repaired during periods when facilities are not targeted, and parts procured from other countries can be stored there.

Inbar noted that it would be naive to believe Iran is not rebuilding its missile production capacity.

Arguing that the facilities were destroyed and Tehran has suffered severe losses, the official stated that Iran remains weaker than ever before, and US President Donald Trump will never permit the country to acquire nuclear weapons.

Pentagon spokesman Sean Parnell stated that the US has destroyed up to 90% of Iran’s drone, ballistic missile, and naval industrial infrastructure, severely degrading Tehran’s ability to launch missiles and unmanned aerial vehicles.

Another US government official pointed out that the Tehran administration may have revived production, albeit on a low scale, following preliminary talks conducted in mid-June with the Trump administration regarding the opening of the Strait of Hormuz and ending the war. The official noted that existing stockpiles are sufficient to assemble at least two hundred missiles.

A CNN report in late May indicated that the Tehran administration was attempting to reopen underground missile shelters, struck by the US and Israel with costly munitions, using bulldozers and dump trucks.

Excavation activities accelerated after the April ceasefire decision; out of 69 tunnel entrances struck across 18 distinct locations, 50 have been made accessible again.

Experts stressed that it is impossible to destroy missile power solely by bombing tunnel entrances, underlining the limitations of such bombardments.

US Secretary of War Pete Hegseth claimed in April that they had effectively ended Iran’s missile programme. However, an NBC News report noted that Tehran utilized the ceasefire period to reconstitute its military strength.

Continue Reading

Middle East

Mohammed bin Salman urges Trump to strike Houthis after Mokha falls

Published

on

Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman has requested that US President Donald Trump launch air strikes against the Houthis in Yemen.

According to two US officials who spoke to Axios, Trump rejected the request, and US officials emphasised that the administration has no plans for direct intervention against the Houthis for now.

Oil prices surged on Thursday after the resistance led by Houthi militias (Ansarallah) seized the strategic coastal city of Mokha in Yemen.

This development brought the Yemeni resistance one step closer to the Bab el-Mandeb Strait, which is vital for global trade and Saudi oil exports.

With Iran already disrupting traffic in the Strait of Hormuz, Houthi control over Bab el-Mandeb could provide Tehran with powerful new leverage over the US and its Gulf allies.

On Thursday, as Houthi forces advanced towards the coastal city of Mokha and Saudi-backed Yemeni forces retreated, bin Salman telephoned Trump to brief him on the deteriorating situation.

A few hours later, the prince called again to request that Trump carry out US air strikes against the Houthis.

Trump declined, but a US official stated that the administration would provide Saudi Arabia with intelligence and targeting data on the Houthis.

The official noted that approximately 200 US military personnel are currently stationed in Saudi Arabia, providing non-military support.

A senior Trump administration official indicated that Washington’s priority is keeping the Red Sea open, while leaving the broader fight to regional partners.

“We are in continuous dialogue with Saudi Arabia and the Government of the Republic of Yemen regarding regional stability,” the official said.

The official continued:

“The US remains focused on protecting our core national security interests, such as ensuring freedom of navigation in the Red Sea, while empowering our regional partners to take the lead in managing and resolving regional security challenges.”

The US is concerned by the rapidly escalating conflict in Yemen and is seeking to avoid direct military intervention while increasing its support for Saudi Arabia.

According to two sources familiar with the matter, Admiral Brad Cooper, Commander of US Central Command (CENTCOM), travelled to Saudi Arabia on Thursday for urgent coordination meetings.

The conflict between Saudi Arabia and Yemeni resistance forces reignited in July after Riyadh blocked an Iranian aircraft carrying senior Houthi officials from landing in Sanaa following their return from Ali Khamenei’s funeral.

Bin Salman requested Trump’s political support to strike Sanaa airport, but made clear that Saudi Arabia did not require US military assistance. Trump granted his support.

The Houthis subsequently retaliated by attacking Saudi tankers in the Red Sea. These strikes threatened a route crucial to the kingdom’s oil exports, and the group later expanded its attacks to Saudi energy facilities.

Saudi Arabia and its Yemeni allies responded with air strikes and ground operations against Houthi positions.

Saudi Arabia’s request for direct US military intervention marks a sharp reversal from July, when Riyadh informed Washington that it could manage the Houthis on its own.

As clashes intensified, the Saudis began seeking progressively greater support from the US.

Sources close to the discussions noted that in recent weeks, US military and civilian officials informed their Saudi counterparts that Trump’s directive is to keep American forces focused on Iran and the Strait of Hormuz, and to avoid opening a new front.

Continue Reading

Middle East

Netanyahu ignored MBZ warning on Hamas 7 October plan, report says

Published

on

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu reportedly ignored a direct warning from UAE President Sheikh Mohamed bin Zayed Al Nahyan in the run-up to 7 October 2023, according to an investigation by the Israeli newspaper Haaretz.

The report states that the UAE leader, widely known as MBZ, was convinced in September 2023 that an explosion was imminent in the region, particularly given the escalating tensions in the West Bank.

Israeli President Isaac Herzog, who maintains close ties with bin Zayed, recounted: “In the months leading up to the war, he spoke with me about this issue frequently. He consistently conveyed the message that the situation needed to be de-escalated. He even dispatched a special envoy to Israel who met with the prime minister. The emir appeared to sense that the region was on the verge of erupting.”

MBZ also engaged in direct discussions with Netanyahu. These exchanges followed a standard operational protocol: a representative from the United Arab Emirates embassy would arrive at the prime minister’s office equipped with a specialised, secure telephone device to ensure confidentiality.

However, according to the newspaper, the call initiated by bin Zayed on this occasion was extraordinary in nature.

A week and a half before 7 October 2023, the UAE ruler placed a call to Netanyahu from the Presidential Palace in Abu Dhabi, and the two leaders spoke for 45 minutes.

During this conversation, bin Zayed warned that Yahya Sinwar, the Hamas leader in Gaza, was planning a major operation against Israel.

Bin Zayed voiced deep concern that such an event would not only lead to significant bloodshed, but would also destabilise the entire region and undermine the Abraham Accords.

Haaretz reported that three senior foreign sources possess direct knowledge of the call’s contents, marking the first public disclosure of the conversation’s existence.

A close Palestinian adviser to bin Zayed, who had emigrated from Gaza to Abu Dhabi years earlier and maintained extensive connections across the Gaza Strip, was also present during the exchange.

According to the adviser, the UAE ruler stressed to Netanyahu that Israel needed to prepare for this specific threat.

The adviser stated:

“The emir explained that, according to his assessment, Sinwar was preparing for a major event. He told Netanyahu that Israel had to be prepared. At the same time, he proposed working towards an economic solution for the Gaza Strip to prevent escalation, alongside calming the situation in the West Bank.”

Bin Zayed urged Netanyahu to take the matter seriously. Yet, to the emir’s surprise, the prime minister reacted with relative calm.

Netanyahu told bin Zayed that, in his own assessment, Hamas was planning to operate in the West Bank area. Reassuring the Emirati leader, Netanyahu insisted that Israel was prepared for any scenario.

The UAE leader later recounted his conversation with Netanyahu and his subsequent warning to CIA Director William J. Burns.

Bin Zayed shared with Burns the intuitive alarm he had sought to convey to Netanyahu—that “something over there is about to blow”—and noted the Israeli prime minister’s conviction that the unstable theatre was in fact the West Bank.

“The emir hoped that, despite Netanyahu’s reserved reaction, he would take the message seriously and take action,” the adviser said.

However, neither anticipated that the prime minister would hear the warning without briefing the heads of his defence and security establishments: neither the director of the Shin Bet, nor the director of the Mossad, nor the chief of staff of the Israel Defence Forces was informed of MBZ’s warning.

Haaretz noted that Gaza-related negotiations between Israel and Hamas had been proceeding smoothly in early 2023, providing the context in which the Emirati ruler’s concerns emerged.

The report received swift corroboration from the Israeli political opposition. Former prime minister and leader of the B’Yachad party, Naftali Bennett, stated that he knew the warning issued by UAE leader Mohamed bin Zayed to Netanyahu concerning Hamas’s plans prior to 7 October was genuine.

Speaking to 103FM, Bennett said: “I am telling you: I know this to be true.”

Bennett continued:

“Mohamed bin Zayed of the UAE warned Netanyahu that Sinwar was planning an operation. The head of the Egyptian General Intelligence Directorate, Abbas Kamel, also notified Netanyahu a few days before the massacre that a major operation was being planned. I do not wish to discuss my sources with anyone. I am telling you: I know this fact to be true.”

Contending that Netanyahu had led Israel “blindly into this horrific disaster,” the opposition figure asserted: “He was so deeply captive to the conception that Hamas was an asset that, despite receiving explicit warnings, he did nothing.”

Bennett maintained that Netanyahu bears direct responsibility for 7 October, not merely by virtue of being prime minister, but because “he spent 15 years strengthening Hamas and doing nothing.”

Continue Reading

MOST READ

Turkey