Middle East
Pentagon’s top general warns Trump of munitions shortages ahead of potential Iran strike
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
UNDP estimates $1.38 billion in building damage across southern Lebanon
The United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) and Lebanon’s National Council for Scientific Research have released a rapid assessment report on building damage in southern Lebanon.
According to Lebanon’s Al-Akhbar newspaper, the study relied on satellite imagery and geospatial artificial intelligence (GeoAI) technologies to assess externally visible damage to buildings along the southern border between October 23, 2025, and April 29, 2026.
The report found that a total of 11,095 buildings had been completely destroyed in the areas surveyed. Based on an assumed average apartment size of 150 square metres, these destroyed structures are estimated to correspond theoretically to 17,891 housing units.
The volume of debris generated in the region is estimated at 3,107,756 cubic metres.
In addition to the buildings that were completely destroyed, the assessment identified partial damage to 2,242 buildings and minor damage to 9,311 others.
At the housing-unit level, the report estimates that alongside the approximately 17,891 units that were completely destroyed, around 5,219 homes sustained partial damage and 18,282 suffered minor damage.
The report stressed that these housing figures are not based on direct field surveys but on mathematical modelling using average floor-space assumptions and therefore constitute theoretical estimates.
Preliminary cost of building damage estimated at $1.38 billion
The report calculated reconstruction costs using a standard benchmark value of $450 per square metre. On that basis, the total preliminary cost of building damage was estimated at $1.384 billion.
Geographically, Nabatieh Governorate accounted for the largest share of the damage, estimated at $1.053 billion, while losses in South Governorate were assessed at $331 million.
At the district level, preliminary costs were estimated at $688 million in Bint Jbeil, $333 million in Marjayoun, $315 million in Tyre, $32 million in Nabatieh district and $16 million in Sidon.
The report emphasised that these figures cover only external physical damage to buildings and do not represent the final cost of reconstruction or the total economic losses caused by the war.
In Bint Jbeil district, the highest levels of destruction were recorded in Aitaroun, where 1,658 buildings were destroyed, followed by Bint Jbeil city with 1,076, Ayta al-Shaab with 539, Beit Lif with 371, Yaroun with 242 and Ainata with 227.
In Marjayoun district, 969 destroyed buildings were recorded in Mais al-Jabal, 824 in Taybeh, 285 in Houla, 199 in Markaba, 184 in Blida and 174 in Deir Siryan.
In Nabatieh district, 71 buildings were destroyed in Yahmar al-Shaqif, 69 in Zoutar al-Sharqiya and 37 in Kfar Sir. In Tyre district, 370 buildings were completely destroyed in Burj al-Shamali, 216 in Naqoura, 162 in Abbassiyeh, 80 in Tyre city and 65 in al-Mansouri. In Sidon district, destruction was concentrated mainly in Zirariyeh, where 65 buildings were destroyed, and Arzi, where 62 buildings were levelled.
The report also outlined significant limitations that prevent the findings from being treated as a definitive final assessment.
The study did not cover entire administrative districts but was limited to areas where clear satellite imagery was available.
As a result, the area south of the Litani River constituted the main focus, while only limited data from areas north of the river were included. Some municipalities were fully surveyed, while only selected sections of others could be examined.
For example, all cadastral zones in Bint Jbeil district were surveyed. In Tyre district, 74 of 75 cadastral areas were fully covered, while one was only partially included.
In Marjayoun, 17 of 33 areas were fully surveyed and 21 partially covered. In Nabatieh, only four of 52 areas were fully analysed, while 15 were partially examined. In Sidon, none of the 77 areas underwent a complete survey, with only five areas partially included in the assessment.
The report listed several additional limitations:
Critical infrastructure damage, including roads, bridges, electricity networks, water systems and telecommunications facilities, was not assessed.
Damage to underground shelters, basements and non-visible interior sections of buildings could not be detected.
No clear distinction could be made between residential, commercial and industrial structures.
Buildings with minor damage were excluded from debris-volume and cost calculations.
Structural density, shadows and narrow streets introduced potential margins of error in satellite analysis.
No field visits or on-site inspections were conducted to verify the findings. The assessment was carried out entirely through desk-based analysis of satellite imagery.
Given the scale of destruction and confidence in the methodology employed, no on-site verification procedures were undertaken in cooperation with the Lebanese Armed Forces or the United Nations Department of Safety and Security (UNDSS).
UNDP said the findings should be regarded as preliminary planning data and that the scope of the assessment would be expanded as additional satellite imagery and field information become available.
Officials noted that once excluded categories and infrastructure losses are taken into account, the true cost of the destruction in southern Lebanon is likely to be significantly higher than the estimates contained in the report.
Middle East
Iran makes Lebanon ceasefire prerequisite for final agreement with US
Assessments that efforts to restrain Israel in Lebanon are being shaped less in Beirut or Tel Aviv than in closed-door talks between Iranian and American negotiators resurfaced ahead of negotiations in the Swiss town of Bürgenstock.
Unlike the current approach adopted by the Lebanese government, Iran continues to pursue a strategy of leveraging its influence on the ground to secure diplomatic gains.
The Lebanese government, meanwhile, remains committed to a separate negotiating track that critics say facilitates concessions to Israel at the negotiating table in Washington that could not be achieved on the battlefield.
US Vice President JD Vance, who arrived in Switzerland to participate in the latest round of talks, confirmed that efforts to make the ceasefire in Lebanon permanent would be among the negotiations’ top priorities.
According to CNN, citing a diplomatic source familiar with the matter, the US and Iranian delegations agreed to convene an emergency session on the situation in Lebanon as the first item of discussion, placing the issue at the top of the agenda.
US says it faces difficulties over Israeli withdrawal
According to diplomatic sources cited by Al-Akhbar newspaper, US officials informed the Iranian side that Washington had made intensive efforts to persuade the Israeli government to complete a full withdrawal from Lebanon but had encountered significant difficulties in the process.
US officials requested Iranian support in facilitating Hezbollah’s withdrawal from southern Lebanon as part of efforts to enable an Israeli pullout.
The Iranian delegation responded that Hezbollah was an internal Lebanese matter. While indicating that Tehran did not oppose an agreement by the Lebanese authorities on a timetable providing for a rapid Israeli withdrawal, the delegation outlined what it viewed as its own area of responsibility.
Iranian representatives said both Tehran and Washington had committed to implementing measures aimed at ending the war across the region, including in Lebanon, and argued that the United States should exert pressure on Israel not only to uphold a ceasefire but also to withdraw quickly.
Iran reiterates Lebanon condition for final agreement
An Iranian official also told CNN that ending the conflict in Lebanon was the most important item on the Iranian delegation’s agenda.
During the talks, Vice President Vance said Washington would continue working toward peace between Lebanon and Israel and expressed hope that the temporary ceasefire could be transformed into a permanent agreement capable of delivering long-term stability.
Speaking before the session, Iranian Foreign Ministry spokesman Esmail Baghaei said Tehran would not begin negotiations on a final agreement with Washington unless the war in Lebanon was halted, as stipulated in the US-Iran memorandum of understanding.
In a post on X, Baghaei wrote: “It is not possible to move to the negotiation stage for a final agreement unless these provisions are implemented, foremost among them the first clause, which calls for ending the war on all fronts, including Lebanon.”
Military and diplomatic developments ahead of the Bürgenstock talks threatened to undermine the understanding reached between the parties. Following Israeli attacks in Lebanon and what Iran described as an escalation of military tensions in violation of the US-Iran agreement, Tehran announced that it had closed the Strait of Hormuz to traffic.
In a statement, Iran’s Khatam al-Anbiya Headquarters said the closure of the strait was only the first step in a series of measures planned by Tehran. Iran’s Foreign Ministry subsequently announced the suspension of the Geneva negotiations with the United States.
Following those developments, reports indicated that Washington intervened and increased pressure on Israel, leading Israeli military commanders to issue definitive orders for a complete halt to military operations in southern Lebanon for the second time within 24 hours.
Israeli media reports said the decision was not taken solely on Tel Aviv’s own initiative and that military operations were curtailed as a result of intense US pressure following Iran’s move in the Strait of Hormuz.
Middle East
US lifts naval blockade of Iran after ceasefire memorandum signed
The United States has lifted its naval blockade of Iran on the orders of President Donald Trump, ending restrictions on vessels entering and leaving Iranian ports.
Announcing the development, the US Central Command (CENTCOM) said the US military was no longer blocking maritime traffic to Iranian ports and had halted all operations related to enforcing the naval blockade.
The statement added that US warships would remain in the region to monitor compliance with the terms of the agreement.
The decision to lift the blockade follows the memorandum of understanding signed by the United States and Iran on June 18, aimed at ending the war and reopening the Strait of Hormuz to maritime traffic.
After signing the document in France, where he was attending the G7 summit, Trump sent the agreement to Iranian President Masoud Pezeshkian for approval.
In a statement, Iran’s Foreign Ministry said a formal signing ceremony between the two delegations, previously scheduled to take place in Geneva on June 19, would no longer be held.
Negotiations to continue in Switzerland
According to Axios, citing sources familiar with the matter, the signing process for the memorandum of understanding was accelerated in order to reopen the Strait of Hormuz to shipping as quickly as possible.
A planned meeting between US and Iranian representatives in Switzerland has not been cancelled. The talks are expected to focus on launching negotiations over Iran’s nuclear programme, with US Vice President James David Vance and Iranian Parliament Speaker Mohammad Bagher Ghalibaf set to take part.
According to CNN, the 14-point memorandum calls for an immediate ceasefire on all fronts, the lifting of the naval blockade, the resumption of maritime traffic through the Strait of Hormuz, the removal of oil sanctions on Iran and the withdrawal of US troops from areas surrounding Iran.
The agreement also includes the allocation of $300 billion for Iran’s economic reconstruction, the release of $24 billion in frozen Iranian assets and a 60-day negotiation process aimed at reaching a final agreement on the nuclear programme.
In return, the authorities in Tehran pledged not to develop nuclear weapons.
-
Europe2 weeks agoAfD says Ukraine should compensate Germany over Nord Stream sabotage
-
Opinion1 week agoA voice rising from New Delhi: BRICS’s manifesto for a new world order
-
Europe2 weeks agoToyota and JLR warn EU ‘Made in Europe’ rules could threaten jobs and investment
-
Middle East1 week agoMine clearing in Strait of Hormuz could delay shipping traffic for up to 50 days
-
America7 days agoData leak exposes Peter Thiel’s secret ‘Dialog’ network of politicians, regulators, and tech elites
-
Diplomacy1 week agoIran discloses 14-point draft US peace accord detailing sanctions relief, regional security measures
-
Diplomacy2 weeks agoSpaceX IPO raises concerns over European capital outflows and telecom competition
-
Russia1 week agoPatrushev urges assertive Russian naval presence to counter NATO encirclement strategy
