Iran war leaves US facing 'alarming' weapons shortage

Summary

---

Episode Overview

Podcast: Iran: The Latest (The Telegraph)
Episode: ‘China is watching’: US facing weapons shortage - can Trump fix it?
Date: June 25, 2026
Host: Venetia Rainey
Guest: Dana Struhl (Former Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for the Middle East; Washington Institute)

This episode explores the growing crisis around US military munitions shortages amidst the ongoing US-Iran conflict, the domestic political storm over the war’s legitimacy, and the long-term strategic and geopolitical ramifications for the US, its allies, and adversaries—including China. The discussion is enriched by extensive analysis from Dana Struhl, who brings expertise on military strategy, defense policy, and Middle East affairs.

---

Key Discussion Points & Insights

1. Current Situation: Diplomatic and Military Update

• Secretary of State Marco Rubio’s Gulf Tour ([02:56])
  • Rubio reaffirms the US commitment to freedom of navigation in the Strait of Hormuz, stressing that international waterways must remain toll-free and secure for global trade.
  • “[T]he Straits of Hormuz are international waters. International waterways do not belong to any nation state... No country on earth has a right to charge for the use of international waterways. And that will never be an acceptable condition of any deal.” (Marco Rubio, [03:09])
• Demining efforts with British and German assets restoring confidence in shipping:
  • Traffic through Hormuz jumped 105% overnight.
  • Oil prices have dropped back to pre-war levels ([04:23]).

2. US Domestic Political Firestorm

• Trump clashes with Congress over War Powers Resolution ([06:24], [07:20]):
  • Trump insults dissenting Republican senators as “losers” and “lunatic[s],” highlighting deep rifts within his own party over the legitimacy and cost of the Iran war.
  • Senator Bill Cassidy stands by his criticism:
    • “I’m not going to be bullied when I’m trying to get answers for the American people.” ([07:40])
    • Cassidy later reverses course and votes to defeat a subsequent War Powers Resolution after a private White House briefing.

3. The $80 Billion Question: Is the Cost Worth It?

• Dana Struhl on Wartime Appropriations ([12:24]):
  • The $80 billion supplemental request “is high... [Military deployments], logistics, munitions expenditures, salaries, and danger pay add up fast.”
  • “The bill for this was always going to be quite extensive and it will be interesting to see how members of Congress debate and what kinds of questions they ask.” ([13:04])
• Strategic Outcomes:
  • Struhl is skeptical:
    • “When evaluating this war against [the] three core things—nuclear program, missile program, terrorist network... I can’t see what we’ve achieved that will be sustainable over the medium to long term.” ([13:47])
    • Iran’s asymmetric tactics, capacity to close the Strait at will, and the US agreeing to a deal with sweeping sanctions relief signal a lack of strategic victory.
  • Lifting sanctions and offering reconstruction funds may embolden Iran.
    • “[W]e are going back to the status quo ante. It’s never going to be restored to what it was before.” ([14:26])

4. Financial Windfall for Iran & Its Implications

• MOU Structure and Sanctions Relief ([16:38]):
  • Sanctions relief is unconditional and unprecedented, allowing Iran to transact in US dollars and export oil/petrochemicals freely.
  • “So the incentives for Iran actually are quite significant to just stay in this MOU [and] never have to make any real commitments on its nuclear program, because it just stands to economically benefit so much from the terms of this MOU.” (Dana Struhl, [17:50])

5. The US Munitions Crunch: Shortages and Defense Industry Stresses

• Scale of Expenditure:
  • Over 1,000 Tomahawks, 1,000 Patriot interceptors, and at least 190 THAAD interceptors used—representing “around 50% of pre-war inventories” for some systems ([21:23]).
  • The US only manufactures 90–100 Tomahawks annually, meaning years to replenish.
• Implications for China:
  • “The challenge... is that leaders in Beijing are also looking at these numbers... What are our adversaries learning from how we fought [and] the munitions expenditures that we just used?” (Dana Struhl, [22:50])
• Can the Industrial Base Deliver?
  • American innovation is not in doubt, but regulatory and procurement systems are not designed for the current pace of demand ([23:50]).
    • “We need to change a lot of our export controls... legal reform... multi-year contracting... defense industry cannot scale up unless they know there’s a long-term market.” (Dana Struhl, [24:32])

6. Changing Nature of Warfare: Jellyfish Drone Incident and Beyond

• Drone Swarm Incident ([25:12], [26:18]):
  • Reports of a “jellyfish” drone mothership controlling a swarm that brought down a US F-15 jet highlight shifting battlefields.
  • Struhl: “We’re seeing glimmers now of exactly what the changing nature of warfare looks like... The Iranians used very cheap drones [to] sense and test those radars, test the defenses around our military bases, and then go in for precision kills.” ([27:03])
• Learning from Ukraine and Iran:
  • “The economics of current warfare [means] we’re using extremely expensive [defenses]... and the Iranians used very cheap drones... [showing] the shortcomings in our current procurement and ways in which we fight wars.” ([27:54])
  • Collaboration among Iran, Russia, and (by extension) China on defense technology is deepening.

7. Lessons for the Pentagon & Allied Militaries

• Are US Institutions Learning?
  • “It’s really unfortunate that the noise around this war is dominated by... quantitative metrics of success... not a full sense of what happened here... Most of those big [strategic] objectives... were not achieved.” (Dana Struhl, [30:24])
• Allies Are Seeking New Defense Relationships ([33:34], [34:06]):
  • “There still is no [global] military that can project power [like the US]... [But] the leaders of all of these countries are frankly in strategic whiplash. There’s different pronouncements, shifting objectives... makes our partners... less willing to rely on us.” ([34:42])
  • Regional allies are seeking to “integrate” rather than “rely on the US as sole guarantor.”

8. CENTCOM Adaptations & US-Israel Cooperation

• Operational innovations:
  • The US shifted deployments away from exposed Gulf bases, instead using platforms in Jordan, Saudi Arabia, offshore, and within Israel itself ([39:53]).
  • First significant US troop presence on Israeli soil; US-Israel cooperation unprecedented.
  • Regional powers (UAE, Saudi) acted more autonomously.
  • “...this was, as you noted, a truly combined operation. The Israeli Defense Forces had lives on the line... [and] there was clear division of labor and targets, sharing of intelligence.” (Dana Struhl, [40:34])
• Future Basings:
  • Successful missile defense, but reliance on US-origin systems and support remains high.

9. Global Perceptions of US Military Power

• Military Might vs. Strategic Shortfalls ([42:48]):
  • “There still is no military capable of what the United States just did. But... with unpredictability in Washington, D.C., the US military on its own is just one tool... At a strategic level, the United States has made itself less safe. And it's made the international community less safe.” (Dana Struhl, [44:01])

---

Notable Quotes & Moments

• Marco Rubio on international maritime law:
  “International waterways do not belong to any nation state. This is a foundational principle in the world today, without which the world would be in total chaos.” ([03:12])
• Trump on Congress and the Iran war:
  “The Senate has voted that they’d like Trump to stop the war... Iran sees that and they go, what's that all about? Now, you know, it's meaningless, right?” ([06:24])
• Senator Cassidy resists pressure:
  “I’m not going to be bullied when I'm trying to get answers for the American people.” ([07:40])
• Dana Struhl on the MOU’s flaws:
  “This MOU actually requires nothing of Iran other than to open the Strait of Hormuz only for 60 days... The United States... is providing an unprecedented amount of sanctions relief...” ([17:01])
• Munitions Expenditure Data:
  “More than 1,000 Tomahawks, more than 1,000 Patriot Interceptors, at least 190 THAAD Interceptors... represent around 50% of pre-war inventories in some cases more.” (Venetia Rainey, [21:23])
• On China’s view:
  “Leaders in Beijing are looking at these numbers... and [may] think about escalating more or less in the coming years, knowing that our production timelines are so extended.” (Dana Struhl, [22:50])
• On defense industry challenges:
  “We need to change a lot of our export controls... longer lead, multi-year contracting structures... A lot of that is not only on defense industry; it’s changing the entire ecosystem.” (Dana Struhl, [24:32])
• Summary judgment on the war’s payoff:
  “At a strategic level, the United States has made itself less safe. And it's made the international community less safe.” (Dana Struhl, [44:01])

---

Timestamps for Key Segments

• [02:56]: Marco Rubio's speech on freedom of navigation and Gulf security
• [06:24]: Trump’s reaction to Congressional dissent, the "losers" and "lunatic" episode
• [07:40]: Cassidy explains his vote and confronts Trump
• [09:54]: Dana Struhl on War Powers and leadership accountability
• [13:47]: Struhl questions what the US achieved in the war
• [16:38]: Discussion of sanctions relief and the MOU terms
• [18:52]: Analysis of US munitions shortfalls and defense industrial base pressure
• [21:23]: Dissection of munitions expenditure numbers and the CSIS report
• [23:50]: Challenges facing the US defense industry’s capacity
• [25:12]: The F-15/jellyfish drone incident and drone warfare evolution
• [27:54]: Lessons learned from Iranian and Ukrainian drone tactics
• [30:24]: Pentagon’s willingness/ability to learn from mistakes
• [33:34]: Changing US-Gulf relationships and the security “integrator” concept
• [39:53]: CENTCOM's adaptation, joint operations with Israel, and forward basing changes
• [42:48]: Final reflection on global perceptions of US military credibility

---

Tone & Language

The episode maintains a sober, analytical, and critical tone. Venetia Rainey facilitates probing questions and transparent context. Dana Struhl offers frank expert judgment, unvarnished by official talking points, and the language alternates between technical detail (munitions, military-industrial dynamics) and clear-sighted strategic assessment (“paradox of the moment”).

---

Summary for New Listeners

This episode is a must-listen for those seeking to understand the converging crises of US military readiness, defense procurement, high-stakes diplomacy in the Gulf, and the far-reaching consequences of the Iran war for the US, its allies, and adversaries like China. It offers especially valuable insight into the political polarization at home, the game-changing impact of drone warfare, and why victory in pure military terms can still leave the US strategically weaker.

---

Transcript

[Veneesh Sharaney]

The telegraph.

[Monday.com Advertiser]

This is a Monday.com ad. The same Monday.com helping people worldwide getting work done faster and better. The same Monday.com designed for every team and every industry. The same Monday.com with built in AI scaling your work from day one. The same Monday.com that your team will actually love using the samemonday.com with an easy and intuitive setup. Go to Monday.com and try it for free. Yes the same Monday.com does it feel

[SoFi Advertiser]

like your student loans are a permanent part of your life? It doesn't have to be that way. With SoFi you can consolidate your student loans and refinance with the shorter term, potentially becoming debt free Sooner. Join over 580,000 members who have already refinanced their student loans with SOFI to take control of their financial future. Getting started is easier than you think. View Your [e-mail] Next Today SoFi student loans are originated by SoFi Bank NA member FDIC. Additional terms and conditions apply in MLS 696891.

[Veneesh Sharaney]

I'm Venetia Rainey and this is Iran. The Latest It's Thursday 25th of June 2026, day four of the 60 day deadline for the US and Iran to reach a final peace agreement. On today's episode, I'm going to be speaking to the Pentagon's former Middle east point person about the looming munitions crunch facing the US As a result of the war and what it means for the wider world. We're also going to be discussing intriguing reports that it was an advanced jellyfish style drone formation that took down that F15 jet inside Iran back in April. Plus, why did Trump call a fellow Republican a lunatic? There's a growing row over the cost and legitimacy of his war in the

[Narrator/News Reporter]

US A short time ago, the United States military began major combat operations in Iran.

[Dana Struhl]

Today, President Trump says Iran's Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei was killed in the attacks.

[Senator Bill Cassidy]

The Pentagon is weighing a takeover of that island as a way to force the reopening of the street of Hormuz. Iran begged for this ceasefire and we all know it.

[Veneesh Sharaney]

The question before us now is how

[Dana Struhl]

much more can we accomplish together? Can we turn over a new leaf? Can we change relations in the Middle east permanently?

[SoFi Advertiser]

Does anyone really think that someone can

[Dana Struhl]

tell President Trump what to do?

[SoFi Advertiser]

Come on.

[Veneesh Sharaney]

But first, a quick look at where we're at today. Secretary of State Marco Rubio is currently in the Gulf. Here was him speaking earlier today.

[Secretary of State Marco Rubio]

I have undertaken this trip here today first and foremost to express my Gratitude and appreciation for all of the cooperation and all of the help that we were given and all the things we were able to do together. We now enter a new phase and one that we hope will lead the peace. It's what we all desire. But there are certain things that for us are important to point out now that will never be acceptable. The first is the Straits of Hormuz are international waters. International waterways do not belong to any nation state. This is a foundational principle in the world today, without which the world would be in total chaos. If in fact we accepted that you can charge money to use an international waterway because it happens to be near your territorial space, well then this will spread throughout the world like a contagion. You can call it a toll, you can call it a fee, whatever you want to call it. It's a game of semantics. The reality of it is that no country on earth has a right to charge for the use of international waterways. And that will never be an acceptable condition of any deal. The message that I come with is that we want to ensure that in any decisions that are made throughout this negotiating process, the interest of our partners and our allies in the region are always taken into account. That there is no part of this deal that's undertaken that in any way undermines the security, the stability or the prosperity of any of our partners in the Gulf region.

[Veneesh Sharaney]

He also said that talks for this much vaunted final deal will resume on June 29th and 30th. So that's the start of next week. Over in the Strait of Hormuz, a British mine hunting mothership has arrived to help clear the waterway. The RFA Lime Bay sailed through the Red Sea with a German command and support ship and British destroyer HMS Dragon for protection. Now the Lyme Bay comprises six autonomous, crewless and remotely operated systems that can seek out and neutralise sea mines. More than 270 personnel on board and it's being led by UK commander Gemma Britton. This is part of broader de mining efforts and that plus this new Omani route that we've been talking about on the podcast, means more ships are getting through. Kepler, which watches these sorts of things, says traffic has seen a sharp day on day uptick. Confirmed. Straight off Hormuz crossings yesterday, 24th of June rose to 70. That was up 105% on the previous day. They said that this short term confidence boost from the US Iran peace deal is working, but could be dented by recent IRGC warnings against ships using this Omani route. We will see how that plays out, however, it's having a really positive impact on the oil price. Oil prices have today fallen to levels that were last seen before the start of this war. So Brent crude, the international benchmark, is now $72 a barrel. That's below its price on February 2017, the day before all of this kicked off, and way down from the high of $126 a barrel that we saw in April. Meanwhile, over in the US There has been an almighty row over the War Powers Resolution act being passed earlier this week. We mentioned it briefly on the podcast yesterday, but it has evolved since then. So Trump branded four Republican senators who sided with opposition Democrats to pass the vote. He called them losers. This was him speaking to NATO chief Mark Rutter yesterday about the vote.

[Narrator/News Reporter]

So we're doing great in our negotiations with Iran, right in the middle of one of the key things, which we're going to get anyway. We got. We have breaking news. The Senate has voted that they'd like Trump to stop the war. So Iran sees that and they go, what's that all about? Now, you know, it's meaningless, right? But I had lunch with them. We had four Republican senators and all Democrats. You know, Democrats, they want to lose the war because they're stupid.

[Veneesh Sharaney]

Now, after that vote happened, there was a meeting. It was supposed to be about something else, not about the War Powers Resolution Act. But Trump ended up having a shouting match with one of those loser Republicans, Louisiana Senator Bill Cassidy. Trump called him a lunatic. This was Cassidy speaking to CBS News.

[Senator Bill Cassidy]

Afterwards, the President was wondering why people would vote for the War Powers Act. I asked him if that would be a rhetorical question or a real question. He said, real. And so as I began to speak, the President didn't want to hear my question, interrupted me. I didn't care to be interrupted. I felt like I was trying to get answers for the American people. And I'm not going to be bullied when I'm trying to get answers for the American people. And so it escalated from there. At some point, it de.

[Narrator/News Reporter]

Escalated.

[Veneesh Sharaney]

We're told the President called you a lunatic.

[Senator Bill Cassidy]

Can I imagine that? The President called me things that would be said on a school, on a playground. Yeah, I can imagine.

[Dana Struhl]

You don't regret at all the vote for the War Powers Resolution yesterday, As

[Senator Bill Cassidy]

I said, and I've said before, that once I start getting answers, I can change my vote, but I feel like there's answers that need to be given and they've not been given. And that's important to the Senate. It's important to the American people.

[Veneesh Sharaney]

So they have this row and then Cassidy is invited to a private briefing with the White House about the Iran war. And he changes his mind. He goes back and he votes against a separate War Powers Resolution act later that day, which leads to it being defeated. Now, all of this back and forth comes as Trump is asking for more than $80 billion for urgent needs connected with the US war on Iran. Most of that is for the Pentagon. So how significant is this domest domestic blowback for Trump and what does that 80 billion figure represent for the Pentagon? To discuss all of that and more, I'm joined by our guest, Dana Struhl. She was Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for the Middle east from 2021 to 2023. That's the Pentagon's top civilian official with responsibility for the region. And during that time she worked on accelerating integrated air and maritime defense, addressing Iran's destabilizing activities, sustaining the defeat ISIS coalition, and of course, responding to the Israel Hamas war. She's currently director of research and the Shelley and Michael Kasson Senior Fellow at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy. And I welcome to Iran. The latest. There's so much I want to discuss with you, but first, let me just get your thoughts on this row that has erupted over in the US over the War Powers Resolution act, which is really a row about the Iran war, right. And whether it was a good war for America and whether this deal that Trump is now selling, this MOU with Iran is a good deal for America as well. What do you think? Are you for or against the War Powers Resolution act first? And then maybe just give me your sort of broader view about whether America's in the right place at the end of this conflict.

[Dana Struhl]

Well, it's a pleasure to be with you today to have this conversation. I think the first thing about the War Powers Resolution is that the United States of America is a system of laws and we have a Constitution. And in the Constitution, the President of the United States can declare war if there's an imminent threat to the United States. But in terms of a longer term war, the way our laws are written, Congress actually has to authorize the use of military force for anything that extends beyond 60 days. And generally, we've had presidents in the executive branch who have been responsive and actually provided that information to Congress who represent the will of the American people in our separation of powers here. So before getting to what just happened in the past 24 hours, I think it's important to note that one polling here in the United States since this war started on February 28 of this year, has been pretty consistent that Americans don't support this war, don't understand what we're achieving with this war. And as we went into the ceasefire, don't believe that the United States won this war. And we've seen members of Congress consistently raising concerns and asking questions and haven't seen much proactivity from the Trump administration in explaining this either to the American people. President Trump had ample time to do this and waited multiple weeks into the war to actually say anything to the American people. And other than that, we've had a few congressional testimonies from key Cabinet officials. And that's basically it.

[Narrator/News Reporter]

Right.

[Veneesh Sharaney]

And that was Bill Cassidy's big criticism. Right. That it's not been explained to the American people. He doesn't feel like this has been sufficiently justified. Is that how you feel?

[Dana Struhl]

I do. I think that if a President of the United States is going to commit this much of American military capabilities, given the broad scope of challenges globally, if the Middle east and Iran are going to be prioritize at a moment in time, with the amount of resources and US Lives on the line, then, yes, the President of the United States owes it to the American people to say why this is the priority threat and why it's worth American blood and American treasure to address that threat. And we never heard that in a compelling way from President Trump.

[Veneesh Sharaney]

This comes alongside Trump asking for more than 80 billion to cover urgent needs associated with the Iran war. The bulk of that, around 67 billion, is for the Department of Defense. What do you make of that figure? It seems high.

[Dana Struhl]

Well, it is high. First of all, we haven't seen the math on how they did the accounting. But here's the thing. The surge in US Military forces, our Air Force, our Navy, our Marines, our Army, etcetera, that deployed into the Middle east, the capabilities that we sent, two aircraft carriers at one point, three aircraft carriers, these configurations of Marines, all of the logistics that costs a lot of money. We also had a situation where the Strait of Hormuz was closed, which had an impact on global energy prices. Global energy prices also have implications for how the US Military operates. So it was always going to be more costly to get resources and sustainment to our forces. Then there's the munitions expenditures. And here, what the US Military used from its own arsenals, both offensively inside Iran and then defensively, both for itself, its military bases and defense of its partners is just enormous. Plus there's the salaries of these service members, all the danger pay that's associated. So the bill for this was always going to be quite extensive and it will be interesting to see how members of Congress debate and what kinds of questions they ask.

[Veneesh Sharaney]

I want to get onto that munitions bit in a moment, but do you think that figure, do you think it was worth it?

[Dana Struhl]

For me, when I look at, and this is what I've been trying to understand about where the United States is at this moment in time. So the United States for a long time has been quite aligned with allies and partners both in the Middle east and beyond on, on key issues related to Iran. It shouldn't have a pathway to a nuclear weapons capability. It shouldn't have a ballistic missile arsenal that can threaten the United States, threaten the Middle east, threaten Israel, threaten Europe, threaten the United States. And it shouldn't be able to cultivate a network of terrorists across the Middle east all the way through Europe, and we know even in the United States to target people, civilian locations, etc. So when evaluating this war against those three core things, nuclear program, missile program, terrorist network, I look at it and I can't see what we've achieved that will be sustainable over the medium to long term. So if you listen to Trump administration officials, they'll say there's no more air force, there's no more Iranian air force, there's no more Iranian navy. We've decimated their air defense, we've took out a lot of their military industrial complex. That may be true at this moment in time, but all of those things can be rebuilt. And Iran knowing that it wasn't a conventional match for the United States military, plus the Israeli military didn't respond conventionally. They did not meet US Fighter jet for fighter jet, strike for strike. What they did is respond asymmetrically. And the biggest card they played was closing the Strait of Hormuz in a way that the US Military, the Israelis and all of our partners were not able to prevent. And that is not something even with this mou, where we are going back to the status quo ante, it's never going to be restored to what it was before. We have to contemplate what it means to live in a new navigational order where Iran can threaten the Strait of Hormuz and freedom of navigation when it doesn't like what the United States and its allies are doing. And so faced with that, they can rebuild all of their programs if they want to. They can close this rate of Hormuz when they want. And the United States has just agreed to an mou. That provides massive sanctions relief. A lot of dollars are going to flow into Iran US Dollars, because now we're allowing them to transact in US Dollars. None of that is strategic victory for the United States.

[Veneesh Sharaney]

Right. And that's the big bone of contention for many American politicians. Right? This financial aspect, you know, lifting sanctions has happened immediately. A reconstruction fund up to $300 billion further down the line, which might come from Gulf partners. And Trump suggested that maybe it'll be used to buy American corn. But, I mean, who knows? That feels like a huge sop to Iran. I know you used to work on the region. How significant is it to be giving Iran money to be going into the IRGC's coffers at the end of this conflict?

[Dana Struhl]

It's incredibly significant. So, generally, if one is the victor in a scenario, you ensure that the adversary you defeated makes all of the commitments in a verified way and follows up with actions that you wanted the adversary to do. And then you provide some sort of incentives for that bad behavior to not happen again. That is not the framework of this mou. This MOU actually requires nothing of Iran other than to open the Strait of Hormuz only for 60 days, after which Iran is allowed to negotiate with Oman and other Gulf states. What the future of the navigational order will be in that critical waterway. And the United States under the Trump administration is providing an unprecedented amount of sanctions relief that goes far beyond the nuclear sanctions and far beyond anything that any previous US administration has provided, including President Obama, during the original Iran nuclear agreement talks. So, by allowing Iran to transact in US dollars, by working to facilitate Iranian oil sales, by allowing Iran to sell its oil at market rate, by allowing Iran to sell just its oil but petrochemicals, all of this is a massive amount of financial windfall that's coming to Iran, even without access to those frozen funds in escrow, which the Iranians continue to talk about. So the incentives for Iran actually are quite significant to just stay in this mou never have to make any real commitments on its nuclear program, because it just stands to economically benefit so much from the terms of this mou.

[Veneesh Sharaney]

I want to come back to the cost of the war for America, because part of that 80 billion that Trump is asking for, there's around 21 billion for munitions. There was a meeting yesterday. Trump was meeting with various defense officials and contractors, including people from Lockheed Martin, L3, Harris, RTX, which had all pledged billions of dollars in investment. And he was supposed to be talking about this munitions crunch that we've seen as A result of the really heavy use of things like Tomahawks, Patriots, all these sorts of things. How severe is the munitions crunch for America?

[Dana Struhl]

Well, first of all, we don't actually know how severe the munitions crunch is because the stockpile levels are highly classified and frankly they should be. But I think it's important to not just look at what happened this year, but what's been happening since 2022. So since 2022, after the Russian invasion of Ukraine and then the US work to support Israel and its self defense after October 7, 2023 have had massive implications for the and for defense industry. So the US Military has been providing support and weapons out of its own stocks to Ukraine since 22 and to Israel since 23, in addition to working to accelerate US defense industry new production for both partners and allies in Europe that are supporting Ukraine and face serious threats from Russia and also to support Israel and then also to support Gulf partners, Jordan, Egypt, others who face threats from Iran. So the pressures on defense industry, the pressures on US Military stockpiles and concerns that US Defense industry as it has existed for years is not able to resupply and build new production at scale and at cost effectiveness is not a new concern. And then add to that what we're seeing with how Ukraine is responding in Russia, how Iran worked and declared war across the Middle east is the changing nature of warfare. So beyond just replenishing existing stockpiles, the big question is how do we update our defense industrial base and the kinds of weapons we need to fight future wars given the changing nature of warfare? All of that is coming together. There was tremendous work done in the Department of Defense under former Secretary of Defense Floyd Austin and the Deputy Secretary of Defense Kath Ak and we're seeing the Trump administration under Hegseth and the Deputy Secretary Steve Feinberg work to accelerate those things. Now this is going to require massive financial investments. There's also been a lot of pressure on US industry to work faster, to open new lines, to scale up production and at the same time to empower the non big guy. So you're mentioning this meeting where all the big guys were summoned to the Pentagon and apparently raked over the coals for not being able to supply fast enough. And then the next question is how do we empower and enable smaller production that can rapidly innovate faster software upgrades to respond to the way in which warfare is so rapidly changing?

[Veneesh Sharaney]

As you noted, the stockpiles are of course classified. And you're right, that is for a very good reason. But we have had some estimates about how much was used from CSIS and other places. So more than 1,000 Tomahawks, more than 1,000 Patriot Interceptors, at least 190 TAD Interceptors. And those figures we think represent around 50% of pre war inventories, in some cases more. And the US only produces 90 to 100 Tomahawks per year. So for them to use a thousand puts them back BY I guess, 10 years. Well, we don't know what the stockpiles are, as you say, but were you surprised by those numbers?

[Dana Struhl]

The numbers are surprising because this was such a massive investment by the defense leadership of the Trump administration in this war against Iran. Knowing what the stockpile numbers are, knowing they were at risk before the Iran war, and clearly prioritizing as most presidential administrations have readiness to fight future wars and the real serious conflict yet to come, which could be with China in the Asia theater. And so much of the focus on training and doctrine and kind of weapons and how we would fight so far from American borders focuses on what that conflict looks like in China. So the challenge of these munitions expenditures numbers, and I also follow the CSIS data really closely, it's really alarming. And the likelihood is it is a decent reflection, but not the full story. The full story could be likely. Even more alarming is that leaders in Beijing are also looking at these numbers and they can also read the CSIS report. And so the question is, what are our adversaries learning from how we fought the munitions expenditures that we just used? And how does that encourage them to either think about escalating more or less in the coming years, knowing that our production timelines are so extended?

[Veneesh Sharaney]

Do you think the American defence industrial complex is up to it? As you say, this meeting sounds like it went on for quite a long time, wasn't tense. But you know, these officials being told that they need to, you're not doing enough, apparently, was the initial message to executives. But by the end the tone has had shifted toward cooperation with officials saying the goal was to get on a warfitting and work together to speed up production. I mean, what's it going to take to get companies and I guess the government on a war footing, if not an actual war like what we've just had?

[Dana Struhl]

I definitely think that American industry is up to it. And I would never bet against the ingenuity of American defense industrial base and our scientists and our researchers. The issue is a lot of regulatory and bureaucratic issues. Some of that is on defense industry and frankly some of it is on the executive Branch, the Department of Defense, and a lot of it is on Congress. So we need to change a lot of our export controls. The way we share information with our partners and allies, how we do co production, we do production almost all in the United States. We don't have enough joint research and development. We don't have ways to integrate the lessons from our allies and partners into US defense industry to share highly classified information to do co production where maybe we're not producing everything in the United States, but we're producing closer to where the wars are fighting. That actually requires regulatory reform here in the United States, legal reform here in the United States. Longer lead multi year contracting structures and defense industry. If they're going to scale up, open new factories, hire new labor, hire new workers, they need reassurance that there's going to be a market for those goods years into the future. A lot of that requires demand signal from the executive branch and I know that people are working on that now. But a lot of that is not only on defense industry, it's changing the entire ecosystem around which we do defence production.

[Veneesh Sharaney]

I mean that procurement question is so knotty, isn't it? Because you need to be procuring things for the future war. And we don't know what that future war will look like. It's the problem we're having here in the UK and we're having across Europe and we were trying to get a defence investment plan out of the door here in Britain. And you know, there's a lot of talk that we're trying to procure things that just won't be suitable for the next war. Is that a problem in America too? I also want to just quickly bring in, we've had some more details about that F15 fighter jet that was downed in April. There's some suggestion reporting in CNN that one of the airmen said he saw a sort of jellyfish like formation, a sort of mothership drone with other drones being controlled by it swarming at his plane. And the suggestion is, I guess that that's what downed the plane. We still don't know what did down that jet and led to two airmen having to be rescued from inside Iran. It's that mismatch, isn't it, between what the Iranians have been able to do with drones and the kind of munitions and weapons that Western military like the US has to respond to that, and whether we're nimble enough to be able to meet that threat. What do you think?

[Dana Struhl]

We're seeing glimmers now of exactly what the changing nature of warfare looks like. And I think it's quite clear that nobody is prepared for what this means for defense procurement, for future kinds of weapons systems, and how we actually need to train our armed forces to respond, be adaptable and flexible in this very contested warfare situation. But we have two really good examples here. First is how Ukraine has adapted to what it's seen from Russia and these recent demonstrations with Ukrainian strikes deep inside Russia, using drones in highly innovative ways I think offers really important lessons for how NATO allies, the United States and our coalition can import those lessons. Learn from a very flexible, nimble Ukrainian system. And then on the Iranian side, we've learned a lot about how we need to prepare to defend our interests and defend our forces and our capabilities. And what is really important about the Iran war situation is the economics of current warfare that we're using extremely expensive with long production timelines, missile defense like the Patriots and the Thaads and these very expensive radars. And the Iranians used very cheap drones first to sense and test those radars, test the defenses around our military bases, and then go in for precision kills. That gives us a lot of information about the shortcomings in our current procurement and ways in which we fight wars and important indicators of how we need to adapt going forward. Now, unfortunately for us, what's very clear is that the Iranians imported a lot of defense technical know how and a lot of tactics and procedures from Russia after what Russia experienced in the Ukraine theater. And we know that the Russians and Iranians are deepening their cooperation and they're sharing that with the Chinese and they're sharing that with the others. So it's imperative that European allies, the United States, our treaty allies like South Korea and Japan and the Asia theater are now seeing what that rapidly changing curve at the edge of warfare is going to look like and need to be taking steps now. And a good example of some of those steps that are being taken are look at our Gulf allies, especially in the Gulf Cooperation Council, all recognizing that they need US supplied missile defense architecture and capabilities, but it's insufficient on its own. And so they're looking at what they can procure from Europe, from South Korea, what they can import in terms of lessons from Ukraine. These are actually all trusted allies and partners. And if we can figure out how to reform our own national systems to deepen that cooperation, I think we'll be much better prepared and ahead of that curve of warfare in terms of what the American pilot saw, I it's one CNN report. It would be surprising to me if The Iranians figured out a way to have a mothership drone and have the drones operate like that before the United States, its partners and allies. Given the amount of resources and investments we've made in these sorts of capabilities, this is something that's actively discussed about what future warfare looks like, especially in the context of a potential conflict with China. But remember, that was a very high stress situation. The pilot was being debriefed. We're seeing just a fraction of what that debriefing might have looked like. So I would take it with some context and a grain of salt.

[Veneesh Sharaney]

Okay. Yeah. I mean, elsewhere in that report, there are some suggestions that, you know, he had suffered from concussion. I think it was the second time that he'd been involved in an incident during the Iran war. Poor guy. I want to get onto the Gulf in a second, but you mentioned the sort of Gulf learning lessons. Do you think the Pentagon is capable in its current form of learning those sorts of lessons? You know, we hear such bombastic talk, this war was a success and anyone who says otherwise is a traitor and it's treason. Do you think there's sufficient humbleness, I guess, to take a step back and look at what went wrong and implement those lessons?

[Dana Struhl]

I have confidence in the US Military professionals and the civilian professionals that support the Secretary of Defense, Pete Hegseth. I think at the operational level, everyone understands what happens here. And it's really unfortunate that the noise around this war is dominated by these insistent quantitative metrics of success. We eliminated these big pillars of Iran's conventional military. We dropped these many munitions. We operated against this number of targets. I think it's one metric, but it's not the complete metric. And it's not a full sense of what happened here. And it doesn't account for how Iran responded. And when you're only looking at it through this soda straw of data, of numbers of what the United States did, you're missing the picture of what was left. What can be rebuilt over what period of time, and what are the non military tools that we actually need to accomplish our objectives. And in this case, whatever those objectives were, they shifted, according to President Trump, multiple times. And most of those big objectives, whether was unconditional surrender of the regime, protection of the Iranian people from the regime, complete decimation of the nuclear program, those lofty objectives were not achieved. But I think inside U.S. central Command, the military headquarters of the United States responsible for the Middle east, they absolutely absorbed key lessons learned about this war and are already determining how to move forward, as did Jordan and the countries of the Gulf Cooperation Council, plus Israel, all of whom were on the receiving end of Iranian missile and drone barrages and are learning really important lessons about what air defense worked, where we need to improve, and where we need to plug in gaps going forward.

[Veneesh Sharaney]

We're going to take a short pause now. Coming up after the break, how has America's role in the Gulf changed through this war?

[SoFi Advertiser]

Does it feel like your student loans are a permanent part of your life? It doesn't have to be that way. With SoFi, you can consolidate your student loans and refinance with a shorter term, potentially becoming debt free Sooner. Join over 580,000 members who have already refinanced their student loans with SOFI to take control of their financial future. Getting started is easier than you think. View your [e-mail] Next today, SoFi student loans are originated by SoFi Bank NA member FDIC. Additional terms and conditions apply in MLS

[Muscle Milk Advertiser]

696891 everyone's talking about protein lately, but how do you actually get enough of it? Muscle Milk Muscle Milk has a great tasting new formula with no artificial sweeteners, flavors or added colors. It's high quality complete protein designed to designed to support healthy muscles with fewer ingredients than the previous formula and 26 to 42 grams of protein for when you're stuck in meetings or need a post workout recovery. Available in chocolate, vanilla, cream, cookies and cream and strawberries and cream. Try the new great tasting Muscle Milk today available in stores nationwide. Muscle Milk Protein for All.

[Veneesh Sharaney]

Welcome back. You're listening to Iran, the latest and I'm chatting to Dana Struhl from the Washington Institute. You mentioned that the Gulf is going to need to rely more on the US for that kind of defence going forward. You wrote an excellent piece talking about the sort of paradox there, that the Gulf will need to rely on the US More. But trust has also been diminished. The US has been found somewhat a slightly wanting, slightly unreliable partner. And there's some tension there. You set out an idea that the US Needs to become a security integrator rather than a security guarantor. Can you explain that?

[Dana Struhl]

Sure. So the title of the piece is the Middle East Least Power Paradox for the Foreign affairs magazine. It's just out in print edition. And that for me is the dichotomy of this moment, that at a conventional military level what the United States was able to do, there still is no military that can. The military talks about projecting power, launch this surge, this massive amount of capabilities and forces and achieve real military metrics so far from its shores. That's remarkable. And frankly, in terms of missile defense against Iran's attacks, the Gulf countries and Israel and Jordan achieved about an 87 to an 88% defense rate, which is pretty remarkable. And that was done with US Origin equipment, US Origin training, US Origin intelligence, US Forces on the ground assisting our partners and allies. And the reality is that there's no substitute for that. So at the military level, that military backbone that's provided by the United States is not something that can be replaced in the short term at all. And so the military relationships are actually quite consistent at this moment in time. The problem is at this political level. So the leaders of all of these countries are frankly in strategic whiplash. Every single day, sometimes multiple times a day. There's different pronouncements, different expressions of policy, shifting objectives that come out of Washington. And what these countries need and what these societies need to recover in a post war sense is stability and consistency and assurance of sustained U.S. commitment. And when they hear the kinds of debates happening in the United States, the war powers, votes taken in US Congress, the polling numbers that show Americans quite pessimistic about investments abroad, they hear rhetoric about US Firms and deprioritizing commitments to our allies and partners that makes our what have been long standing partners less comfortable and less willing to rely on us and more willing to take independent foreign policy decisions or explore new arrangements for ensuring their interests. And frankly, that's exactly what we're seeing right now in the Middle East. All of these countries, especially in the Gulf, are talking about having some kind of conference with Iran to figure out what the post war order is. The rhetoric coming out of a lot of Gulf countries right now is that a post war order needs to more include Iran in that order. The talk about this $300 billion reparations fund, maybe it's a reparation fund, maybe it's just another way to ensure that Iran has more to lose if it resumes attacking these Gulf countries. All of this is going to minimize the space in which the United States can operate to pursue its own interests. The United States and Americans in general are going to do better if they can work with allies and partners. And all of those alliances and all of those partnerships are under tremendous strain because of political decisions being made in Washington.

[Veneesh Sharaney]

Do you have much hope that they will get the kind of stability that you say they crave? Donald Trump is not particularly noted for sending out particularly stable messaging, even if his administration would like to do otherwise.

[Dana Struhl]

I think what's happening with The Gulf countries right now is they are going to have to live with the reality of the Trump administration and the unpredictability that comes out of the White House. But I also think there's a lot of private conversations happening and then there is this recognition of the US Military backbone. So the CENTCOM relationship with the militaries. We actually have the CENTCOM commander, Admiral Brad Cooper, going out across the entire Middle East. I think he leaves for the Middle east today. And it's an indicator that they recognize the importance of these military relationships. And part of the way in which we're going to defend ourselves going forward is not the United States providing all of these services to our partners. Our partners are actually realizing that they cannot exclusively rely on the United States, but they want the United States to play a role. And that's where it gets to this question of security integrator. The United States is going to play a role, but it's no longer going to be able to to dictate objectives, interest policies and expect all of our partners to line up because our partners don't think the United States has lined up for them. President Trump is going to be in the White House for another two and a half years and nothing about this MOU is going to deliver long term security. Even though we have officials talking about it in this transformational way. What we've seen from Tehran in the past couple of days is that they're still willing to challenge it. The rhetoric in no way suggests they're in a compromising or flexible mood. We're going to have to deal with a Middle east that's likely going to be more unstable for a significant and extended period of time, and that the United States is seen as a less reliable actor. Hopefully what happens here is that the Trump administration realizes it needs to really listen to allies and partners, hear them and that they can be value added. And frankly, he might be, he being President Trump, might be able to hear some of that at the upcoming NATO summit in Ankara, where actually several Middle east partners are invited to attend.

[Veneesh Sharaney]

That's interesting because. Yeah, the other thing that you point out in your piece is about the unprecedented cooperation between the US And Israel. The first time that they sort of fought a war together. Normally the US Goes in and leads things, but they were very much doing things together. And also the fact that the US it evacuated partially most of its sort of Gulf side bases and launched attacks from Jordan, Saudi Arabia and naval offshore platforms. We now know that the UAE and Saudi Arabia may also have joined in. There are Reports that they also attacked Iran of their own accord. Can you talk a bit more about how CENTCOM functioned in this war and how it's been sort of different from previous wars and lessons they might have learned from that cooperation?

[Dana Struhl]

Sure. So one of the important points in my essay is that there are certain trends that will be accelerated as a result of this war. So there was longstanding views within the Pentagon from years ago that the United States needs to find a way to consolidate some of its very dispersed basing and the deployment of U.S. forces across the Middle east, that the Middle east remains an important theater, but that we needed to make sure that we were reprioritizing and focusing also on trends in the European theater and of course in the Asia theater because of the threat, threat from China, and largely because the Middle east continues to produce crises, whether it's Iran related crises or ISIS related crises, it's been very difficult to reduce that basing architecture. But the key insight from this war is that because Iran used its short range ballistic missiles to attack US Military bases, CENTCOM recognized that it could not flow forces, as you noted, into those bases. It didn't leave its weapons and other kit in those bases. It mostly evacuated from those bases. And in order to get US Military into the region, the US Military was either on its ships, its aircraft carriers and its destroyers and things like this, or it was flowing in from the western side, as you noted, of the Middle east. So Saudi Arabia, Jordan and even Israel. And this was the first time U.S. forces were deployed in these significant formations inside Israel. And they're actually to this day present on bases inside Israel. Secondly, the United States military is always looking for partners and allies that it can fight with so that it's not only American lives and American treasure on the line. And in the case of the Iran war, this was, as you noted, a truly combined operation. The Israeli Defense Forces had lives on the line. It brought critical intelligence to the war. It was the one who cleared Iranian air defense before US Fighters were flying over Iran. There was clear division of labor and targets, sharing of intelligence. And we even know that the Israeli Air Force was ready to support the US Air Force in that rescue mission when we had the downed F15 fighter pilot. So taken together, this is actually what you would want to see if you're in the United States. A military partner that's capable and willing of putting lives on the line and fighting alongside you. And again, the paradox of the moment we're in is that the U. S Israel relationship is gaining more and more criticism and more and more attention in a negative way on both the right and the left in the United States. And it's unclear how that settles out over the medium term.

[Veneesh Sharaney]

Just finally a brief reflection on whether you think this war has damaged or improved America's military credibility on the global stage.

[Dana Struhl]

That is the paradox of the moment that from a military perspective, there still is no military capable of what the United States just did. There's no military that can project this level of power, this level of capabilities, dominate the airspace of another country, take out so much of its nuclear program, missile program, military industrial complex with such precision. And I think it's important to not only reflect on this year, but what happened last year when the United states, in a 24 hour period, sent B2s to drop these massive ordnance penetrators against these deeply buried targets inside Iran. There is no air force, there is no military capable of what the United States has demonstrated in recent years. But the problem is not just a military one, it's a strategic one. And the challenge of this moment is that with the unpredictability of American leadership in Washington, D.C. the U.S. military on its own is just one tool. The question is it should be one tool in a broader national security toolbox of wise decision making that takes into account the concerns and needs of US Allies and partners. And the United States on its own is not good for the international system and it's not good for Americans American safety, security and prosperity. And because of the circumstances of how this war was fought, despite the really important achievements from a military point of view, at a strategic level, the United States has made itself less safe. And it's made the international community less safe.

[Veneesh Sharaney]

Less safe. Okay, we'll leave it there. Donna Struhl from the Washington Institute, thanks very much for joining us on around the Latest.

[Dana Struhl]

Pleasure to be with you.

[Veneesh Sharaney]

That was Dana Struhl from the Washington Institute. And that's all for today's episode of around the Latest. We'll be back again tomorrow. Until then, goodbye. Iran. The Latest is an original podcast from the Telegraph created by David Knowles and hosted by me, Veneesh Sharaney and Roland Olyphant. If you appreciated this podcast, please consider following around the Latest on your preferred podcast app. And if you have a moment, leave us a review as it helps others find the show. To stay on top of all of our news, subscribe to the Telegraph, sign up to our Dispatchers newsletter, or listen to our sister podcast, Ukraine. The Latest. We're still on the same email address. Battlelinestelegraph.co.uk or you can contact us on x. You can find our handles in the show. Notes the producer is Peter Shevlin. The Executive Producer is Louisa Wells.

[SoFi Advertiser]

Does it feel like your student loans are a permanent part of your life? It doesn't have to be that way. With SoFi you can consolidate your student loans and refinance with the shorter term, potentially becoming debt free Sooner. Join over 580,000 members who have already refinanced their student loans with SOFI to take control of their financial future. Getting started is easier than you think. View your [e-mail] Next Today Sofi student loans are originated by SOFI bank in a member FDIC. Additional terms and conditions apply in MLS 696891 this heat isn't letting up and

[Renewal by Andersen Advertiser]

if your windows and doors aren't performing, your home is feeling it. Now's the time to replace your old worn out windows and doors during the Renewal by Andersen Summer Sizzler event. For a limited time, enjoy. Buy one, get one 40% off plus $50 off each window and door with a minimum of four and buy now and pay later with our special financing. Stay cool with these summer Savings by visiting renewalbyandersonhome.com today and get your project started.