WASHINGTON Senior U.S. military commanders have privately warned Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth that the Trump administration's prolonged military campaign against Iran is becoming unsustainable, exposing a widening gap between the administration's public assurances and the increasingly troubling assessment coming from inside the Pentagon.
The warnings are contained in the Aug. 14 edition of the classified Secretary of Defense Orders Book, according to The Washington Post, which reported that military leaders responsible for forces in Europe, Asia and Latin America raised concerns about extending deployments supporting the Iran war.
The classified document has not been released publicly. Its contents were described to the Post by people familiar with the assessment.
The warnings present a serious challenge for President Donald Trump and Hegseth, who have repeatedly projected confidence in America's ability to continue military operations while maintaining sufficient forces and weapons to confront threats elsewhere.
Behind those assurances, however, some of America's highest-ranking military officers are warning that ships, aircraft, troops and weapons diverted to the Middle East are reducing military readiness in other parts of the world.
The concerns are no longer theoretical.
The Pentagon has separately pressed defense contractors to dramatically accelerate production of critical weapons after months of fighting depleted American munitions. Deputy Defense Secretary Steve Feinberg gave defense companies 21 days to produce plans for faster deliveries and increased production, according to an August memo.
Commanders Push Back on Extended Iran Deployments
The Pentagon's orders book provides senior officials with assessments of the worldwide availability of American ships, aircraft, personnel and weapons.
According to the Post, leaders of U.S. European Command, U.S. Pacific Command and U.S. Southern Command, along with the Navy's top officer, registered formal "non-concurs" with portions of Hegseth's orders.
A non-concur is not a refusal to obey an order. It formally records a military leader's disagreement while acknowledging that the directive will still be carried out.
The significance is difficult to dismiss: Commanders responsible for American military operations across three major regions of the world were warning the defense secretary about the consequences of continuing to divert their resources to the Middle East.
Adm. Samuel Paparo, commander of U.S. forces in the Indo-Pacific, objected to the continuing level of support his command was ordered to provide, including an aircraft carrier strike group and destroyers.
That matters because the Indo-Pacific is at the center of America's strategy for deterring China.
The Navy's only dedicated Pacific aircraft carrier was sent to the Middle East to relieve another carrier that had been deployed for more than 300 days, according to the Post.
Navy Warns It Cannot Sustain the Pace
One of the strongest warnings reportedly came from Chief of Naval Operations Adm. Daryl Caudle.
Caudle told Hegseth that the Navy cannot sustain its current level of support for the Iran conflict without a foreseeable end to the operation, according to people familiar with the assessment.
Barely one-quarter of the Navy's destroyer fleet was ready to deploy, the Post reported.
Extended deployments also create problems that cannot simply be fixed by ordering sailors to remain at sea longer. Ships require maintenance. Crews require training and rest. Delayed maintenance can reduce the number of vessels available for future emergencies.
The result is a military readiness problem created not only by what America is using in Iran, but by what America may no longer have immediately available if another crisis erupts.
Missile Stocks Take a Beating
The administration faces an equally serious problem with ammunition.
The Associated Press reported last week that American stocks of Patriot missile interceptors in Europe have fallen to levels described as "beyond critical" by a U.S. defense official in Europe and a NATO official.
Patriot missiles are among the few Western systems capable of intercepting sophisticated ballistic missiles.
The Iran war was described as the tipping point that rapidly reduced those inventories, although previous transfers to Ukraine also contributed to the decline.
The Pentagon disputes that characterization.
Pentagon spokesman Sean Parnell called claims of American ammunition shortages false and said the United States maintains the arsenal necessary to defend American interests and conduct military operations.
NATO military spokesman Col. Martin O'Donnell similarly disputed the description of European Patriot stocks as "beyond critical."
But the administration's denials sit alongside its own actions.
The Pentagon is simultaneously demanding that defense companies accelerate production.
Feinberg told manufacturers that years-long development cycles are no longer acceptable and that production capacity must be expanded immediately.
That creates an obvious political problem for the administration: It is publicly rejecting descriptions of a munitions crisis while urgently pushing industry to replenish weapons depleted during the Iran conflict.
Some Weapons Could Take Years to Replace
The scale of the expenditure helps explain the military's concern.
An analysis cited in recent reporting estimated that the U.S. Patriot inventory declined from roughly 2,330 interceptors before the war to between 759 and 827 following the latest fighting — a decline of at least 65%.
THAAD interceptor inventories were estimated to be at least 38% below prewar levels.
The Pentagon has responded by pursuing agreements and contracts intended to sharply increase missile production.
But money cannot instantly produce missiles.
Advanced interceptors require specialized factories, components, rocket motors, electronics and skilled workers. Production lines that were designed to manufacture hundreds of missiles cannot immediately begin producing thousands.
The administration is therefore confronting a basic reality of modern warfare: Weapons can be fired much faster than American industry can replace them.
Iran War Creates Risks Far Beyond Iran
That would be concerning even if Iran were America's only potential adversary.
It isn't.
The United States maintains military commitments in Europe while Russia continues its war against Ukraine. American forces in Asia are expected to deter China and prepare for the possibility of a conflict involving Taiwan. U.S. forces must also maintain the ability to respond to crises on the Korean Peninsula and defend the American homeland.
Those missions compete for many of the same ships, aircraft and missiles now being concentrated in the Middle East.
The classified assessment reportedly warns that prolonged Iran operations could weaken America's ability to respond to threats elsewhere, including threats to the homeland.
That raises a question the Trump administration has struggled to answer publicly: What is the endgame?
Keeping tens of thousands of troops on alert and extending deployments into 2027 may preserve Trump's military options against Tehran, but it also carries costs elsewhere.
More than 50,000 U.S. troops have remained on alert for months in connection with the conflict, according to the Post.
Administration Attacks Reporting
Rather than publicly releasing more information about America's military readiness, the Pentagon has attacked reporting about the classified assessments.
Parnell has argued that formal disagreements from commanders are a routine part of Pentagon decision-making and has disputed portions of the reporting.
The Pentagon has also criticized the publication of classified military information.
But calling the process routine does not erase what the commanders reportedly said.
The central issue is not whether military officers are permitted to disagree with civilian leadership. They are.
The issue is what they are warning about.
Senior officers responsible for major regions of the world are telling Pentagon leadership that continued demands from the Iran war are degrading their ability to carry out other missions.
That is substantially different from the image of limitless American military capacity projected publicly by the administration.
Trump Administration Faces Questions Over Strategy
The emerging picture raises difficult questions about how the administration planned for a prolonged conflict.
If military commanders were already concerned about ammunition supplies and global force availability, the administration must explain why it pursued a strategy capable of consuming enormous quantities of America's most difficult-to-replace weapons without a clearly defined timetable for ending the operation.
It also raises questions for Congress.
A prolonged war can affect American military readiness for years after the shooting stops. Rebuilding missile inventories, completing deferred ship maintenance and restoring training schedules cannot necessarily be accomplished within a single budget cycle.
The Trump administration can argue that maintaining overwhelming pressure on Iran is necessary for American security.
But it cannot credibly treat the military resources required to maintain that pressure as unlimited.
The warnings contained in the classified Pentagon assessment suggest America's own commanders understand that reality.
And despite the administration's public reassurances, the Pentagon's simultaneous scramble to increase missile production provides additional evidence that the strain on America's arsenal is real.
The question facing Washington is therefore no longer simply whether the United States has enough military power to continue fighting Iran.
It is whether continuing the war at this pace leaves America sufficiently prepared for the next crisis and whether the Trump administration adequately considered that risk before committing the country to a prolonged conflict.
