Munitions Misconceptions & Operation Epic Fury | American Enterprise Institute

On July 25, the New York Times reported that President Trump had set aside plans to escalate military operations against Iran due to concerns about further draining U.S. inventories of air defense interceptors. This report has triggered intense debate about an uncomfortable strategic question: how does the United States defend its interests in multiple theaters across a dangerous world while low on ammo?

Answering that question starts by addressing some misconceptions about munitions that have surfaced in recent days.

1) Munitions shortfalls are the sole or primary reason President Trump is refraining from escalating the war against Iran. Plain and simple: this isn’t just about munitions. The more fundamental strategic issue is that even if the United States had more interceptors and offensive munitions, it is not clear that additional air and missile strikes would compel Iran to terminate the conflict on satisfactory terms to the United States.

2) Revealing U.S. munitions shortfalls makes Iran more defiant. US munitions shortfalls have been well-publicized for several years, as have the implications for operational effectiveness and the credibility of deterrence. Recent news reports are not revealing anything Iran (or China or Russia) didn’t already know. Iran abandoned the lenient and lucrative “Memorandum of Understanding” knowing full well that additional U.S. military strikes would be the result.

3) Munitions inventories should not constrain US strategy on Iran. Wicked as the Iranian regime is, the United States cannot simply forsake all its other global interests by exhausting supplies of critical munitions. Tom Rogan at the Washington Examiner puts it well: “Those who argue that factoring munitions shortages into the Iran strategy renders the US military pointless are either deluding themselves about China’s threat or believe that Iran poses a greater threat. Theirs is a serious folly.”

4) The United States can continue expending munitions now because they will soon be replenished. It will be many years before munitions expended in Epic Fury and other recent operations are replenished. It will be still more years before munitions inventories approach sufficiency for a conflict with China. And that assumes everything goes right. Congress needs to approve and sustain major funding increases for munitions procurement. The Pentagon needs to turn non-binding agreements into binding contracts for existing exquisite weapons and for new “affordable mass” weapons. Industry needs to address workforce, supply chain, facilities, and tooling issues to realize promised increases in production capacity. All of this is necessary. None of it means significant near-term increases in US munitions inventories. 

5) Epic Fury caused the munitions shortfall. Epic Fury exacerbated but did not cause the US munitions shortfall, which had been evident for more than a decade before the operation began in February 2026. The very fact that critical munitions have been dangerously depleted after just five months of operations against Iran is itself evidence that the United States did not have enough munitions to fight a sustained, high-intensity conflict with a more capable adversary like China.

6) President Biden caused the munitions shortfall. President Biden did not cause the munitions shortfall, but his administration did not do enough to alleviate munitions shortfalls. Drawdowns frequently outpaced replenishments. And while the administration kickstarted initiatives to increase munitions production and sought multiyear contracting authorities, funding was woefully insufficient to the urgency and scale of the problem.

7) President Trump caused the munitions shortfall. The munitions shortfall predates President Trump’s election. In his first term, President Trump took incremental but ultimately inadequate steps to increase munitions procurement. President Trump’s second-term record is mixed. His administration has aggressively pushed increased munitions production. Its proposed $1.5 trillion defense budget would provide funding essential for realizing that goal. On the other hand, President Trump has repeatedly downplayed the munitions issue, saying the United States had “virtually unlimited” munitions to fight wars “forever.” He has employed the US military as if this were true in Somalia, Nigeria, Yemen, and now Iran. And his request for additional munitions via reconciliation rather than the base budget imperils its passage through Congress and long-term execution.

8) China is going to invade Taiwan because US stockpiles are low. It is reductive and solipsistic to simplify an adversary’s calculus about starting a major war to a single variable of American military power. China’s decision about the use of force against Taiwan is a multivariable equation—and many of the variables have nothing to do with the United States. That said, the insufficient munitions inventory of the United States—both before Epic Fury and after—is a major hole in the credibility of deterrence against China that requires a policy of sustained urgency to repair.