Depletion of American Defenses in Israeli Skies

Washington's Message

Washington - Said Arikat - 22/5/2026

The Washington Post revealed, in a report based on secret assessments within the US Department of Defense, that the US military depleted a huge portion of its strategic stock of advanced interceptor missiles during its defense of Israel in the recent confrontation with Iran, using quantities of high-tech munitions far exceeding what Israel itself used. This revelation caused shock within American military and political circles, after highlighting the extent of Israeli reliance on the American defensive umbrella, and also opened the door to increasing questions about Washington's ability to maintain its global military readiness, in light of escalating international tensions and the expanding scope of security challenges facing the United States.

According to information reported by the newspaper from American officials, the United States launched more than two hundred missiles from the "THAAD" interceptor system, which is approximately half of the Pentagon's available stock of this advanced system. American warships in the eastern Mediterranean also used more than one hundred missiles of the "Standard 3" and "Standard 6" types to intercept Iranian missiles. In contrast, Israel used fewer "Arrow" and "David's Sling" systems, reflecting increasing Israeli reliance on American capabilities during the war.

This disparity led military analysts to warn of far-reaching consequences, especially since current American production lines do not seem capable of quickly compensating for this depletion. Researcher Kelly Greico from the "Stimson Center" described the figures as "striking," confirming that the United States bore the brunt of missile defense operations, while Israel retained a significant portion of its defensive stock. This means, according to experts' estimates, that any new confrontation could put Washington in a real arms crisis, especially if tensions escalate in Asia or Eastern Europe.

This development reveals a profound shift in the nature of the military relationship between Washington and Tel Aviv. Despite the political rhetoric that presents Israel as a self-sufficient military power, the facts on the ground have shown almost complete reliance on the American umbrella when facing a broad strategic threat. Moreover, the depletion of American stock in defense of Israel raises internal questions in the United States about the feasibility of continued open support, at a time when Washington faces escalating challenges with China, North Korea, and Russia. This issue is likely to become a subject of debate within Congress as criticisms mount regarding the cost of foreign wars on American national security.

The revelation of the decline in American stock raised concerns among Washington's allies in Asia, especially Japan and South Korea, who rely on American deterrence against North Korea and China. Experts believe that any weakness in American defense systems could send wrong messages to adversaries, encouraging them to test Washington's ability to manage simultaneous crises on more than one front. The war also revealed the limited American industrial capacity to produce advanced munitions at a pace suitable for modern, long-term wars.

In parallel, the Pentagon defended the performance of American forces, emphasizing that military cooperation with Israel was conducted with the highest degree of coordination. Ministry spokesman Sean Parnell said that interceptor systems are only part of an integrated defense network that included fighter jets, anti-drone systems, and advanced monitoring systems. The Israeli embassy in Washington also stressed that cooperation between the two sides serves common interests, and described Israel as the most ready and effective military partner for the United States in the region.

The current military depletion is not only related to the war with Iran but also reflects a deeper crisis in American strategy in the Middle East. For years, American administrations have tried to reduce their direct military involvement and focus on confronting China in Asia, but repeated wars in defense of Israel bring Washington back into the same cycle of depletion. Moreover, Israel's increasing reliance on American capabilities weakens the narrative promoted by Tel Aviv about its self-military superiority. More dangerously, this war showed Iran's ability to impose a high strategic cost despite the severe blows it suffered, meaning that any new confrontation could be more complex and dangerous.

American intelligence estimates indicate that Iran still retains a large percentage of its missile arsenal, despite the extensive strikes that targeted its facilities and military bases. The closure of the Strait of Hormuz also led to disruption of global energy supplies and rising inflation rates, increasing pressure on the American administration. While President Donald Trump continues to threaten to resume military operations, officials warn that any new round will lead to greater depletion of American stock, especially after some Israeli defense batteries were taken out of service for maintenance.

The recent war reveals that the balance of deterrence in the region is no longer entirely decided in favor of Israel and the United States as previously thought. Despite the significant air and technological superiority, Washington and Tel Aviv were unable to prevent Iran from retaining a significant portion of its missile capabilities. The continued need to launch hundreds of interceptor missiles reflects the magnitude of the threat posed by the Iranian arsenal. Most importantly, this confrontation highlighted the fragility of the global economy to any disruption in the Gulf, which could push major international powers to exert increasing pressure to contain the escalation and prevent the region from turning into a long-term open war zone.

In the background, American officials spoke of a pivotal role played by Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu in convincing President Donald Trump to proceed with the war, through promises to weaken the Iranian regime and push the country towards major internal changes. However, the developments of the battles on the ground differed from initial expectations, after Iran showed an ability to continue launching missiles and maintain a significant part of its military infrastructure. The prolonged duration of the confrontation also led to escalating disagreements among decision-making circles in Washington regarding the feasibility of continuing operations, amid fears of the United States sliding into a new war of attrition in the Middle East, whose political, economic, and military outcomes are difficult to control. In the near future and across the entire region.