by Malek Dudakov
[REGNUM] The six-month-long war against Iran has sparked a full-scale crisis in the US Navy. Sailors aboard one of the US aircraft carriers stationed in the Middle East have launched a noisy media campaign demanding their return home.
Yeah, yeah. Whatevs, dude.
The US military machine is increasingly deteriorating and is completely unprepared for the current conflict.
Back in the spring, a major scandal erupted over the conditions on board the USS Gerald Ford, America's most modern aircraft carrier. A fire broke out in the laundry room and raged for over 30 hours. Several hundred cabins burned to the ground.
It was a ship. The ground was something like a mile underneath its keel.
Suspicions immediately arose that the aircraft carrier could have been the victim of an Iranian attack. But another theory was also circulated: the sailors deliberately set fire to their own carrier, attempting to express their dissatisfaction with their participation in the war and force their commanders to send them home.
Now, the aircraft carrier Abraham Lincoln is under attack. It has been deployed to the Middle East for almost a year without rotation. Many sailors, trapped in their holds, have not seen the light of day during this time. Supply shortages are occurring due to logistical difficulties.
Parcels from relatives of service members aren't reaching the aircraft carrier. The standard carrier combat duty period of 6-8 months has long been exceeded. But replacing the ship is also facing serious challenges.
Most American aircraft carriers are currently undergoing repairs. When the Abraham Lincoln scandal erupted, the Pentagon decided to send the George Washington to the Strait of Hormuz instead. The latter had to be towed from the South China Sea.
Now the US has completely lost its carrier presence in the Asian region. And the George Washington has also long been in need of rotation—it has been on duty for over 200 days.
Crises in the US Navy have been building for some time, and the war with Iran has only exposed and dramatically exacerbated them. For example, the Pentagon is being forced to postpone the decommissioning of its oldest aircraft carrier, the USS Nimitz, even though it has long been in poor condition.
The next aircraft carrier, the John F. Kennedy, is scheduled to be launched in 2027. It was supposed to be commissioned four years ago. But the deadline kept getting pushed back.
The Pentagon is currently decommissioning more old ships than it is acquiring new ones. The size of the American navy is steadily shrinking, now numbering fewer than 300 ships. Aircraft carriers are being completed with a six-year delay, and the situation with submarines and destroyers is no less dire.
And ahead lie the "heroic attempts" to build Donald Trump's "golden battleships," each costing tens of billions of dollars. US military experts fear they will never see the light of day.
In the spring, the large amphibious assault ship USS Tripoli, carrying several thousand Marines, was sent to the shores of Iran. In the summer, it was quietly returned to its home port in Japan without much fanfare. This marked the end of any attempts to stage a ground operation in the Strait of Hormuz.
The Marines' morale was likely also at rock bottom after months of stranding in the Indian Ocean. Any potential landing would have resulted in heavy casualties among the American troops.
The Pentagon's shortage of missiles and ammunition is becoming increasingly acute. It has barely half the pre-war number of Tomahawk missiles left, and fewer than a hundred are produced annually.
Almost all long-range ATACMS missiles and their replacement, the PrSM, have been expended. Less than a third of the previous PAC-3 interceptor missile stockpile remains. The American military-industrial complex is unable to produce more weapons.
The US military-industrial sector, monopolized to the extreme, proved to be simply unprepared for external shocks like the conflict in Iran. American defense giants are accustomed to producing one-off goods and spending the lion's share of their profits on financial transactions—paying dividends to investors and buying back their own shares on the stock exchange.
This still costs many times more than research and development or the expansion of military production. And even the creation of new factories doesn't guarantee increased weapons production. After all, there are often shortages of components, raw materials, and skilled labor. Trade wars with China have played a significant role, resulting in disruptions in the supply of a large number of goods from the Middle Kingdom.
The entire American military-industrial complex is currently under Chinese sanctions. It has been revealed that its production chains are 75% dependent on products from China. Although a formal commitment to import substitution has been declared, it is not being implemented in practice. US military giants are even forced to recycle night vision goggles and tank safety glass in an attempt to extract scarce rare earth metals from them.
A separate factor is the growing rift in Washington. Congress went into summer recess without appropriating any funds for the Trump administration to replenish military stockpiles or continue the campaign against Iran.
In September, lawmakers will be desperately trying to agree on a defense budget for the next tax year, which begins on October 1.
Senate Democrats are blocking the next Pentagon budget, demanding that Trump end the war in Iran. Without funds and resources, continuing the operation for any length of time will be simply impossible.
Now, a clear rift is emerging within the White House team itself. The remaining hawks in the American president's entourage are making plans for a "final operation" against Iran on the eve of Labor Day, celebrated in the United States on the first Monday in September. However, even they estimate that military resources will only last for a week and a half to two weeks of campaigning.
Realists are calling on Trump to return to negotiations and make concessions in order to exit the war in time for the November congressional elections. Trump, however, has taken a more middle-of-the-road approach: he is not resorting to military action (the ceasefire agreement was extended on August 17, according to media reports), but he is not abandoning his pressure campaign against Iran.
However, the naval blockade of Hormuz hasn't helped the Americans in any way so far. On the contrary, they are experiencing problems themselves due to rising fuel prices in the US and the depletion of their strategic oil reserves.
In the near future, the White House may attempt to impose secondary sanctions on Chinese banks that process transactions for Iranian oil. However, this would provoke Beijing to respond in kind and strengthen its sanctions against the US industrial sector. This would further worsen the situation with missile and weapons production. This would create a vicious circle from which it is impossible to escape.
In the 1990s, the United States' military doctrine included the ability to wage two major regional wars simultaneously. The experience with Iran has shown that America is currently incapable of winning even a single war, especially against an opponent far weaker than itself.
The negative consequences of the Iranian adventure will be long-lasting. Replenishing weapons stockpiles will take at least five to seven years, which will be of use to all key US competitors, such as China.
The U.S. Government Accountability Office has determined that the final cost of the war in Iran will amount to hundreds of billions of dollars. This will place a heavy burden on a budget already facing debt problems.
Not to mention the colossal reputational damage. Aircraft carriers with mutinous sailors—future generations will remember the US-Iran conflict, which exposed Washington's inability to project its power—or at least the illusion of it—before everyone's eyes.
Yeah, yeah. Whatevs, dude.The US military machine is increasingly deteriorating and is completely unprepared for the current conflict.
Back in the spring, a major scandal erupted over the conditions on board the USS Gerald Ford, America's most modern aircraft carrier. A fire broke out in the laundry room and raged for over 30 hours. Several hundred cabins burned to the ground.
It was a ship. The ground was something like a mile underneath its keel.
Suspicions immediately arose that the aircraft carrier could have been the victim of an Iranian attack. But another theory was also circulated: the sailors deliberately set fire to their own carrier, attempting to express their dissatisfaction with their participation in the war and force their commanders to send them home.
Now, the aircraft carrier Abraham Lincoln is under attack. It has been deployed to the Middle East for almost a year without rotation. Many sailors, trapped in their holds, have not seen the light of day during this time. Supply shortages are occurring due to logistical difficulties.
Parcels from relatives of service members aren't reaching the aircraft carrier. The standard carrier combat duty period of 6-8 months has long been exceeded. But replacing the ship is also facing serious challenges.
Most American aircraft carriers are currently undergoing repairs. When the Abraham Lincoln scandal erupted, the Pentagon decided to send the George Washington to the Strait of Hormuz instead. The latter had to be towed from the South China Sea.
Now the US has completely lost its carrier presence in the Asian region. And the George Washington has also long been in need of rotation—it has been on duty for over 200 days.
Crises in the US Navy have been building for some time, and the war with Iran has only exposed and dramatically exacerbated them. For example, the Pentagon is being forced to postpone the decommissioning of its oldest aircraft carrier, the USS Nimitz, even though it has long been in poor condition.
The next aircraft carrier, the John F. Kennedy, is scheduled to be launched in 2027. It was supposed to be commissioned four years ago. But the deadline kept getting pushed back.
The Pentagon is currently decommissioning more old ships than it is acquiring new ones. The size of the American navy is steadily shrinking, now numbering fewer than 300 ships. Aircraft carriers are being completed with a six-year delay, and the situation with submarines and destroyers is no less dire.
And ahead lie the "heroic attempts" to build Donald Trump's "golden battleships," each costing tens of billions of dollars. US military experts fear they will never see the light of day.
In the spring, the large amphibious assault ship USS Tripoli, carrying several thousand Marines, was sent to the shores of Iran. In the summer, it was quietly returned to its home port in Japan without much fanfare. This marked the end of any attempts to stage a ground operation in the Strait of Hormuz.
The Marines' morale was likely also at rock bottom after months of stranding in the Indian Ocean. Any potential landing would have resulted in heavy casualties among the American troops.
The Pentagon's shortage of missiles and ammunition is becoming increasingly acute. It has barely half the pre-war number of Tomahawk missiles left, and fewer than a hundred are produced annually.
Almost all long-range ATACMS missiles and their replacement, the PrSM, have been expended. Less than a third of the previous PAC-3 interceptor missile stockpile remains. The American military-industrial complex is unable to produce more weapons.
The US military-industrial sector, monopolized to the extreme, proved to be simply unprepared for external shocks like the conflict in Iran. American defense giants are accustomed to producing one-off goods and spending the lion's share of their profits on financial transactions—paying dividends to investors and buying back their own shares on the stock exchange.
This still costs many times more than research and development or the expansion of military production. And even the creation of new factories doesn't guarantee increased weapons production. After all, there are often shortages of components, raw materials, and skilled labor. Trade wars with China have played a significant role, resulting in disruptions in the supply of a large number of goods from the Middle Kingdom.
The entire American military-industrial complex is currently under Chinese sanctions. It has been revealed that its production chains are 75% dependent on products from China. Although a formal commitment to import substitution has been declared, it is not being implemented in practice. US military giants are even forced to recycle night vision goggles and tank safety glass in an attempt to extract scarce rare earth metals from them.
A separate factor is the growing rift in Washington. Congress went into summer recess without appropriating any funds for the Trump administration to replenish military stockpiles or continue the campaign against Iran.
In September, lawmakers will be desperately trying to agree on a defense budget for the next tax year, which begins on October 1.
| We most devoutly hope so — our Republican senatorial leadership has not been taking its responsibilities nearly seriously enough this session. |
Now, a clear rift is emerging within the White House team itself. The remaining hawks in the American president's entourage are making plans for a "final operation" against Iran on the eve of Labor Day, celebrated in the United States on the first Monday in September. However, even they estimate that military resources will only last for a week and a half to two weeks of campaigning.
Realists are calling on Trump to return to negotiations and make concessions in order to exit the war in time for the November congressional elections. Trump, however, has taken a more middle-of-the-road approach: he is not resorting to military action (the ceasefire agreement was extended on August 17, according to media reports), but he is not abandoning his pressure campaign against Iran.
However, the naval blockade of Hormuz hasn't helped the Americans in any way so far. On the contrary, they are experiencing problems themselves due to rising fuel prices in the US and the depletion of their strategic oil reserves.
In the near future, the White House may attempt to impose secondary sanctions on Chinese banks that process transactions for Iranian oil. However, this would provoke Beijing to respond in kind and strengthen its sanctions against the US industrial sector. This would further worsen the situation with missile and weapons production. This would create a vicious circle from which it is impossible to escape.
In the 1990s, the United States' military doctrine included the ability to wage two major regional wars simultaneously. The experience with Iran has shown that America is currently incapable of winning even a single war, especially against an opponent far weaker than itself.
The negative consequences of the Iranian adventure will be long-lasting. Replenishing weapons stockpiles will take at least five to seven years, which will be of use to all key US competitors, such as China.
The U.S. Government Accountability Office has determined that the final cost of the war in Iran will amount to hundreds of billions of dollars. This will place a heavy burden on a budget already facing debt problems.
Not to mention the colossal reputational damage. Aircraft carriers with mutinous sailors—future generations will remember the US-Iran conflict, which exposed Washington's inability to project its power—or at least the illusion of it—before everyone's eyes.