Trump's latest threats to Iran may collide with a hard reality

While US President Donald Trump makes bold new threats to Iran that risk ending the ceasefire and resuming full-scale war, the White House harbours concerns about hard constraints. On Thursday, Trump indicated a major escalation in confrontation with Tehran, saying the US would hit Iran “very hard” and warning that it could eventually take control of key Iranian oil infrastructure, including Kharg Island. Trump said, “United States will be hitting Iran very hard tonight” and added that “At some point in not too distant future, we will be taking Kharg Island, and other oil infrastructure points, and assume total control of their oil and gas markets.”

The comments reflect growing frustration inside the White House over what Trump sees as Iran’s repeated delays in reaching a deal with the US. Yet as the administration signals readiness for a more aggressive military campaign, a less visible constraint is increasingly coming into focus -- America’s capacity to sustain a heavy bombing campaign for weeks.

An NBC News report suggests that concerns about dwindling US missile inventories have become serious enough to trigger an expected White House meeting between Trump and America's top defense industry executives. The development highlights a striking contradiction at the heart of the administration’s Iran policy. While Trump is threatening escalation, the Pentagon is simultaneously grappling with questions about whether it has enough ammunition to sustain a prolonged conflict.


Trump's frustration boils over

Trump's latest remarks leave little doubt that he believes diplomacy with Iran has stalled. "We were really close to a deal, but they keep tapping us along, they keep playing us for suckers," Trump said yesterday, accusing Tehran of deliberately dragging out negotiations. His rhetoric has gone considerably further than criticism of Iranian negotiating tactics. In his latest comments he threatened the US could eventually seize Kharg Island and other Iranian oil facilities while assuming control of Iranian oil and gas markets.

Trump's latest comments are one of the most explicit threats yet directed at Iran's energy infrastructure. Kharg Island is particularly significant because it serves as the main export terminal for Iranian crude oil. Any military action targeting the island would have implications far beyond the battlefield, potentially affecting global energy markets and shipping routes across the Persian Gulf.

The threats come amid an already volatile military environment. Trump appears to be weighing whether to restart major combat operations against Iran after Iranian forces allegedly downed a US Army helicopter earlier this week. The crew was rescued and the US launched retaliatory strikes.

Also Read | US will hit Iran 'very hard' tonight: Trump plans to take over main Iranian oil terminals

Meeting the weapon makers

Even as Trump talks about intensifying military pressure, concerns are mounting over the state of America's missile inventory. According to NBC News, leaders from roughly seven major American defense companies have been preparing for a White House meeting where they are expected to face pressure from Trump to rapidly increase weapons production. Deputy Defense Secretary Stephen Feinberg is also expected to participate.

One person familiar with the planned discussions told NBC News that the meeting could become contentious because of Trump's frustration with the current state of US munitions supplies. Another source described expectations that the interaction could be "ugly". US military operations over the past several years have consumed missiles and interceptors at a pace that has alarmed some defense officials, lawmakers and outside experts. While White House officials continue to insist that the US military possesses sufficient firepower for all current missions, the fact that such a high-level meeting is reportedly under consideration underscores growing anxiety within national security circles.

The roots of the problem

The US began transferring large quantities of military equipment and munitions to Ukraine following Russia's invasion in 2022. That support effort steadily reduced inventories of key weapons systems. The situation became significantly more acute after direct US military operations against Iran intensified. Concerns deepened following the June 2025 strikes on Iran known as Operation Midnight Hammer and the US-Israel military campaign launched in February 2026 under the name Operation Epic Fury. As military commitments expanded, so did demand for precision-guided weapons, air defense interceptors and cruise missiles.

Pentagon has even had to divert munitions from stockpiles in Europe and Asia to sustain operational requirements linked to the conflict with Iran. Such transfers have fuelled concerns among military planners who must also prepare for potential crises elsewhere, particularly in the Indo-Pacific.

Also read | Iran warns Mideast truce 'practically meaningless' after US strikes

The missile types raising alarm

Experts are especially worried about America's supply of sophisticated long-range precision weapons. A recent study conducted by the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS) found that the US is running low on several critical categories of munitions. These include Tomahawk cruise missiles, Joint Air-to-Surface Standoff Missiles (JASSMs), Patriot air-defense missiles and Terminal High Altitude Area Defense (THAAD) interceptors.

The Tomahawk inventory offers a particularly revealing example. According to the CSIS analysis cited by NBC News, the US possessed roughly 3,100 Tomahawk missiles before the latest conflict with Iran. More than 1,000 are estimated to have been used since the fighting began. Even if new contracts were signed immediately, replenishing those inventories could take more than three years because of production constraints. That timeline shows the challenge facing Washington. Modern precision weapons are not produced overnight. They require complex supply chains, specialised components and manufacturing capacity that cannot be expanded instantly.

Why production is not keeping pace

The shortage problem is not simply about consumption. It is also about procurement. NBC News reports that despite repeated warnings about dwindling inventories, the Pentagon has not finalised new multi-year contracts for additional missile purchases since Trump returned to office. While framework agreements have reportedly been discussed, they have not translated into actual production contracts capable of rapidly replenishing stockpiles.

Defense industry officials cited by NBC News say much of the current manufacturing output is still dedicated to fulfilling contracts signed years ago. This lag between battlefield demand and industrial production has become one of the defining challenges facing the US defense establishment. Weapons can be expended in days or weeks but replacing them often takes years.

Recognising the scale of the issue, congressional officials and defense experts have estimated that approximately $20 billion may be needed simply to begin restoring missile inventories to levels that existed before large-scale military aid to Ukraine began in 2022, according to NBC News.

A constraint on Trump's Iran options?

For Trump, the stockpile issue can present a significant strategic complication. Military action against Iran is unlikely to be a short-duration operation. Iran has reportedly revived its missile bases and replenished its ammunition stockpile during the ceasefire. Sustained American military operations would require large numbers of precision-guided weapons and air-defense interceptors.

US military planners remain mindful of the need to preserve resources for potential contingencies involving China in the Indo-Pacific and Russia in Europe. Any prolonged campaign against Iran would have to be balanced against those broader strategic commitments.

This does not mean the US lacks the ability to strike Iran. American military capabilities remain unmatched globally. But it does mean that policymakers must increasingly consider not only military objectives but also industrial capacity and replenishment timelines. The question is not about whether the US can hit Iran harder. It is about how long it can sustain such operations without affecting readiness elsewhere.

Trump's latest threats suggest a president losing patience with what he sees as Iranian delaying tactics and becoming increasingly willing to use military pressure to force concessions. His references to striking Iran "very hard" and potentially taking control of key oil infrastructure show a willingness for significant escalation.

Yet, as Washington weighs its next move against Tehran, it will have to consider a resource challenge that could prove almost as important as battlefield calculations.