Even with a nearly $1 trillion budget, the U.S. military can only do so much. Pentagon officials are privately warning that the United States may not be able to threaten Venezuela’s regime, support protesters seeking to topple Iran’s government, and protect its interests in the Asia-Pacific without being overstretched. The competing demands could heighten the risk to ground forces in the Middle East, who would be in the line of fire of any retaliation from Iran should President Trump decide to strike.
U.S. military commanders are used to having most of the assets they need to wage war. The cost of two decades in Afghanistan topped $2 trillion, to say nothing of Iraq and, more recently, Yemen, Iran, and Somalia. But the military faces an unusual problem: how to get the ships, munitions, and planes that were protecting U.S. forces in the Middle East—but are now in the Caribbean—back to the Middle East. The answer is probably that they can’t have everything they want everywhere they would like.
In the weekslong run-up to the U.S. capture of the Venezuelan leader Nicolás Maduro, the U.S. sent roughly 11 ships and submarines stationed near Venezuela, marking the biggest U.S. military footprint in the region since the Cuban missile crisis. Initially, the forces struck suspected drug boats, later stopped sanctioned oil tankers, and ultimately took custody of Maduro after Delta Forces snatched him while he was sleeping in Caracas. Many military assets came from the Middle East and have yet to leave the Western Hemisphere.
Until last fall, commanders in the Middle East could count on having an aircraft-carrier strike group nearby that was either in the Persian Gulf or could reach it quickly. Fighter jets can take off from a carrier and conduct strikes in defense of U.S. ground forces. Destroyers accompanying the carrier can shoot down enemy missiles bound for U.S. bases. Not this time. The USS Gerald R. Ford, which had been closest to the Middle East, left the shores of Europe last fall for the U.S. pressure campaign on Venezuela. It would take at least two weeks for the Ford to move back within range of the Middle East. The USS Abraham Lincoln carrier strike group, now the nearest carrier, is operating in the western Pacific and would likely take just a little less time to arrive. Based on Trump’s latest statements, U.S. strikes in Iran no longer appear imminent. But he hasn’t ruled them out.
Drones, tankers, and other flight assets also moved out of the Middle East for operations near Venezuela, defense officials told me. The capture of Maduro involved more than 150 planes and drones, according to the Pentagon. And although the administration is dangling economic carrots in front of Venezuela’s transitional government, it also plans to keep its military sticks nearby, defense officials told me.
Enough U.S military power remains in the Middle East to launch a strike on Iran’s security forces or even its nuclear program. But there may not be enough to defend U.S. troops from a regime that has repeatedly vowed to strike back at nearby U.S. assets and regional allies if it’s attacked. Iran’s theocratic regime may be all the more inclined if it feels that it is on its last legs. This morning, the U.S. military advised some personnel to leave their base in Qatar, describing the move as a precaution. Iran fired toward that base in June after U.S. strikes on Iranian nuclear facilities. Other nearby bases are expected to make similar precautionary moves, U.S. defense officials told me. America’s ability to protect its own troops is where the heavy demands on military assets could come into play.
“It’s not carrying out the strike that we have to worry about. It’s the Iranian response,” one former military commander who operated in the Middle East told me.
[Read: So this is what ‘America First’ looks like ]
During the June strikes on Iran, the military sent bombers and other aircraft from the United States on a round-trip mission, roughly 37 hours in all. The USS Carl Vinson carrier strike group was operating nearby, and the USS Nimitz, another aircraft carrier, and its accompanying ships also arrived that month. Both are now at their home ports in the United States.
Trump began threatening a new U.S. military response on January 2, as Iran cracked down on protesters who’d first flooded the streets five days earlier. But the Pentagon has yet to execute a surge of fighter jets, bombers, tankers, and drones toward the Middle East.
Should the U.S. quickly fly planes toward the region, they could be there in as little as 16 hours. Trump wrote on Truth Social on January 2 that if Iran “violently kills peaceful protesters, which is their custom, the United States of America will come to their rescue.” He added, “We are locked and loaded and ready to go.” Since that post, reports have emerged that at least 2,400 protesters have been killed and as many as 18,000 detained. Trump raised the ante last night during an interview with CBS News, threatening to “take very strong action” if Iranian authorities begin hanging anti-government protesters this week. By midday today, he said that he had it on “good authority” that Iran would not conduct executions.
As soon as any president begins discussing the use of military force, Pentagon planners start coming up with options should the president ask for them. Under this administration, such threats, usually made via social media, come so frequently that nearly every combatant commander has had to draft such a plan. The Trump administration has also discussed attacking Greenland, possibly helping Ukraine in the face of Russia’s unwillingness to strike a deal, and preparing to defend Taiwan in the event of Chinese aggression. The U.S. National Defense Strategy, which helps the Pentagon set its priorities, was supposed to be published by now but has not been. So the military has no specific doctrine to follow.
“That’s a lot of theaters at the same time, and we are not built to do that,” a U.S. defense official explained to me.
[Read: Is the Iranian regime about to collapse?]
U.S. Central Command, which is responsible for military operations in the Middle East, presented options roughly a week after the president’s initial statements about using U.S. military force in Iran. Those options included military strikes and nonmilitary options, including cyberattacks. But the Pentagon also asked for the administration to outline U.S. objectives for any military strikes. Many U.S. military officials believe that Iranians most need restoration of their internet, which military strikes would not achieve. Centcom revised its options earlier this week as the president called for Iran to cancel any planned executions, defense officials told me.
Several types of protections are in place for U.S. forces in the region, just not as many as the U.S. military may want. They include ground-based interceptors, which can shoot down missiles aimed at U.S. military bases in the region, as well as at least three destroyers that could deploy, defense officials told me.
The administration is facing pressure from its allies to not strike for different reasons. Turkey has publicly called for negotiations. And according to a Wall Street Journal report, Iran’s Arab rivals—Saudi Arabia, Oman, and Qatar—are urging restraint out of fear that attempts to overthrow the regime could rattle oil markets and disrupt the global economy.
Regardless of whether the United States conducts strikes in Iran, the Trump administration’s push to intervene militarily in multiple parts of the world could lead to another kind of financial pressure, in this case on the American taxpayer. Last week, the president announced that he would ask Congress for a $1.5 trillion Pentagon budget.
