La guerre contre l'Iran épuise l'arsenal de missiles américains, alimentant les craintes sur la faiblesse de la dissuasion chinoise

The U.S. Army has reportedly depleted most of its long-range precision missile stockpiles during the ongoing conflict with Iran, according to an exclusive report by Reuters. Sources close to the situation say the military has used “virtually all” of its inventory of key weapons, including the Army Tactical Missile System (ATACMS) and the newer Precision Strike Missile (PrSM). These land-based systems are designed to deliver accurate strikes from long distances, making them critical assets in both offensive and defensive scenarios. While the exact number of remaining missiles was not disclosed, U.S. Central Command, which oversees operations in the Middle East, reported that it had nearly exhausted its supply of these weapons when the war began. The command has managed to replenish some stocks by drawing from other parts of the global military inventory, but this has raised alarms about the nation’s readiness for potential large-scale conflicts, especially with China. The prolonged nature of the conflict has intensified concerns over the sustainability of U.S. military resources. Initially envisioned as a brief operation following the launch of U.S.-led strikes alongside Israel in February, the war has stretched far beyond initial expectations. Military officials have debated how long the United States can sustain its operations without depleting reserves to dangerous levels. Some fear that the current rate of consumption could limit the country’s ability to respond effectively to new threats or crises. The reliance on long-range missiles reflects a strategic shift toward minimizing risk by avoiding direct engagement with heavily fortified Iranian positions. Instead, the U.S. has prioritized remote strikes using precision-guided weaponry, a tactic that reduces exposure to enemy defenses but also accelerates the use of finite stockpiles. In addition to the depletion of offensive missiles, there are growing worries about the availability of defensive systems. According to reports, the U.S. has used approximately 65% of its Patriot interceptor missiles between February and July, while its stock of THAAD ballistic-missile interceptors has dropped by at least 38%. These figures, though unverified by Reuters, align with internal U.S. assessments. Meanwhile, the U.S. has also consumed nearly half of its global Tomahawk cruise-missile stockpile since the start of the war. The defense industry, led by manufacturers like Lockheed Martin, is working to ramp up production to meet demand. However, analysts warn that even accelerated production may not be enough to fully restore depleted reserves in the near term. President Donald Trump has dismissed concerns about the adequacy of U.S. military supplies, asserting that the country possesses “far more munitions than anyone in the world” and more than necessary. He has also claimed that defense contractors are operating at unprecedented production levels, expanding manufacturing capacities to ensure continuous supply. Pentagon spokesperson Sean Parnell echoed these sentiments, stating that the military maintains a “deep arsenal” capable of supporting operational demands. Despite these assurances, experts caution that rapid production alone may not be sufficient to counterbalance the strain caused by extended hostilities. The situation underscores broader challenges in maintaining military readiness amid sustained conflict and evolving geopolitical tensions. The implications of the missile shortage extend beyond immediate operational concerns. With China possessing advanced air-defense systems, the effectiveness of long-range precision strikes becomes increasingly vital in any potential confrontation. Analysts suggest that the current state of U.S. missile inventories could weaken its deterrent posture against adversaries with sophisticated defensive capabilities. Additionally, the deployment of ATACMS to Ukraine and their use against Russian targets highlights the dual-use nature of these weapons, further complicating U.S. strategic priorities. As the conflict continues, the balance between sustaining current operations and preserving reserves for future contingencies will remain a central challenge for U.S. military planners.