U.S. Has Used ‘Virtually All’ of Its Long-Range Precision Missiles in Iran War, Sources Say

The missiles were designed to strike distant targets while keeping American troops and pilots away from heavily defended airspace. After five months of war with Iran, however, the United States may have exhausted nearly its entire supply of some of those weapons.

The U.S. Army has used “virtually all” of its available Army Tactical Missile Systems, known as ATACMS, and Precision Strike Missiles, or PrSM, according to sources familiar with internal stockpile data. The reported depletion is raising urgent questions about whether Washington can sustain its campaign against Iran while remaining prepared for a separate crisis involving China, Russia or another major adversary.

Exact stockpile figures remain classified, and Reuters could not independently verify every number provided by its sources. Still, the warnings fit a broader picture emerging from military analysts: the Iran war is consuming sophisticated American weapons far faster than factories can replace them.

A Short War Becomes an Ammunition Marathon

President Donald Trump launched the military campaign alongside Israel in February, expecting the confrontation to end quickly. Instead, the conflict has stretched across five months, turning what was presented as a limited operation into a prolonged test of American military endurance.

Long-range precision missiles became central to the U.S. strategy because they allow forces to destroy command posts, air-defense sites, launchers and other fortified targets without sending pilots deep into dangerous Iranian airspace. Each strike reduces the immediate risk to American crews, but it also removes an expensive and difficult-to-replace weapon from the inventory.

ATACMS can be launched from mobile systems such as HIMARS and can hit important targets far behind enemy lines. The missiles have also played a major role in Ukraine, where U.S.-supplied weapons have allowed Kyiv to strike military positions at extended distances.

PrSM represents the Army’s newer generation of surface-to-surface precision weapons. The U.S. Army says the system is intended to replace ATACMS while providing field artillery units with greater range and lethality. Its ability to attack targets beyond 400 kilometers makes it valuable in conflicts where enemy air defenses could prevent conventional aircraft from operating freely.

The problem is that PrSM entered the war with a relatively limited inventory. Deliveries only began in recent years, leaving the Pentagon with little room to absorb months of intensive battlefield use.

Every Safe Strike Creates a New Strategic Risk

The heavy reliance on stand-off weapons reflects a difficult calculation. Using missiles keeps pilots farther from Iranian air defenses, but preserving missiles could require sending manned aircraft into more dangerous conditions.

One person familiar with the administration’s discussions said Washington deliberately relied on ATACMS and PrSM to avoid riskier bombing operations. That decision may have protected aircrews, but it also accelerated the loss of weapons that would be valuable in another major confrontation.

Such missiles could prove particularly important in the Indo-Pacific. A conflict involving China would probably require U.S. forces to strike missile launchers, air-defense systems, ports and other targets across enormous distances. Mobile ground-launched missiles would offer commanders another way to attack those positions without depending entirely on aircraft or warships.

The reported shortage therefore reaches far beyond Iran. It affects the credibility of American deterrence, which relies partly on convincing potential adversaries that the United States can respond to more than one crisis at a time.

Analysts at the Center for Strategic and International Studies have warned that weapons used heavily against Iran would also be needed during a conflict in the western Pacific. They argue that the war has exposed a “window of vulnerability” created by limited inventories, slow production and years of procurement decisions that emphasized advanced technology without always purchasing enough weapons for a prolonged campaign.

That does not mean the United States has lost its ability to strike Iran. The Pentagon retains bombers, fighter aircraft, naval weapons, drones and other offensive capabilities. However, the loss of large numbers of long-range missiles narrows the choices available to military planners and could make future operations more dangerous, expensive or politically difficult.

Defensive Missile Stocks Are Falling Too

The pressure is not limited to offensive weapons. American forces have also used large numbers of Patriot and Terminal High Altitude Area Defense, or THAAD, interceptors to defend bases, troops and regional allies from Iranian missiles. These systems are designed to detect and destroy incoming threats before they reach their targets.

A recent CSIS assessment estimated that roughly 65 percent of the available Patriot interceptors had been expended between February and July. It also estimated that the number of THAAD interceptors in the U.S. inventory had fallen by at least 38 percent since the war began. Reuters reported that two sources said those estimates were consistent with internal government data.

The United States has reportedly consumed nearly half of its global Tomahawk cruise missile supply as well, although that estimate has not been independently confirmed. Tomahawks are launched from Navy ships and submarines, giving commanders the ability to attack heavily protected targets without exposing pilots.

The depletion of both offensive and defensive missiles creates a strategic squeeze. Washington needs weapons to continue attacking Iranian targets, but it also needs interceptors to protect U.S. personnel against retaliation.

Military commanders must consequently decide not only which targets deserve an expensive precision weapon, but also how many defensive missiles should be fired at each incoming threat. In some situations, forces may have to accept greater risk or preserve interceptors for attacks judged more likely to cause severe damage.

Production Is Rising, but Missiles Cannot Appear Overnight

The Trump administration has rejected suggestions that the U.S. military is approaching a dangerous shortage. In a White House statement, Trump said the country had more munitions than it needed and argued that American defense companies were expanding production at record levels.

Pentagon spokesperson Sean Parnell also said the military had the capabilities required to protect American personnel and carry out operations chosen by the president.

Those statements reflect a real expansion across parts of the defense industry. Lockheed Martin and the U.S. government announced an agreement in March aimed at sharply increasing PrSM production. The company had previously been working toward the capacity to manufacture about 400 PrSM units annually.

But higher production targets do not immediately restore depleted arsenals. Missile factories depend on specialized components, trained workers, explosives, rocket motors and complex supply chains. Expanding a facility can take years, while a single day of intense combat can consume weapons that required months to build.

CSIS has estimated that rebuilding stocks of heavily used systems such as Tomahawk, Patriot and THAAD missiles could take at least three years. Some inventories may require even longer to return to their prewar levels, particularly if fighting continues or the United States must also supply allies.

The issue is now shaping discussions inside the administration about whether another major offensive against Iran would leave the country dangerously exposed elsewhere. Some reports have suggested that munitions concerns influenced Trump’s decision not to approve another large attack, although an administration official attributed the decision to pressure from Gulf governments.

The debate is unfolding alongside another unresolved question: how long the president can continue hostilities without obtaining specific authorization from Congress. No formal declaration of war or new authorization for military force against Iran has been approved.

America still possesses the world’s most technologically advanced military arsenal. Yet the Iran conflict is revealing the difference between owning powerful weapons and possessing enough of them to fight a long war.

Precision missiles gave Washington a way to strike from a distance while reducing immediate danger to American personnel. Their rapid disappearance now carries a different cost. Every missile fired over Iran may leave military planners with fewer options when the next crisis arrives.