Summary of Key Points
The Trump administration has found itself in a dilemma regarding the Iran war due to a severe shortage of critical ammunition: it is unable to achieve its military objectives through large-scale strikes, and at the same time, it hesitates to escalate the conflict because of depleted ammunition stocks (with fewer than 1,000 Patriot anti-aircraft missiles remaining and virtually no ATACMS tactical missiles left). This issue not only exposes the vulnerability of the U.S. military-industrial supply chain but also highlights a fatal flaw in its "profit-driven war" approach—relying on expensive precision-guided weapons while lacking long-term reserves. Additionally, political missteps (such as Secretary of Defense Hagels' lack of understanding of operational realities and his attempt to cover up problems) have further undermined the foundations of U.S. global hegemony.
I. The Root of the Ammunition Shortage: The U.S. Approaches War Like Venture Capital, Yet Fails to Prepare Adequate Resources
The U.S. approaches warfare with the goal of minimizing casualties, achieving quick victories, and making profits, much like investing in venture capital—aiming to recoup its investment as quickly as possible. To this end, it relies on precision-guided weapons instead of traditional bombs. For example, when destroying the Duem Bridge in Vietnam, thousands of conventional bombs were previously used without success; later, 22 laser-guided bombs were sufficient to accomplish the task. However, these precision-guided weapons are expensive and difficult to produce.
Normally, the U.S. military stocks ammunition based on the principle of "having enough on hand," similar to Toyota's just-in-time production model, assuming that supplies can be replenished at any time due to frequent conflicts. But with the current trend of deindustrialization in the U.S., the supply chains for high-end missiles are long and complex. For instance, the assembly of a PAC-3 missile takes 24 months, and rocket engines require another 30 months; moreover, military companies wait for congressional funding to expand production. As a result, when combat consumes these supplies, they deplete rapidly, leaving little time for replenishment—just like a restaurant that only prepares enough food for one day and becomes panicked when it receives ten times the usual number of customers with blocked supply routes.
II. Missteps in Personnel Selection: Choosing a Media Person Who Only Knows How to Shout Slogans as Defense Secretary
During his second term, Trump placed great emphasis on loyalty and appointed Hagels as Defense Secretary. Hagels, a former Marine colonel (essentially an "amateur soldier") who later worked as a commentator for Fox News, knew little about military operations and only knew how to criticize the military and shout slogans.
To please Trump, Hagels claimed that the ammunition problem had been resolved, but it was already evident. For instance, when 25% of the THAAD missiles were expended, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff had warned about this, yet Hagels ignored the issue. When Trump realized the shortage of ammunition, he shifted the blame onto subordinates or the Biden administration. However, Trump did not dismiss Hagels because of his loyalty—Hagels echoed Trump's rhetoric, suggesting that the Iran war was easy to win and quick to conclude, satisfying Trump's ego. This is similar to a boss who prefers employees who say what they want to hear, even if they are ineffective.
III. Direct Consequences: The Iran War Stalls, and U.S. Aid to Ukraine Is Impeded
The ammunition shortage has put the U.S. military in a passive position in Iran:
- Inability to Counterattack: There are not enough anti-aircraft missiles, and Iranian missile counterattacks cannot be stopped; only half of the cruise missiles remain, leaving no weapons for retaliation.
- Iran Becomes More Aggressive: Knowing that the U.S. is short on ammunition, Iran dares to blockade strategic waterways like the Strait of Hormuz and the Strait of Mandeb, and even allows Houthi forces to approach the Suez Canal—just as someone who lacks a weapon will be more likely to be robbed.
Ukraine has also been affected: with the U.S. struggling to maintain its own stock of Patriot and ATACMS missiles, it is unable to provide additional aid. In the past, the U.S. could use military assistance to win over allies, but now that it cannot even take care of itself, allies are surely worried.
IV. A Long-Term Crisis: The Three Pillars of U.S. Global Hegemony Are Weakening
U.S. hegemony relies on three key elements: the U.S. military, the dollar, and its allies. The ammunition shortage directly undermines these pillars:
1. Weakening of Military Deterrence: When adversaries realize that the U.S. cannot sustain a protracted war (due to ammunition shortages), they dare to confront it head-on—countries like Iran and Russia, as well as others in the future.
2. Declining Trust from Allies: Allies fear a lack of ammunition supplies during wartime when purchasing U.S. weapons. With the U.S. facing its own shortages, allies are less likely to trust it to provide them with equipment (Japan and South Korea may consider other options).
3. Impact on the Dollar's Status: The dollar is supported by the U.S. military; if the military cannot win battles, who will still trust it?
This is akin to a company whose core product (the U.S. military) encounters problems, causing customers (allies) to leave and its cash flow (the dollar) to dry up—U.S. global hegemony may indeed be on the verge of collapse.
Conclusion
The arguments between Trump and Hagels seem to revolve around the ammunition issue in the Iran war, but they reflect the inevitable consequences of the U.S.'s "profit-driven war" approach and deindustrialization. When a country treats war as a business without providing sufficient capital (ammunition reserves and a resilient supply chain), it will inevitably face the consequences. The U.S. global hegemony may be beginning to crumble, starting with this ammunition shortfall.