Pete Hegseth: Did the US military warn Hegseth about the tension of the war in Iran before the latest escalation? What does the report say?
Several senior US military leaders reportedly warned the Secretary of Defense. Pete Hegseth that prolonging large-scale operations against Iran was unsustainable and could weaken the military’s ability to respond to threats elsewhere, including against the US homeland.The assessment was prepared for Hegseth and recorded in the August 14 edition of the Secretary of Defense Order Book (SDOB), weeks before the latest escalation in fighting between the United States and Iran, according to The Wall Street Journal citing sources. It reflected concerns about the continued deployment of US forces to the Middle East as the conflict with Iran entered its sixth month.The heads of the Army, Navy and Air Force, along with four-star commanders who oversee U.S. operations in Europe, Asia and Latin America, expressed concern about the strain the prolonged operation was putting on troops, equipment and military readiness, the people said.The SDOB, which typically occurs twice a month, tracks the global availability of U.S. warships, aircraft, personnel and weapons systems and helps inform Pentagon decisions on deploying forces.At the time of the assessment, US Central Command had more than 50,000 troops on alert in the region as President Donald Trump continued to demand that Tehran reopen the Strait of Hormuz and accept US terms to end the conflict. Trump had also kept open the possibility of further military action.The Aug. 14 order book ordered some forces in the Middle East to remain deployed until September and others until 2027. That outlook led several senior commanders to formally oppose expanding their forces, while saying they would follow the orders.The commanders of US European Command, US Pacific Command and US Southern Command, along with the Navy’s top admiral, issued what the document described as a “non-deal”; indicating disagreement with the implementation extensions but intention to execute them.Military leaders warned that the Iranian operation was taking ships, planes and other equipment away from other theaters of operations, limiting their ability to conduct missions and sustain training.Army and Air Force leaders agreed to extend their deployments, but warned that doing so carried significant risks.Overall, the assessment described the operation in Iran as “too much for too long,” according to a person familiar with it, cited by the WSJ.
The Navy has borne a particularly heavy load, supplying dozens of ships for the Iran campaign, including for combat operations, defending against Iranian attacks and enforcing Trump’s blockade of Iranian ports.Some ship and crew deployments had already been extended by months.Adm. Daryl Caudle, chief of Naval Operations, told Hegseth that the Navy could not maintain its current level of support for the Iran conflict because there was no expected end date, according to people familiar with the assessment.Caudle also indicated that barely a quarter of the Navy’s destroyer fleet was ready to deploy, a sharp decline from prewar levels. The continuing demands of the Iranian operation were also jeopardizing ship maintenance and the fleet’s availability for other potential conflicts.At a recent event in Norfolk, Caudle described the deployment extensions as “a huge challenge for our Sailors.”“I’m generally not a big supporter of extensions and I strongly reject it, but the enemy gets a vote,” he said, according to a Navy transcript.The tension was also felt by other branches of the army.Commanders of the European and Southern Commands warned that providing ships and surveillance aircraft to Central Command had degraded their ability to fulfill their national defense responsibilities.Admiral Samuel Paparo, head of Pacific Command, objected to the level of support his command was required to continually provide, including a strike group of aircraft carriers and destroyers.The Army was also preparing to expand deployments. Elements of the 82nd Airborne Division, which mobilized 2,000 troops in March in response to the Iran war, were scheduled for deployments lasting up to a year. Those troops would be critical to any possible ground invasion of Iran.Deployments of units operating Patriot air defense systems were also expected to be expanded.Meanwhile, the prolonged war has depleted major US military reserves. The Pentagon has faced shortages of Patriot and Terminal High Altitude Area Defense interceptors, as well as long-range Tomahawk missiles. About 25% of the Pentagon’s Reaper drone fleet was also lost, while US bases in the Middle East suffered billions of dollars in damage, according to previous reports.The Trump administration has rejected reports that the United States faces a significant ammunition shortage.
Did the latest escalation occur despite warnings?
The concerns in the August 14 assessment predate the latest escalation in the US-Iran conflict, meaning the most recent US attacks on Larak Island on Sunday night and Iran’s promotion of retaliation.However, the assessment highlights the military readiness dilemma facing the Trump administration: Sustaining a prolonged campaign against Iran could leave fewer forces and weapons available to respond to other threats, particularly in Europe and the Indo-Pacific.A Pentagon spokesperson said decisions about the scope and duration of deployments are based on the current threat assessment, presidential priorities and advice from senior military commanders.The Pentagon declined to discuss the SDOB or specific “concurrences, non-concurrences, or risk assessments” provided during force allocation deliberations.
Source link
