U.S. Halts Iran Strikes Amid Air-Defense Depletion; Exit Strategy Clouded by Deadlock Over Nuclear Issue and Hormuz

U.S. temporarily suspends Iran strikes as air-defense missiles are depleted
Sharp differences persist over Iran’s nuclear program and the Strait of Hormuz
Divisions deepen within Washington, compounded by the Ukraine factor

The United States has halted airstrikes against Iran that had continued for nearly two weeks. As the protracted conflict placed severe strain on air-defense resources, opposition to large-scale bombing began to mount within the U.S. government. The two countries, having temporarily paused their military confrontation, remain locked in a war of words over Iran’s nuclear program and passage through the Strait of Hormuz. Washington’s political establishment is also reportedly split sharply between advocates of continued military pressure and proponents of an early end to the war.

U.S. Slams Brakes on Iran Strikes

According to The New York Times on the 27th, President Trump temporarily shelved plans for a large-scale bombing campaign against Iran on the 24th following a closed-door meeting with senior advisers and top administration officials. The decision to halt the operation came just one day after he warned in media interviews that he was considering an attack larger than any before it and that all preparations had been completed. At the meeting, Gen. Dan Caine, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, was reportedly effectively opposed to a major air campaign against Iran. Vice President J.D. Vance also expressed concerns over the plan, while Jared Kushner, President Trump’s son-in-law, and others were said to favor a strategy combining negotiations with sustained economic pressure rather than a full-scale military operation.

The central reason for withholding additional strikes was a shortage of air-defense missiles. Citing multiple sources, the NYT reported that declining inventories of Pentagon Patriot interceptors and other air-defense systems were a major issue at the meeting, adding that President Trump’s Iran strategy shifted afterward. Reports that the weapons available to defend U.S. bases across the Middle East—including in Jordan, Kuwait, Bahrain and the United Arab Emirates—were dwindling appear to have influenced the president. The Pentagon estimated that U.S. forces had expended more than 1,200 Patriot missiles between the outbreak of the Iran war in late February and April. At a U.S. base in Jordan, Iranian missile attacks recently breached defenses, killing three American service members.

Denials Persist Over “Ammunition Shortage”

The U.S. side, however, has flatly rejected that assessment. According to The Wall Street Journal on the 26th, President Trump said in a statement sent to the newspaper that the United States possessed far more ammunition than any other country in the world and had much more than it needed. Mike Waltz, the U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, struck a similar tone. Appearing on Fox News Sunday the same day, Waltz said the United States had deployed additional forces to the Middle East and was prepared to resume attacks at any time, while President Trump was allowing a degree of time and space for negotiations to proceed.

Waltz also said on NBC’s Meet the Press that Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth had inherited an already depleted weapons stockpile from the Biden administration. He pointed to U.S. assistance for Ukraine and airstrikes targeting Yemen’s Houthi rebels under the Biden administration as factors behind the decline in weapons inventories. Waltz further stressed that, based on confirmation through multiple channels, U.S. forces possessed everything necessary to conduct the operation as effectively as required. His remarks again rejected foreign media assessments that weapons shortages were affecting U.S. military operations against Iran.

U.S. and Iran Clash Over Negotiations

With the momentum toward escalation effectively checked, the two countries have temporarily suspended direct military confrontation while continuing their diplomatic brinkmanship. Speaking to reporters aboard Air Force One en route to Michigan on the 27th, President Trump said Iran wanted to meet and that the two sides were meeting, adding that it remained to be seen what would happen. He said Iran had requested talks both through intermediaries and directly, and that there was a meaningful possibility that something could come of the discussions. “If we reach a deal, that would be good. If not, we can resume what we were doing until two days ago,” he said, raising the prospect of renewed military operations. He also claimed that Iran was willing to talk to the United States only because Washington had struck it so forcefully, arguing that Tehran would not even be speaking with the United States otherwise.

Iran, however, denied President Trump’s remarks. At a press conference the same day, Iranian Foreign Ministry spokesman Esmail Baghaei said mediating countries might convey messages from the U.S. side regarding the regional situation, but stressed that Iran was not currently engaged in any negotiations with Washington. He said talks over recent days had taken place only through Oman and were focused solely on establishing arrangements for shipping passage through the Strait of Hormuz. Baghaei also told Reuters and other foreign media that Iran had not abandoned diplomacy, but reports that it had asked the United States for negotiations were fabricated. “That is not in our DNA,” he said. He further drew a line by saying the current situation could not be described as a ceasefire.

Interests Collide Over Core Issues

The prolonged deadlock in U.S.-Iran discussions reflects the failure of the two sides to narrow their differences on key issues. Their central point of contention is the dismantlement of Iran’s nuclear weapons capability. President Trump is demanding a verifiable reduction of Iran’s nuclear capacity, but for Tehran, abandoning its nuclear program or placing it under a long-term monitoring regime would amount to assuming an enormous risk by surrendering a pillar of regime security and bargaining leverage. It is therefore an issue on which the two sides’ interests are bound to collide. The United States is currently reiterating its principle that Iran must not possess nuclear weapons. At the NATO summit on the 8th, President Trump declared that Iran would not obtain a nuclear weapon. Iran, meanwhile, maintains that it has no intention of developing nuclear weapons while insisting that it cannot abandon its nuclear program itself. As a signatory to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, Iran argues that it has the right to produce nuclear energy for peaceful purposes and that any end-of-war negotiations must proceed in a manner that respects that right.

Opposing positions have also emerged over the Strait of Hormuz. Under a memorandum of understanding signed last month, the United States demanded toll-free passage through the strait for at least 60 days and said it intended to incorporate that condition into a final agreement. Washington argues that no individual country can impose transit charges on an international waterway. Iran, by contrast, maintained that while it could waive fees during the 60-day negotiating period, it should be permitted to charge vessels passing through the Strait of Hormuz thereafter. Its strategy is to redefine the payment not as a simple transit toll, but as a charge for strait management, security guarantees and navigational services. The memorandum was effectively scrapped after military clashes between the two sides resumed earlier this month, and the two countries are now discussing a new framework for passage through intermediaries.

A More Complicated War

Disagreement is also continuing within the United States. ABC News reported on the 26th that Rep. Mike Turner, a Republican, and Sen. Chris Van Hollen, a Democrat, offered sharply different prescriptions on Iran during interviews on its current-affairs program This Week. Turner said the United States must maintain pressure on Iran to break its determination to develop nuclear weapons. He argued that NATO members had reaffirmed at their recent summit that Iran must not be allowed to possess nuclear weapons, and that an Iranian nuclear arsenal itself would be an outcome the international community could not accept. Van Hollen, by contrast, said the United States should never have become involved in a war with Iran and called for an immediate end to the conflict. “When you are in a hole, you stop digging,” he said, adding that if the United States halted military operations, the effectively blockaded Strait of Hormuz could also reopen. He welcomed reports that President Trump had deferred further military action, saying escalation would only draw the United States deeper into the conflict.

As an exit strategy remains elusive, the conflict has become even more complicated after Ukraine launched a drone attack on an Iranian vessel. According to Iran’s Foreign Ministry, a Ukrainian drone strike early on the 25th caused an explosion aboard an Iranian merchant ship in the Caspian Sea, killing one crew member and injuring another. Iran’s Foreign Ministry described Ukraine’s move as an act of aggression that violated Article 2 of the United Nations Charter, which prohibits the use of force, and warned that it could widen the scope of the war in Ukraine. Tehran warned that continued Ukrainian military provocations could force Kyiv into conflict not only with Russia but also with Iran. Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky, meanwhile, said on X, formerly Twitter, that Ukraine had struck Russian warships in the Caspian Sea as well as vessels used to transport Iran-related military cargo, claiming that the attack was intended to disrupt military cooperation between Iran and Russia. Russia’s Foreign Ministry said the damaged vessel had been attacked while traveling from Astrakhan in southern Russia to Iran, but did not disclose whether it was carrying Russian military supplies.