The United States did not start peace negotiations with Iran because diplomacy prevailed. It did so because it had no choice. It is running out of weapons.
In the course of a few weeks, the US military has used somewhere between eight and ten years' worth of Tomahawk missile production. The United States can manufacture approximately one hundred Tomahawk missiles per year. It has fired many hundreds, and possibly a thousand, in this conflict alone. Those stocks cannot be replenished quickly. They cannot be replenished at all in the near term. And without them, and other critical weapon supplies, the USA has no credible capacity to restart a war with Iran.
This is not a temporary logistics problem. It is a structural failure, and neoliberalism created that. The US military, like the US economy, has been run on just-in-time principles:
- minimal stockholding,
- maximum efficiency,
- profits prioritised over resilience.
In addition, more than half of every US missile is manufactured outside the United States, across global supply chains that are now disrupted by the very conflict those missiles were used to fight. Aluminium, a critical component, is, for example, in short supply precisely because the closure of the Strait of Hormuz has constrained the materials needed to make the weapons that were supposed to open it.
The damage goes beyond missiles. Maybe three complex radar systems have been destroyed in the Middle East, each taking up to seven years to replace. The B-52 bombers flying missions from the UK are operating well beyond their operational lifespan. So are the refuelling tankers that support them.
As a result, the Financial Times is reporting that Trump himself appealed for peace via Pakistan, a reality that Pete Hegseth and the White House press operation will never publicly acknowledge.
Meanwhile, Iran's military model, based on low-cost, simple, rapidly replicable weapons, has proved devastatingly effective against the world's most expensive and over-engineered military power. Low-tech warfare has beaten the neoliberal military. Now, as a result, time favours Iran. It can replenish its arsenal quickly. The USA cannot.
The conclusion is stark: US military hegemony has been structurally weakened, and not just temporarily set back. It will take years, and possibly a decade, to rebuild. And in that window, the United States cannot threaten, coerce, or intervene with the credibility it once had. The world has changed. This video explains exactly how and why neoliberalism is the ideology that brought the world's biggest military power to its knees.
This is the audio version:
This is the transcript:
I want to talk about something which I think is a fact, and that is that, right now, the USA cannot keep fighting Iran.
What we know is that there is a supposed negotiation going on at present around a peace deal. Maybe there is, maybe there isn't. No one knows what that peace deal is.
But what I am suggesting to you is something quite different, and that is that the USA has no choice but to pretend that there is a negotiation on a peace deal at present because it cannot afford to continue its war with Iran. And when I talk about afford, I am not talking about money. What I'm talking about is the fact that the USA has not got the physical resources to carry on fighting Iran.
Once upon a time, wars were won based on the ability of a country to keep feeding its troops at the front line, wherever it was. The argument was that wars were won on full stomachs. Now they're won on the ability to keep the missile supply replenished, and the USA is losing that war. In fact, it's losing it so badly that right now, the USA probably has no capacity to restart its war with Iran. That is how desperate its situation is in these peace negotiations.
What we are talking about here is capability and not rhetoric. Let's ignore what the US is saying. We know it is claiming that it has scored a victory in the war over Iran. We know that Karoline Leavitt, the White House Press Secretary, has said that there is a peace negotiation on a different set of 10 principles to the one that we've all seen, but all of that feels like complete and utter nonsense. What I actually want to do is talk about what is really happening, because war has exposed the reality of the US military. When claims meet facts, the facts are now beginning to bite, and the US is failing badly.
The scale of its munitions depletion is quite extraordinary. Hundreds of Tomahawk missiles have been used over the last few weeks, maybe a thousand, and that is running down the stocks of available missiles used in this war to a point where the US has virtually none left available for use.
We also know that this is true with regard to standoff missiles used by US aircraft to try to deflect incoming fire against them. We know that those are in short supply as well. That's why planes probably got shut down in the last week of this war. Both are indicators of a massive shortage of supply with regard to missiles, and the US is being crippled as a consequence.
The replenishment rate for missiles is incredibly slow. This is the military reality that I'm discussing here. The US can only build about a hundred Tomahawk missiles a year. It has therefore used between eight and 10 years of supplies in the course of the last few weeks, and it is going to take a decade to replace those. It cannot be done in months. It cannot be done in years. Time is now the real constraint on what the US military can do.
So the US is facing a hard choice. It can run stocks of missiles dangerously low to the point where it can't take on any new military campaigns for years to come, or it can stop using those weapons now. The choice is win now or survive later. There are no good options left to the US military in this situation. Its strategic weakness has been critically exposed by this war in Iran, and it's coming out of the assessment very badly indeed.
And this is not just about one weapon: it applies right across all the ordnance that the US is using. All missile systems are being badly affected, and all consumables are running down. The depth of inventory that is now missing is extraordinary, and system-wide shortages are becoming apparent across the range. This is the consequence of having an industrial system that cannot respond to what is happening.
The US industrial system is neoliberal to its very core. It works on ‘just-in-time' delivery schedules. It works on the basis of supposed efficiency. There is no capacity within it to create a surge in production. That is not possible. There is no slack in the system. There is no resilience built in. In fact, it's been designed in the interest of profit maximisation to avoid the chance of short-term expansion of capacity. There is no investment to deliver that, and there is also no labour that is available to build the missing missiles. The capacity is simply not there.
At the same time, the US missile systems rely on complex supply chains. More than half of every US missile is built outside the USA. The components are sourced globally, and material supply is also constrained. Aluminium is one of the things in short supply as a result of this conflict and the closure of the Strait of Hormuz. There are bottlenecks everywhere, and there is no quick scaling that is possible. Lead times are now measured in years, and this is not a temporary gap. It is a structural lag. There is no rapid recovery path for the US military, and as a consequence, the US government's choices are now severely restricted, and this isn't only with regard to weapons, I should stress.
Other systems are also at risk. At least three complex radar systems have been knocked out in the Middle East so far, and apparently each of them will take up to seven years to replace, whilst ageing aircraft are also under strain, as a consequence of this conflict. The B52s are flying well beyond their sell-by dates. So are the refuelling tankers. These platforms are ageing fast, and some of the losses that are being incurred with regard to them are permanent. Apparently, the ability to repair some of these systems simply does not exist. The machinery that is required is no longer in existence. As a consequence, there is a real risk of US military capability actually shrinking at this moment, so severe is the problem that it faces.
This is neoliberalism at work. It's quite extraordinary. Neoliberalism is, in fact, undermining the military power of the country that is most likely to try to defend it. Efficiency is being given higher value than resilience, and we have a ‘just-in-time' military now, except that's not how war works. The military is working on minimal stockholding, just as business does, and cost-saving logic has been applied to it in a way that is undermining every chance it has of staging a successful war. The same applies in the UK, by the way, as well.
The reality of war has been ignored in modern military design. The culture of wartime management has been displaced by neoliberal thinking, and as a consequence, military leadership has no idea what it's doing in the West. The war is exposing that failure. There is no spare capacity. There is no redundancy built into systems, when that is something that is essential inside a wartime economy. There are no margins for error when, by necessity, military thinking requires you to think about duality of strategies to deal with such things. Systems are breaking under stress, exactly as expected, but without the ability to put in place the alternatives that are required so that the US military can continue to fight this battle.
At the same time, let's be clear. Iran's military model is the exact opposite of that of the USA. It is using simpler systems. It is producing weapons that are easier to innovate. It is producing weapons that are easier to replace. This is a low-cost approach to war, and sustained supply is therefore possible, and we're seeing that. A fortnight's break with regard to a ceasefire negotiation is, as far as Iran is concerned, probably enough time to replenish all its available missile supplies. So the balance of power has shifted in this war. The US knows it cannot sustain this war anymore. Iran also knows that, whilst Iran knows it can continue this war. Time is favouring Iran, and I suspect the US knows that too.
Everything about replenishment and systems design is, in fact, running in Iran's favour right now, and as a result, it has the upper hand in this conflict. That's why Trump did need a ceasefire in this conflict with Iran. Sure, he wanted to get out of the mess he had created for himself with regard to a threat of genocide, but that wasn't the only reason why he backed off. He knew he needed to break the war because his stocks of weapons were too low. His capability had been too reduced, and peace was becoming essential.
When he said at the outset that this war would last for four to six weeks, what he knew was that that was all the weaponry that he had. That weaponry has nearly run out. He had to appeal for peace, and the Financial Times is saying very strongly at the moment that he did actually appeal for peace. He went to Pakistan and asked them to broker the peace with Iran. It was not the other way around, as people like Pete Hegseth would claim. So we know the US knows how constrained it is now.
We can expect that there will be a lot of misinformation supplied about this. The illusion of progress in peace talks will be maintained. We will get extended deadlines. They will probably be extended one after another. We will get used to the idea that the claim will be made, that another two weeks are required, but that narrative of progress is built upon the reality that the US cannot go back to war.
There are deeper implications to all of this. US military power has been seriously weakened by a few weeks of war. It's not been temporarily weakened; it has been structurally weakened. Years will be required to rebuild the capability that has now been lost, and US global power has been reduced as a result. Its capacity to intervene anywhere else in the world has become minimal or non-existent as a result. Its hegemony has been cruelly exposed as a consequence.
The conclusion is unavoidable. The US cannot now return to war with Iran. It cannot do so now. It cannot do so soon. It cannot do so without rebuilding its military, and that will take years. In all practical senses, this war is therefore over. The fact is that low-tech warfare has won over neoliberal failure, which has designed a weaponry system that has failed to deliver a modern military that the US can use to engage in actual warfare.
This is an extraordinary failure based upon the thinking that has brought the world economy to its knees, the world's politics to its knees, and now the world's biggest military power to its knees. Neoliberalism is a recipe for disaster. The US is now seeing the consequences. Iran is beating it using a different method of thinking. We need to reappraise how we think about everything in this world as a consequence. Neoliberalism is no longer the answer to anything, and this war has cruelly exposed that fact.
That's what I think. What do you think? There's a poll down below. Let us know your comments. Please share this video if you like it, and subscribe to our channel if that's something that you want to do. If you also want to make a donation, we'd be truly grateful because these videos have a cost to make.
Poll
Loading ...Thanks for reading this post.
You can share this post on social media of your choice by clicking these icons:
There are links to this blog's glossary in the above post that explain technical terms used in it. Follow them for more explanations.
You can subscribe to this blog's daily email here.
And if you would like to support this blog you can, here:
Buy me a coffee!
I hope the future of NATO focuses on peace instead of war. Adding members from a distance calls for more trouble. It should be european-only. The goal should be not to have enemies, and if you insist, place them far away. So just sit down and stop the war in Ukraine, make peace with Russia, but a forever peace, not the kind that places ever more USA bases in its frontiers. Be active in limiting the spread of nuclear weapons. That calls for action against Israel, and hope that the abandoning of treaties by the USA could be reverted. The more time required for a nuclear bomb to reach Moscow or Paris-Berlin-London, the better the chances of avoiding absurd catastrophies. Resume business as the driver for peace instead of sanctions as a driver for who-knows-what. Forget about spreading democracy which has always been a lie, just focus on human rights, but with universal criteria. Stop blaming China or Russia for things that are worse in Saudi Arabia or Israel, just to name a few (the USA could easily fit that list today). Everlasting peace starts from mutual respect, and Europe has been a child of a US-led NATO which dedicated the last 30 years to wars based on doubtful criteria. And tax.
Excellent news! No one ever needed this war, in which the US and Israel have seemed focused on obliterating their fellow human beings, contrary to the teachings of both the religions they claim to adhere to.
As a colleague of mine, expert in matters military from Cain V Able to last nights pub brawls put it ‘The amateur studies tactics the professional studies logistics’
Just looking at history though the Battle of the Atlantic was kept going by nearly 300 Flower class corvettes – think HMS Compass Rose from ‘The Cruel Sea’ very simple ships with basic armament that could be build quickly in large numbers and were ‘good enough’ to deter a U-Boat and managed to sink many.
They were a small part of a war that was won not on the battlefield but the production line and the shipyard.
It looks as though its another victory for the Production Line – or in this case the absence of a production line.
Agreed
Good point John. Second World War escort vessels were simple such that they could be built, at scale, in the multitude of small yards across the UK and not just by the dozen or so Admiralty yards. It wasn’t just the Flower class, but the following Castle class of corvette and the more advanced classes of sloops (eg Black Swan) and frigates (eg Loch and River classes). In all more than 500 convoy escort vessels were built in a very short timescale, propelled by piston engines rather than turbines. Turbine propulsion provided greater speed, but were time consuming and expensive to put together and get just right. Fine for fleet escort destroyers, but not deemed necessary for convoy escorts. A key assessment being why do you need a 36 knot escort vessel when a U-boat can only do 17 knots on the surface and 8 knots submerged?
Resilience is a key issue, which implies capability redundancy. Neoliberalism does not want to produce resilience. Excess capacity comes at a cost for which there may be no return, yet is so important, especially at the national level and in military affairs. There is a phrase in Defence procurement which applies in many other areas. “Excellence is the enemy of the good”. Look around the table at the defence contractors taking part in capability working groups and you see why we get sucked into trying to deliver the excellent. The US is now facing the downside of this.
Much to agree with
Mr Docherty, the frigates and corvettes could be crewed by HO -Hostilities Only- ratings and officered by RN Reserve and Voluntary Reserve, often like my father from the Merchant Navy.
How far we could do that now, I am not sure but in both world wars, the specialists were often civilians in uniform.
‘Totally agree with you what Neo-liberalism has done to the U.S. military as over here in the UK it has done the same.
But the U.S. has not used its stock of nuclear weapons which to me at least was part of Trump’s threat earlier over opening the Straits of Hormuz.
It has not exhausted its conventional weapons – which means its manpower and invasion capability.
Since we all doubt his sanity and that we know he is surrounded by some who are eager to embrace the destruction of life, the engines of destruction are revved up and running. We are still in a very dangerous situation.
Thankfully, domestic politics might be what holds him back taking the invasion route (BTW, it is a sure bet that small advance ground units will operating in Iran already in some capacity).
Even given this, it is still valid and natural to push for peace and that should be encouraged, no matter how tenuous. I work in projects and rely on specialist advisors all of the time. And sometimes you do get bad advice. Trump’s actions are pure folly – he has made a huge mistake. He has been pushed along by some people who should not be where they are.
Realistically? His only option is to go nuclear if he wants to win? But he’ll be firing deadly weapons over friendlies and leaving himself with what exactly to play with after? What a pickle.
So, from me the same: calm it down, no gloating over U.S. ‘failure’ – no bully was ever stopped by telling them that they are weak etc. Firm up the peace, de-intensify, then analyse and deliver a verdict in calmer waters. That’s me.
We will have to disagree on much of this. Sorry.
Fair enough.
You invite comment, those are mine Richard. I’m just as worried as you, no less sceptical – my additional worry being that in the interim time worse weapons or invasion will be used to make up for the present lack of what has been expended.
All I am doing really is preaching temperance in language. Your connection of Neo-liberalism to supply side problems of dealing out death is masterful…………..but at this moment, I say ‘Blessed are the Peacemakers’ – deluded, misled or not. There has been so much death, too much on the innocent……………
As for Netanyahu and his fellow criminals I will say this. The West has a choice – too back Zionism or pay the price – literally. And yet Starmer is moaning now about Putin and Trump increasing costs for the British people! Unbelievable! What a clusterf**k.
If you’d rather I did not comment on this particular issue, that is fine. It is not a childish ultimatum – it would be fine, honestly. I don’t want to irritate you and hopefully the chance to have a nice warm handshake/hug in Sheffield or where ever at your next event.
You are welcome PSR. I am just saying I do not entirely agree with you. That’s allowed.
Realistically if a state wants the capacity to wage war it must produce the weaponry itself, in its own factories with readily to hand materials ( or a huge stockpile) using its own people plus maintain everything in house.
With the US using AI to target thousands of site quickly and blowing your stockpiles in the illusion of strength is political and military stupidity.
The US has failed to learn from the lessons of its own warfare history. Think of how it produced ships, tanks, planes etc in WWII.
The neoliberal US state has failed in a basic function if you want to go to war be properly prepared. Do not have a supply system that you do not control.
Now is the time for change to a more state involved system of proper funding of services , proper wealth redistribution, pivot from fossil fuels to renewables, no more infinite economic growth (the planet is being despoiled), proper control of the tech bros, with the emphasis on caring for the population.
“Now is the time for change to a more state involved system of proper funding of services , proper wealth redistribution, pivot from fossil fuels to renewables, no more infinite economic growth (the planet is being despoiled), proper control of the tech bros, with the emphasis on caring for the population.”
Entirely agree (and the same applies over here).
Marco Rubio almost got it right. He commented in March 2026: “Imagine in Iran that instead of spending their wealth, billions of dollars, supporting terrorists or weapons, had spent that money helping the people of Iran, you’d have a much different country.” And they say Americans don’t do irony.
[…] the USA has entirely lost control of Israel. That the USA wants to back off is beyond doubt. That is the subject of my video this morning. The truth is, it has no choice but to do so because it does not have the weaponry left to […]
You are so right.
Russia has learnt twice that taking on a small country does not guarantee success.
The USA has learnt at least three times. Or maybe not learnt?
I wonder what thinking is going on in China?
The UK is about to ramp up military spending when a warehouse full of polystyrene drones will do it and instead spend the money on the NHS.
Project power with foreign aid?
Bsh!
As understands it, the US has manufacturing capacity to produce several hundred Tomahawks per year and could ramp up production, but even at its best, they have just used up several years supply. Assuming of course the resources are available.
The supply chain is an important factor and much of that is outside the US. That may be a spur to rely on less technically advanced weapons – either dumb bombs, or new simpler systems. Eg drones.
I’m not convinced that aluminium is such a great problem for the US. China dominates, producing more than ten times anyone else, and more than half the world production, then India, Russia and Canada. The UAE and Bahrain are in the top 10 producers, but each is only a few percent of world supply. There is some capacity to increase production in the US but it is a commodity so (in normal times) driven by the sale price and cost of production. In war times (and you might argue for resilience in other times) you will need “uneconomic” production for security of supply.
Doesn’t this then beg the question about how Israel is able to keep going? Isn’t it primarily provisioned by the US and yet it seems immune to ongoing attacks by Iran and the Houthis…?
Great analysis. Do the same arguments about logistics, weapons availability and supply chains apply in the short term to Israel? I have no answers, only questions.
For how long can Israel continue its own campaign of genocide, territorial expansion and regional war? It can cause havoc using relatively few weapons, in the Lebanon campaign. Can it expand operations against Iran? Might the main constraint on Israel be the viability of its defence systems rather than its supply of offensive weapons? (Patriot, Iron Dome, radar etc)
Israel has several distinct campaigns at present.
A low-level (logistically) ongoing genocide in Gaza and West Bank/E Jerusalem which it maybe can keep going. (>2 million victims)
A cross-border ground invasion/occupation of southern Lebanon up to the Litani River including the city of Tyre.
Air-borne attacks on southern Beirut. This can probably be sustained for some time? (1m more internally displaced Lebanese to add to their already enormous regional refugee problems)
Missile exchanges with Iran – can that be sustained logistically in terms of offensive & defensive systems?
If USA wishes to reign in Israel, can it do so in the short term?
My questions are about the logistics relating to Israel, rather than the politics or morality of the conflict.
If this is covered in the podcast then please ignore this post.
Thank you, Richard.
A month ago, my MoD source said the expectation is that Iran would prevail as it has been preparing for decades and treats this conflict as existential and, not just the US, but the UK, too, run procurement for private sector profit. He said “UK defence procurement is a disaster”, highlighted the Ajax armoured vehicle and aircraft carrier programmes, and lamented the dependence on the US.
He explained how career military and diplomatic professionals are battling Zionist politicians, ministers and backbenchers, and advisers from party political and academic backgrounds and even Israelis / dual citizens on secondment and internships.
This is another one of the lessons of the Ukraine war that we have to learn.
Previously the West has gone down the route of expensive high tech “boys toys” weapons systems partly out of a desire to avoid casualties and need fewer fighting people (not an undesirable wish) but also because it’s very profitable for the military industrial complex. The Russians tried to ally tech with their traditional swamp them with soldiers routine and to hell with casualty numbers.
The Ukrainians have survived by courage, sacrifice, intellect and innovation. They have flattened the command structure and devolved decision making, allowing the brigades to say and order the equipment they need. Volume of drones has become the key differentiator and delivering what is needed fast the key. Speaking to a small scale drone manufacturer he explained how he is in direct communication with the brigades who describe their needs. In a couple of weeks they will have tested prototypes to send for field testing to be followed by production approx a month from that initial conversation. 3D printers and off the shelf components deliver low cost lethality. When the CEO of Rheinmetall disparagingly called these small Ukrainian manufacturers “housewives” they took it as a complement.
And now to avoid outside dependency Ukraine is also building their own long range missiles that are having a major impact on the Russian war machine and economy.
Much to agree with. In a recent interview with one of the Ukranian military, the innovation cycle was described as … one week. Drones go out, used, users suggest mods – fed back to mfu & mods made to next batch etc. I guess you could describe this as modifying a mini-weapon system to adapt to a changing war landscape in real time. One can do that because the weapon is a volume consumable. Leaving the open question: quo vadis UK military (ok you chaps now see this drone thingy………oh dear)