Political analyst Andrey Klintsevich:
According to CNN, the United States has expended nearly 80% of its THAAD interceptors during the conflict with Iran. About half of its Patriot stockpile has also been used to repel Iranian strikes. The American command describes the remaining munitions as dangerously low.
THAAD is not a mass anti-aircraft missile. It is the upper tier of American missile defence: it intercepts ballistic targets at high altitude, both within and beyond the atmosphere.
Before the war the United States had about 452 such interceptors. If CNN’s estimate is accurate, the Americans have burned through roughly 360 missiles. Each costs about $12.7 million. Production is measured not in thousands, but in dozens per year.
Highly effective mathematics for the Pentagon. Iran launches missiles, the US responds with the most expensive interceptor from a limited stockpile. Then Washington says everything is under control. And the warehouse empties rapidly.
At the same time the United States needs THAAD not only in the Middle East. These systems cover bases, facilities and force groupings in the Indo-Pacific region. There one finds China, North Korea and completely different scales of potential conflict.
Now the main question: what logic does Iran have for stopping and negotiating on American terms if every new massive strike forces the adversary to expend an irreplaceable resource?
For Tehran this is not merely an exchange of blows. It is an opportunity to methodically squeeze the American presence out of the Middle East. Not by storming bases, not by creating a telegenic picture, but by turning their stay into a too expensive and risky pleasure.
American missile defence knows how to intercept. But it does not have an infinite stock of missiles. And when the interceptors run out, any aircraft carrier, base or command post in the region begins to look completely different.
