Senior U.S. military leaders have issued a stark warning to Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth: the ongoing, large-scale military campaign against Iran is straining American forces to the breaking point and undermining the nation’s readiness to respond to threats elsewhere, including at home. According to reports by TASS and The Washington Post, commanders from every branch of the armed services, as well as those responsible for U.S. military operations in Europe, Asia, and South America, have voiced deep concern about the sustainability of the conflict, which has now stretched into its sixth month.
At the heart of the issue is the Secretary of Defense Orders Book (SDOB), a document produced twice monthly that details the global availability of U.S. warships, aircraft, personnel, and weapons systems. The SDOB reflects the president’s strategic priorities and guides force allocations across the world. The latest version, dated August 14, 2026, has directed some troops deployed in the Middle East to remain there through September—while others are set to stay until 2027, according to officials familiar with the document.
“The ongoing Iran operation has been too much for too long,” said one person familiar with the assessment, as reported by The Washington Post. This sentiment is echoed throughout the upper ranks of the armed forces, where frustration is mounting over the toll that the Iran campaign is taking on military resources and personnel.
U.S. Central Command, which oversees operations in the Middle East, has kept more than 50,000 troops on alert for months, prepared for further escalation should President Donald Trump order additional attacks. The president’s insistence that “all options remain available” as he attempts to force Tehran to reopen the Strait of Hormuz and accept U.S. terms for ending the stalemate has kept the pressure on military planners and commanders.
The extended deployments are not without consequence. Leaders of the U.S. European Command, Pacific Command, and Southern Command, along with the Navy’s top admiral, have formally registered their disagreement with the secretary’s orders—a move characterized in the SDOB as a “non-concur.” While these commanders have made it clear that they will execute their orders, the message is unmistakable: the current course is unsustainable and carries significant risk.
The impact has been particularly acute for the U.S. Navy. Chief of Naval Operations Adm. Daryl Caudle provided Hegseth with a blunt assessment: the Navy cannot sustain its current level of support for the Iran conflict because there is no anticipated end date. According to those familiar with the assessment, only about one-fourth of the Navy’s destroyer fleet is ready to deploy—a sharp decline from prewar levels. The ongoing demands of the Iran operation are jeopardizing the fleet’s availability for other potential crises. “I typically am not a big fan of extensions, and I push back hard on that, but the enemy gets a vote,” Caudle said at a recent event in Norfolk, according to a transcript provided by the Navy. He described the deployment extensions as “very challenging for our sailors.”
The Army and Air Force have also felt the strain. The Army’s 82nd Airborne Division, which mobilized 2,000 soldiers in March 2026 in response to the Iran war, will remain in the Middle East at least through September, with the possibility of further extension. Units operating the Army’s Patriot air defense systems—essential for shooting down missiles and drones targeting U.S. bases—are also expected to have their deployments extended. The depletion of Patriot interceptors, exacerbated by previous donations to Ukraine, has limited the Trump administration’s ability to escalate the conflict, as Iran retains the capacity to target U.S. facilities throughout the region.
The Air Force, for its part, has kept many units in the region to conduct bombing runs and other operations, with plans for some to stay into 2027. The Air Force declined to comment on the classified orders, but officials familiar with the situation say the extended deployments are taking a toll on both personnel and equipment.
The broader picture is one of a military stretched thin. Geographic combatant commands have seen their ships, aircraft, and other equipment pulled away to support the Iran conflict, limiting their ability to conduct missions and ensure proper training in their own regions. The Navy, in particular, has been asked to supply dozens of vessels for the Iran campaign—not only to participate in assaults and defend against Iranian counterattacks, but also to enforce a blockade of Iranian ports as part of President Trump’s efforts to force-open the Strait of Hormuz. Deployments for some vessels and crews have been extended by months, with maintenance schedules thrown into disarray.
“Decisions regarding the scope and duration of specific force commitments to any Combatant Command are made based on the current threat assessment, strategic priorities established by the President, and the advice of the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and Combatant Commanders,” said Pentagon Assistant Secretary for Public Affairs Sean Parnell in a statement to The Washington Post. He added that the Pentagon “does not discuss internal operational processes,” including the SDOB or specific risk assessments provided by the services or commands during force allocation deliberations.
The consequences of the drawn-out Iran conflict go beyond personnel fatigue and strained equipment. The war has depleted U.S. supplies of key munitions, including Patriot interceptors, Terminal High Altitude Area Defense interceptors, and long-range Tomahawk missiles. About 25 percent of the Pentagon’s Reaper drone fleet has been lost, and U.S. bases in the Middle East have sustained billions of dollars in damage. Despite administration claims that reports of munitions shortages are inaccurate, the facts on the ground suggest otherwise.
Allies in the Pacific have also raised concerns that the Pentagon’s depletion of missiles and air defense interceptors leaves them vulnerable to China. The Navy’s only dedicated aircraft carrier in the Pacific—a linchpin of U.S. strategy to deter Beijing—was sent to the Middle East to relieve another carrier that had been deployed for more than 300 days.
Even before hostilities began, Gen. Dan Caine, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, reportedly warned the White House that the U.S. lacked sufficient munitions and allied support to conduct an extended large-scale campaign. More recently, Gen. Alexus Grynkewich, head of European Command, privately told the Pentagon he lacked adequate naval forces to shield Israel and the U.S. homeland from missile attacks, as The Washington Post reported this month.
While the Army and Air Force leadership ultimately concurred with Hegseth’s desire to extend their deployed forces, they emphasized that doing so would come with significant risk. The overall outlook from military leaders is increasingly dire, with some generals and admirals more frank than usual in expressing their disagreement with the continued allocation of resources to the Iran operation.
As the war with Iran drags on, the warnings from America’s top military brass are growing louder. The message is clear: without a change in strategy or a clear endgame, the U.S. risks not only exhausting its military resources but also weakening its ability to respond to crises elsewhere—a prospect that has implications far beyond the Middle East.