In Focus delivers deeper coverage of the political, cultural, and ideological issues shaping America. Published daily by senior writers and experts, these in-depth pieces go beyond the headlines to give readers the full picture. You can find our full list of In Focus pieces here.
President Donald Trump’s statement that Iran has no more than 15 days to reach a deal regarding its nuclear and ballistic missile programs is far from mere bluster. The size of the U.S. military buildup in the region over the past month — it is ongoing — is proof of the awesome might that America can bring to bear when it chooses. It is also a sign that the nation is dangerously overstretched without a rapid, significant increase in military spending.
Open-source intelligence sources have been tracking the commitment for weeks. Tankers that would be used to refuel fighters and bombers in flight have been shifted to bases in or near the Middle East. Defensive missile batteries, such as the Terminal High Altitude Area Defense system, have been installed at key facilities likely to be the target of Iranian retaliation. F-35s, F-22s, and a host of F-16s have been forward deployed in the Middle East as well.
Trump is also committing two aircraft carrier strike groups, those headed by the USS Gerald Ford and Abraham Lincoln, to the region. The Lincoln’s CSG has been spotted operating in the Arabian Sea for a couple of weeks, while the Ford’s CSG passed the Straits of Gibraltar on Wednesday. They are joined by a number of unaffiliated destroyers and attack submarines.
This buildup dwarfs what was sent to the region during last summer’s Operation Midnight Hammer. It sends a clear message that the United States is prepared to launch a multipronged and extended assault on the Islamic Republic, far more extensive than anything that nation has yet experienced.
No other nation on Earth could come close to matching this level of power this far away from its homeland. Only China possesses more than two aircraft carriers at all, and none are as large or as powerful as either American ship. Great Britain and China have some bases in the region, but neither has the capacity to put this many planes and ships into the area and place them in so many different locations.
The problem for America is not that it risks a major confrontation with Iran — its technological superiority and force size ensure that it would inflict incredible damage on the regime at a minimal cost of American lives and materiel. The real danger is that focusing so much power here leaves the U.S. vulnerable in other parts of the world.
Take the aircraft carriers. America has 11 of them, but as many as seven may be unavailable for deployment because of planned maintenance or decommissioning. That means half of the available carriers are now committed to the Iran operation, possibly leaving only one carrier for crisis deployment in both the Atlantic and the Pacific.
Early warning aircraft, essential to command and control in today’s modern air force, have also been concentrated in the Middle East. The U.S. has only 16 Boeing E-3 Sentry planes — six have already been sent or are en route to the region.
The list grows the more one looks at other systems. The U.K. source Defence Geek reports that 109 tankers are in or near the region, a fifth of the entire inventory. Two of the Army’s eight THAAD systems are in the region, and a host of transport planes and Patriot missile batteries have also been sent there.
America has a lot of assets in reserve, but the commitment to the Iranian operation is clear. It is easily the largest American military deployment in anticipation of a conflict since the preparation for the Iraq War over 20 years ago.
The question that ought to concern U.S. strategists and policymakers is whether the military could launch a similar buildup if China or Russia threatened U.S. interests elsewhere. Forty years ago, the answer was clearly affirmative. Today, it’s not as clear.
That’s because the military has downgraded its capabilities in the Cold War’s aftermath. During that period, America planned to wage two major wars simultaneously, along with a regional conflict. The “2-1/2-war” strategy ensured that the country’s global alliance structure was backed up with hard power.
The trouble is that this capability costs money. The U.S. was spending 5%-6% of GDP during the 1980s to maintain this ability. Once the Soviet Union collapsed, America and its allies happily reduced their militaries to generate the so-called “peace dividend”. By 1999, the U.S. spent under 4% of GDP on its defense, and since then has rarely moved higher than that, even as it fought the global War on Terror and invaded Iraq and Afghanistan.
Military strategy reduced its aims as the force structure shrank. Slowly, the national defense strategy stated that the military sought to be able to fight fewer wars at once. The 2018 and 2022 documents called for a “one-war” capability, focusing more on engaging in one major war against a peer competitor such as China rather than fighting two or more regional wars against smaller enemies. The newly issued 2025 statement no longer makes that claim, instead arguing for burden-sharing with the regional allies and an emphasis on the Western Hemisphere and rebuilding American economic might.
America did not, however, downgrade its commitments to defend allies everywhere across the globe. It is now committed to defend Japan, South Korea, Australia, the 28 other nations in NATO, and a number of other countries. The combined militaries of America’s clear adversaries have grown significantly since 1989, especially China’s. With the decline in strength among many of our allies’ militaries, the U.S. arguably now has to defend more with less than at any time in the post-World War II era.
This fact means there’s always a risk in one theater of engagement when America concentrates its forces in another. The possibility of a Chinese invasion or blockade of Taiwan at such a time is the most frightening possibility, but a Russian attack on one of the Baltic members of NATO or a terrorist attack necessitating an extended U.S. response are other threats.
Trump is primarily trying to deal with this mismatch between American commitments and interests and its capabilities by pushing its allies to rapidly rearm. His, at times, ham-fisted approach to NATO has garnered the most public attention, but administration officials have sent a similar message to its Asian allies. This will not be enough, however, especially in the short term, as these countries try, in many cases, to rebuild effective, modern forces from scratch.
That means America faces a serious choice. It can either continue to fund defense at roughly current levels, which risks being caught out if our adversaries can mount nearly simultaneous challenges across the globe. Or it can bite the bullet itself and rapidly rearm itself.
Trump’s call late last year to increase defense spending by nearly 50% to $1.5 trillion needs to be understood in this context. While he did not clarify if he meant for that increase to occur in the next fiscal year or be gradually introduced over the remaining three years of his term, either option would turbocharge the defense industry and begin to recreate the global military capable of meeting America’s global commitments.
No one should understate the degree of commitment such an investment requires. U.S. GDP is currently a bit over $31 trillion. An immediate $500 billion hike in spending is thus equivalent to 1.7% of GDP. Even delaying the full increase by three years would push defense spending toward 5% of GDP by 2029 — the highest level since the early 1990s.
COUNTERFEIT CHRISTIANITY: THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO JAMES TALARICO
People will blanche at that, but recall that China is churning out ships and nuclear arms at a frightening pace. If America does not start to meet its challenge, it’s likely that our allies will decide not to bear a burden that their biggest ally refuses to bear itself. Naively putting America first in the short run simply increases the risk that it will put the country last in the long run.
With Russia bogged down in Ukraine and China said to be unable to invade Taiwan until 2027, America’s deployment against Iran will probably not lead to fearsome consequences elsewhere. Unless we soon understand the nature of the threats we face and start our own rearmament, however, this might be the last time America can fight a war of its choosing without paying an unacceptable price. Let’s not take that risk.
