Nobody planned for a long war. Trump promised four to five weeks. The Pentagon said objectives were achievable quickly. Israel expected a rapid degradation of Iran’s missile capacity. Four weeks in, none of that has happened. Iran is still fighting. The Strait of Hormuz is still closed. And Washington, London, and European capitals are quietly preparing for a conflict that could last months — not weeks.
The signs are clear. The Pentagon asked Congress for $200 billion in additional war spending. The US military deployed 2,500 Marines specifically to help reopen the Strait of Hormuz. The UK reinforced RAF Akrotiri and sent warships to protect its assets. Germany said it would help secure the strait after a ceasefire. Moreover, Secretary of State Rubio flew to France to persuade skeptical G7 allies to support a longer campaign. Furthermore, CSIS analysts confirmed the war is burning through US munitions faster than production can replace them. As a result, all three Western powers now face decisions about sustaining a conflict nobody wanted to still be fighting at the end of March.
The United States: $200 Billion and a Munitions Problem
The Pentagon’s Budget Request
Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth submitted a $200 billion supplemental budget request to Congress on March 19. The request covers what the US has already spent and what it expects to spend going forward.
The first 24 hours of Operation Epic Fury alone cost approximately $779 million. Pre-strike military buildup added $630 million more. By Day 6, CSIS estimated total costs at $11.3 billion. By Day 12, the figure reached $16.5 billion. Moreover, the US national debt hit a record $39 trillion this week. Furthermore, Hegseth told reporters the request would ensure the military is funded “for what’s been done, for what we may have to do in the future — to ensure our ammunition is refilled, and not just refilled, but above and beyond.” As a result, the administration publicly committed to sustaining the war financially — whatever it costs.
The Munitions Crisis
Money is not the only constraint. Weapons are. CSIS published a detailed analysis of US munitions consumption that raises serious concerns about sustainability.
The Navy fired approximately 319 Tomahawk missiles in the first six days. That nearly emptied the magazines of ships in the region. The total inventory fell from around 3,100 to approximately 2,700. Moreover, only 190 new Tomahawks are scheduled for delivery in the current fiscal year. Furthermore, Patriot missile interceptors — critical for defending against Iranian ballistic missiles — are also being consumed faster than they can be replaced. The same interceptors were earmarked for Ukraine and the Indo-Pacific. As a result, the Iran war creates supply shortages that weaken US military readiness in other theatres simultaneously.
| Weapon System | Estimated Used — First 6 Days | Annual Production | Gap |
| Tomahawk cruise missiles | ~319 | 190 new deliveries FY current year | Production cannot cover usage |
| Patriot PAC-3 MSE interceptors | High — exact classified | 172 deliveries planned this year | Shortage risk — Ukraine + Indo-Pacific also need these |
| SM-3 ballistic missile interceptors | Significant — Iran firing ballistic missiles daily | 76 deliveries planned | Critical shortage possible if war extends |
| SM-6 cruise/drone interceptors | Significant | 125 deliveries planned | Demand exceeds production pace |
| ATACMS (Army tactical missiles) | Used in ground-target strikes | Production ended 2007 — 1,000 total inventory | Non-replenishable — finite |
| B-2 bomber sorties | Multiple — MOP bunker busters | Aircraft — not expendable — maintenance constraint | Sortie rate sustainable short-term |
CSIS analysts Mark Cancian and Chris Park confirmed the overall assessment: the US does not face an immediate inventory crisis. But production in this fiscal year will not fully cover usage to date. Moreover, the gap widens every week the conflict continues. Furthermore, diverting munitions from Ukraine and the Pacific creates strategic risks that go far beyond the Iran conflict itself. As a result, the $200 billion request is partly about Iran and partly about rebuilding Western military stockpiles that four weeks of intense combat have significantly depleted.
The United Kingdom: Involved But Not at War
The UK’s position is the most awkward of the three Western powers. It is deeply involved — but officially not a combatant. Prime Minister Keir Starmer insists Britain did not participate in the initial strikes. Yet the evidence of deep British involvement is impossible to ignore.
| UK Action | Detail | Official UK Position |
| RAF Akrotiri and Dhekelia | Bases hit by Iranian drones — UK families evacuated | UK is not a combatant — defensive posture only |
| US base access | Agreed to let US use UK bases for strikes on Iranian missiles | Limited access — not for political or economic targets |
| F-35 and Typhoon deployments | 6 additional F-35s deployed to Akrotiri — 10 Typhoons already there | Defensive deployment — not offensive operations |
| Royal Navy warships | HMS Dragon (Type 45 destroyer) sent to Cyprus | Protecting UK assets — not participating in strikes |
| Diego Garcia | Indian Ocean base — used for heavy bomber operations | Status deliberately ambiguous — UK not confirming |
| Intelligence sharing | UK GCHQ and SIGINT assets provide intelligence to US-Israeli operation | Standard Five Eyes arrangement — not a combat role |
| Evacuation planning | Foreign Office drew up plans for 100,000+ UK nationals in Gulf | Consular duty — not military action |
The House of Commons Library confirmed the UK’s formal position: Britain deployed the RAF in a defensive capacity and agreed for the US to use some UK military bases for defensive operations against Iranian missiles. Moreover, the CFR noted that the UK “adopted a carefully balanced transatlantic posture, opting to combine criticism of the Iranian regime with calls for de-escalation.” Furthermore, this approach, as CFR observed, “has made nobody at home happy and invited the ire of US President Donald Trump.” As a result, Britain finds itself in the uncomfortable position of being operationally involved while politically insisting it is not at war.
Europe: Divided, Skeptical, and Preparing Quietly
The G7 Fault Lines
Secretary Rubio flew to France on March 25 to persuade G7 allies to support continued US operations. The reception was cool. European governments were not consulted before the strikes began. They were not consulted before the US captured Venezuelan President Maduro either. The pattern of being presented with US facts on the ground — rather than asked for input — has created deep frustration.
German Defence Minister Boris Pistorius captured European sentiment directly. He criticised Washington’s changing demands: “That was before the war started against Iran. Now, the arguments are different. Now they are saying: ‘Where are you, you are cowards, you don’t help us.'” Moreover, Trump publicly called NATO allies “cowards” for declining to help reopen the Strait of Hormuz. Furthermore, Pistorius confirmed Germany would not join the war but could help secure the strait after a ceasefire. As a result, Europe offers ceasefire support, not combat support — a distinction Washington finds insufficient.
The Disjointed European Response
| Country | Position | Key Action Taken |
| United Kingdom | Defensive support — not combatant | US base access limited — F-35s and warships deployed defensively |
| France | Calls for diplomacy — skeptical of US approach | Rubio flew to Paris to persuade Macron — mixed response |
| Germany | Will not participate in war — will help after ceasefire | Pistorius confirmed post-ceasefire Hormuz security role only |
| Italy | Concerned about energy — LNG from Qatar disrupted | Focused on energy security — no military role |
| Poland | Supportive of US — wants stronger NATO commitment | Urged allies to back Washington — minority European view |
| Turkey | Neutral — complicated by Iranian missile in Turkish airspace | NATO invoked self-defence after missile landed in Hatay |
| Bulgaria | Allowed US and Greece to use its territory for counter-Iran measures | Fears Iranian strikes on NATO assets in Eastern Mediterranean |
| NATO collectively | Committed to defend every inch of NATO territory | Rutte confirmed — but no collective offensive action |
CFR senior fellow Matthias Matthijs summarised European reality: “The lack of a unified European reaction reflects the fundamental reality that Europe has relatively limited strategic weight in the conflict itself.” Moreover, the Iran war arrived while Europe was still focused on Ukraine as its primary geopolitical priority. Furthermore, an Iran conflict that diverts Iranian drone supply to Russia — rather than Ukraine — actually serves some European interests. As a result, Europe’s disjointed response is not weakness but a rational calculation of competing interests that do not align cleanly with Washington’s objectives.
What “Preparing for a Long Conflict” Actually Means
All three Western powers have taken concrete steps that go beyond rhetoric. These steps only make sense if planners expect the conflict to last significantly longer than the original four-to-five-week estimate.
- US Marines deployed to reopen Hormuz: 2,500 Marines from the 31st Marine Expeditionary Unit arrived in the Middle East specifically tasked with helping to reopen the Strait of Hormuz. This is not a short-term operation. Clearing and holding a strait against Iranian drone and missile threats requires sustained presence.
- $200 billion supplemental request: A supplemental budget request of this scale is not prepared for a four-week conflict. It signals the administration expects months of continued operations and munitions expenditure.
- CENTCOM strikes over 11,000 targets: US Central Command confirmed striking over 11,000 targets inside Iran since the war began. Iran’s rate of ballistic missile launches declined from the opening days — analysts cited both depletion of stocks and deliberate rationing for a longer conflict.
- UK long-term base reinforcement: The UK’s additional F-35 deployment, Type 45 destroyer dispatch, and evacuation planning all suggest preparation for a sustained rather than brief emergency.
- Germany’s post-ceasefire planning: Germany explicitly prepared a role for itself after a ceasefire — helping secure the Strait of Hormuz. Planning for a post-ceasefire phase requires planning for when a ceasefire actually happens — which implies it is not imminent.
The Hormuz Question: The Central Strategic Problem
Everything comes back to the Strait of Hormuz. Iran closed it. The world needs it open. And Iran’s counter-proposal demands permanent sovereignty over it as the price of peace.
Iran rejected Trump’s initial ceasefire proposal and sent back a counter-proposal that includes sovereignty over the Strait of Hormuz as a core demand. For a full analysis of what Iran’s Hormuz sovereignty demand means legally and strategically, read: Strait of Hormuz: Iran Demands Permanent Control. Moreover, Trump paused energy plant strikes for 10 days — until April 6 — to allow talks to continue. Furthermore, Iran let “friendly nations” including India, China, and Russia send ships through the strait while blocking US-allied vessels. As a result, the strait operates as a selective weapon — open to Iran’s partners, closed to its adversaries.
The 2,500 Marines specifically deployed to help reopen the strait signal US intent. But military force is not straightforward here. Iran’s ability to threaten the strait with drones and missiles does not require physical presence in the waterway. Clearing the strait militarily means neutralising the threat source — which means more strikes on Iran — which extends the war further.
What Comes Next: The Three Scenarios
| Scenario | Likelihood | US/UK/Europe Role | Timeline |
| Negotiated ceasefire — deal reached before April 6 deadline | Possible (25%) | All three shift to monitoring and reconstruction role | Days to weeks — requires Iran flexibility on Hormuz |
| Extended conflict — talks fail, war continues months | Most likely (45%) | US sustains operations — UK maintains defensive role — Europe pressured to contribute more | 2-4 more months minimum |
| Escalation — Iran opens new fronts, conflict widens | Possible (30%) | NATO Article 5 potentially invoked — Europe forced into active role | Unpredictable — months to years |
Pakistan’s foreign minister confirmed his country is facilitating “indirect talks” between the US and Iran. Oman continues its traditional mediator role. The April 6 deadline — Trump’s pause on energy plant strikes — provides a narrow window. Moreover, the IEA described the situation as the “greatest global energy security challenge in history.” Furthermore, stock markets fell, inflation rose, and food security analysts warned the Iran war will hit global food prices harder than the Ukraine war did. As a result, the pressure to find a resolution is real — but so is the gap between what each party demands.
Conclusion
The Iran war is no longer a four-to-five-week operation. All the institutional signals — the $200 billion budget request, the 2,500 Marine deployment, the munitions production gap, the UK warship dispatch, Germany’s post-ceasefire planning — point in one direction. Everyone is preparing for something longer than anyone initially admitted.
Moreover, the Western alliance faces this longer conflict divided. The US fights. The UK supports defensively. Europe hedges. NATO watches its southern flank nervously. Iran lets friendly ships through the Strait of Hormuz and blocks hostile ones. Furthermore, every week the conflict continues depletes munitions stocks, raises energy prices, and increases political pressure on governments in Washington, London, and across Europe.
As a result, the question “what comes next?” has an honest answer: more of the same — until something breaks. Either the talks succeed before April 6, or the strikes on Iranian energy plants resume, or Iran escalates further, or the economic pressure inside Western democracies becomes politically unsustainable. One of those four outcomes will determine what the next phase of this conflict looks like.
Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs)
Q1: How much has the Iran war cost the US so far?
The first 24 hours of Operation Epic Fury cost approximately $779 million. Pre-strike buildup added $630 million. By Day 6, CSIS estimated total costs at $11.3 billion. By Day 12, the figure reached $16.5 billion. Moreover, the Pentagon submitted a $200 billion supplemental budget request to Congress on March 19 to cover ongoing and future costs. Furthermore, the US national debt hit a record $39 trillion this week. As a result, the financial scale of the war is enormous — and growing every day the conflict continues.
Q2: Is the UK officially at war with Iran?
No — officially. The UK government insists it is not a combatant. However, the UK allowed the US to use its bases for strikes on Iranian missiles. It deployed F-35s and Typhoons to Akrotiri. It sent warships to protect its assets. Iranian drones struck RAF Akrotiri on March 2. The House of Commons Library confirmed the UK deployed the RAF in a defensive capacity and agreed to limited US base access. Moreover, the UK evacuated military families from Akrotiri and drew up plans for 100,000+ British nationals in the Gulf. As a result, Britain is deeply involved operationally while maintaining a careful legal and political distinction from full belligerency.
Q3: Why are European countries reluctant to support the US more directly?
European governments were not consulted before the strikes began. They resent being presented with US military facts on the ground rather than asked for input. Moreover, their primary geopolitical priority remains Ukraine — not Iran. Furthermore, most European governments face domestic political opposition to involvement in another Middle East conflict. German Defence Minister Pistorius noted the US previously told Europe to focus on its own backyard — then called allies “cowards” for not helping with Iran. As a result, European reluctance reflects genuine strategic disagreement, not simply weakness.
Q4: Can the US sustain the war militarily?
In the short term, yes. CSIS confirmed the US does not face an immediate inventory crisis. However, the war is consuming key munitions — particularly Tomahawk missiles, Patriot interceptors, and SM-6s — faster than annual production can replace them. Moreover, these same weapons are needed for Ukraine and the Indo-Pacific. Furthermore, the $200 billion budget request is partly designed to accelerate production to cover the gap. As a result, military sustainability is achievable for several more months but creates strategic risks in other theatres that compound over time.
Q5: What is the April 6 deadline and what happens if talks fail?
Trump announced he is pausing strikes on Iranian energy plants for 10 days — until April 6 — to allow diplomatic talks to continue. He posted on Truth Social that talks are “going very well.” If talks succeed before April 6, a ceasefire framework could be agreed. If talks fail, the US resumes strikes on Iranian power plants and energy infrastructure — a step that UN human rights experts warned could constitute a war crime. Moreover, striking power plants in a civilian economy causes civilian deaths, darkness, and humanitarian collapse. Furthermore, Iran has signalled it would respond to resumed energy strikes with further escalation. As a result, April 6 is the war’s most important near-term decision point.
