AFTER THIRTEEN CONSECUTIVE NIGHTS of American bombing of Iran, the fourteenth night was quiet.

That silence has generated almost as much speculation as the strikes themselves. The New York Times reported that President Trump ordered the halt out of concern that the United States is running dangerously low on missile interceptors. But that concern doesn’t preclude other reasons for pausing the strikes: Are nascent diplomatic efforts indicating a path beyond military operations? Did America’s regional partners quietly urge restraint? Or did the president’s advisers conclude that continued bombing was no longer advancing America’s strategic objectives?

We may not know the answers for months, perhaps years. But it may be getting through to the administration that the strategy of air strikes it has pursued against Iran for five months isn’t advancing political objectives.

The moment military action begins producing diminishing strategic returns, leaders face one of the hardest decisions in war: whether to continue pressing the attack or adapt before events force them to. Military professionals still use Carl von Clausewitz’s term for that moment: the “culminating point” of an offensive, when continued attacks begin consuming more military capability than the strategic advantage they produce. Modern military commanders, rather than awaiting the culminating point, now seek evidence that they are approaching culmination, because recognizing the signs in advance helps prevent strategic overreach and potential failure.

That distinction matters. Adaptation is one of the defining characteristics of successful military campaigns; the military that adapts first often prevails. And the most important adaptations occur at the strategic level. Adversaries change their methods. Allies reassess their interests. Resources become constrained. Diplomatic opportunities emerge and disappear. A campaign designed to solve one problem frequently evolves into something else, usually something larger. Continuing yesterday’s operational design simply because it worked yesterday is not persistence; it is wrongheaded.

HISTORY OFFERS AN INSTRUCTIVE EXAMPLE. In February 1991, after only one hundred hours of ground combat during Operation Desert Storm, President George H.W. Bush, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Gen. Colin Powell, and Gen. Norman Schwarzkopf agreed to halt the offensive. Coalition forces retained overwhelming combat power, and they almost certainly could have continued their assault, even driving toward Baghdad. But liberating Kuwait—not toppling Saddam Hussein—was the coalition’s political objective, and that objective had been achieved. Continuing the attack would not have simply extended the campaign; it would have fundamentally changed its purpose.

Images from what later became known as the Highway of Death reinforced another uncomfortable reality. Coalition airpower continued destroying Iraqi forces that were already retreating from Kuwait. Those attacks undoubtedly remained militarily effective, but they also illustrated the growing gap between tactical success and strategic necessity, punishing an enemy unnecessarily. Additional destruction promised little additional political advantage but would have increased humanitarian costs while risking the cohesion of the international coalition. The decision to stop reflected the judgment that military operations had accomplished the mission assigned.

Iran’s military power today is nowhere near as broken as Saddam’s was at the end of Operation Desert Storm. It remains capable of influencing events across the region, particularly through its network of proxy organizations. The Houthis, who at first largely stayed out of the conflict, are now threatening international shipping and attacking Saudi ports and facilities. Their strikes against Aramco refineries and other facilities have widened the conflict, and American naval forces are now protecting both the Strait of Hormuz and the approaches to the Bab el-Mandeb.

The American campaign initially appeared focused on degrading Iran’s conventional military capability. Increasingly, however, the conflict is being shaped by Tehran’s actions and those of its proxies. Every Houthi attack against commercial shipping, every strike against Gulf energy infrastructure, and every disruption of maritime commerce broadens the war geographically while allowing Iran to impose additional costs on the United States. Continuing to concentrate military effort where the conflict began rather than where it is expanding risks fighting yesterday’s campaign while the enemy adapts.

At the same time, the Times report and others indicating that America’s weapons stockpiles are being used up perilously fast deserve attention. Precision-guided munitions are not merely tactical assets. They are strategic resources underpinning deterrence in the Indo-Pacific, reassuring allies in Europe and the Levant, protecting American forces worldwide, and preserving the nation’s ability to respond to crises that cannot yet be predicted. Every Tomahawk missile launched at Iran, every long-range standoff weapon fired from an American bomber in the Middle East, and every interceptor expended defending U.S. forces in Jordan or Kuwait or the UAE must eventually be replaced. The question is not whether America possesses overwhelming military power; it’s whether continuing to expend some of its most sophisticated capabilities produces strategic gains commensurate with the opportunities they foreclose elsewhere. That’s the difference between having more weapons to use and having as many as you might need.

Share

NO COMMANDER—CIVILIAN OR MILITARY—can simultaneously track operational progress, logistical sustainability, alliance implications, resource consumption, and global readiness alone. That job of integrating those perspectives, identifying approaching risks, and recommending adaptation before success on today’s battlefield creates unnecessary vulnerability tomorrow falls in large part to the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, who commands no combat forces but has a large staff responsible for understanding these kinds of strategic tradeoffs. The joint staff, with its numbered departments, exists to help civilian and military leaders think strategically rather than operationally. The J3 continuously monitors military operations around the world. The J4 evaluates logistics, sustainment, and the consumption of critical resources, including precision-guided munitions. The J5 examines long-range strategy and assesses how today’s operations affect commitments in all the theaters around the world. The J8 evaluates readiness, force structure, industrial capacity, and future requirements.

The president isn’t obligated to listen to the chairman of the Joint Chiefs, or the joint staff, or anyone. As commander-in-chief, his judgment predominates. If the Times’s reporting is correct, and President Trump ordered the strikes against Iran paused or even ended due to concerns about weapons stockpiles, the question for future historians will be: Why now?

Join now

STRATEGY HAS ALWAYS REQUIRED military operations to create political space rather than to substitute for political solutions. Bombs and missiles destroy targets; they do not negotiate agreements, reassure allies, stabilize energy markets, or restore international confidence in freedom of navigation. Those responsibilities belong to diplomacy, economic policy, intelligence, and coalition management. Hints that the Trump administration is considering renewed diplomacy, combined with the growing concerns of Gulf partners about the regional expansion of the conflict, suggest that military operations may finally be creating opportunities for those other instruments of national power to assume greater prominence.

Perhaps that is what makes the silence after thirteen nights so significant. It may have reflected concerns about ammunition inventories. It may have resulted from growing proxy activity, expanding diplomatic efforts, or pressure from regional partners. Most likely, it reflected some combination of all those factors, which together suggest that the campaign was approaching—if not past—its culminating point and was unlikely to produce strategic returns.

We may eventually learn exactly why President Trump ordered the bombing campaign paused. Whatever the explanation proves to be, the more enduring lesson extends well beyond this conflict. Successful governments do not demonstrate strength by refusing to change course. They demonstrate strength by recognizing when circumstances have changed, by adapting before operational success becomes strategic overreach, and by understanding that the purpose of military power is not to maximize destruction but to achieve clearly defined political objectives.

If the halt in bombing reflects that realization, history may judge it as the moment strategy finally began catching up with operations. The silence of the fourteenth night may ultimately prove more consequential than the explosions of the previous thirteen.

Share

WHEN SEN. GARY PETERS QUESTIONED Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth about the administration’s handling of the conflict with Iran, Hegseth responded by accusing Peters of denigrating the military.

That wasn’t what Peters was doing. In fact, even before Peters asked Hegseth a question, he offered comfort to the families of those who had given their lives in the Iran war. “I want to begin by first echoing my colleagues’ comments,” he said, “and joining them in mourning the loss of American service members who were killed in action these few days. My thoughts are with their families, with the service member who remains missing, and with all those injured during the strike. And I will continue to pray for their families.” He very quickly went out of his way to express admiration for the service members carrying out extraordinarily difficult missions: “I have long said the United States has the strongest military in history, in the world, and I have no doubt that our brave service members can execute any mission and prevail in any battle.” His criticism was directed not at the troops, but at the civilian leadership responsible for defining the mission, establishing the strategy, and honestly describing the results. That distinction matters.

When I was a young lieutenant, stationed in Germany on my first assignment, I had a conversation with an old veteran in my unit who had been a medevac helicopter crew chief in Vietnam. He was highly decorated, and he was relaying some of the adventures that were reflected in the medals he wore on his chest.

He was young when he got drafted. He didn’t want to go to war, but he answered his country’s call. He flew hundreds of missions, saved untold numbers of lives, was wounded, recovered, and after a year of service, eventually came home. He told me he was proud of all he did in service to his country—proud enough to choose to make a career in the military—but when his plane landed in San Francisco and he stepped into the terminal wearing his khaki uniform, he experienced something disheartening. As he walked through the airport, strangers cursed him, called him baby killer, and even spat on him.

Then, in a changing mood, he looked down and quietly said something that has stayed with me ever since: “It made that whole year seem like a waste. I didn’t agree with the war, either, but it seemed my fellow citizens were confusing the war with the warrior.”

His disappointment wasn’t rooted in the hardship of combat, because soldiers understand hardship. It was his realization that many Americans could not distinguish between the man who had served and the policy that had sent him there. That confusion reappeared during Secretary Hegseth’s testimony this week.

In our constitutional system, the military does not choose the wars it fights. Soldiers, sailors, airmen, marines, guardians, and coasties execute lawful orders issued by civilian leaders. Their professionalism lies in carrying out those missions to the best of their ability, regardless of the politics and the policies surrounding them. Supporting the military does not require supporting every military operation, nor does questioning the wisdom of a campaign diminish the courage of those asked to fight it.

In fact, the opposite is true.

One of the highest forms of respect all citizens can show our military is demanding that our armed forces be committed only to missions with clear objectives, realistic plans, sufficient resources. This is especially true for those who serve in government who make the decisions—or non-decisions—about war and peace. For our leaders, respecting the military means telling the American people the honest truth about progress and setbacks, casualties and costs. For the rest of us, holding civilian leaders accountable for those responsibilities is our way of honoring those in uniform.

Too often, political leaders blur these lines. When strategy is challenged, they wrap themselves in the valor of the troops. When operational shortcomings are exposed, they imply that criticism somehow insults those risking their lives. This may be an effective political argument, but it is a dangerous civic one. The sacrifice of those in uniform should never become a shield protecting policymakers from legitimate scrutiny.

We owe our warriors gratitude, respect, and every resource necessary to accomplish the missions. We owe our civilian leaders rigorous oversight, honest debate, and accountability for their actions and the missions they assign.

We also owe ourselves, as citizens of a great republic, a government that is responsive to our needs and expectations. That applies to the military as much as to anything else. We respect the troops by ensuring that their missions are aligned with the priorities of the country, and we respect ourselves by ensuring that the bravery and sacrifice of those in uniform doesn’t cause us to forget why their calling is called “service.”

Share