On the Iranian front, the most interesting item over the transom today are new reports vindicating something many analysts have proposed since the beginning of the conflict. Namely, that US’s naval problems in the theater all stemmed from Iran’s deliberate strategy of wiping out US bases in the region, resulting in the extremely inefficient lengthening of US supply chain logistics for war:
The piece asserts that the US Navy’s problems began immediately after Iran’s opening salvo of the war, which saw the Navy’s top regional logistics hub in Bahrain go up in smoke from Iranian missiles and drones:
The aircraft carrier U.S.S. Abraham Lincoln’s supply problems began soon after the first day of the war, as Iranian missiles and attack drones fell on a Navy base in Bahrain.
The Iranian attack, retaliation for the U.S.-Israeli assault on Tehran, destroyed much of the base. And as it went up in smoke, so did a major logistics hub that the Navy has relied on for decades.
The Navy needed a Plan B to continue feeding the sailors working around the clock to keep warplanes flying strike missions, and later to maintain a blockade of Iran’s ports.
Israeli outlets had previously covered the fact that the Pentagon allegedly launched a ‘secret’ operation to essentially retreat strategic assets from within immediate range of Iranian strikes toward “protected rear hubs”, which stretched an aging and sclerotic US military to the brink:
The NYT piece goes on:
The loss of the hub in Bahrain has contributed to a host of reported problems on carriers supporting operations against Iran, as Democratic senators raise concerns about the Lincoln’s 5,000 sailors and their nearly nine-month deployment.
NYT details how the ailing USS Lincoln will now be replaced by the USS George Washington, hobbling over from INDOPACOM, leaving the 7th Fleet with no forward deployed carriers on the critical ‘Chinese front’.
This comes amidst reports that USS Benfold had major “engineering issues” that caused it to go dead for four days in the South China Sea:
Guided-missile destroyer USS Benfold (DDG-65) spent four days in the South China Sea without power after an engineering failure, USNI News has learned.
Benfold suffered the engineering casualty resulting in a loss of power last month, Cmdr. Matthew Comer, spokesperson with U.S. 7th Fleet, told USNI News in a statement.
The loss of power meant sailors were without galley services, toilets and air conditioning. Potable water was also affected, Comer said. He did not respond to a question about how sailors handled waste.
Not far away, another US Arleigh Burke destroyer—some having identified it as DDG-74, though it isn’t fully confirmed—was spotted looking in rough shape, reportedly somewhere near Japan:
The state of the US Navy has shocked observers who were not attuned to such a rapid organizational decline, particularly amidst a major conflict wherein the Navy was meant to play the key sustaining role.
Now WaPo reports that US’s Gulf allies are again reconsidering the deployment of US bases on their territory in frustration for Trump’s erratic and amateurish handling of the Iran conflict:
Some have begun to debate the utility of continuing to host large U.S. military installations on their territory.
“Trump started this war,” one Gulf official said, “and we are paying the price.” Like others in this article, he spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss the sensitive subject. Anger with the United States, the official said, was at its highest point since the U.S. and Israel attacked Iran in February.
The Gulf states continue to rely on Washington as a close security partner and major arms supplier, and Qatar and Bahrain host large U.S. bases. But the frustration is leading some states to consider new arrangements. These dynamics are unlikely in the near term to significantly reorder the region, analysts say, but some countries have begun to explore their options.
We can conclude that Iran’s strategy has worked: Take out US’s eyes and ears in the region by targeting radar systems, saturate air defenses—whose stocks can’t be regenerated—with cheap drones and throwaway first-gen ballistic missiles; then when the battlefield has been sufficiently shaped, begin throwing in the most advanced and accurate ballistic missiles to hit the actual logistics nodes, base C2 HQs, etc., to cause US to scramble its entire tail out as far out of range as possible. This then strains the degraded logistics chain to the point of breaking, as we’re seeing now with the striking deterioration of morale.
The U.S. military has lost at least 45 MQ-9 Reaper drones during the war with Iran, or roughly 25 percent of its fleet, according to three U.S. officials familiar with the matter.
As noted above, WaPo “confirms” the US lost 45 Reapers, equivalent to 25% of the entire drone fleet. Some have added that the Houthis had already taken out an additional 10% or so, which would likely edge it closer toward 35% total lost in the past year or two.
Interestingly, WaPo reports not all were shot down but many apparently fell victim to Iran’s—perhaps Russian-sourced—EW:
A fourth U.S. official, who like the others spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss Pentagon data, said that not all of the lost Reapers were shot down. An unspecified number crashed after their operators’ communications link to the drones failed, the official said.
In truth, the losses likely represent even more than 35% because the total number of drones in the fleet does not necessarily mean they’re all in usable or flyaway shape, at least at any given time.
Amidst the total lack of military options, the US continues to stall for time, plying its charade of “controlling the Strait”. Ex-Congresswoman Marjorie Taylor Greene claimed to have insider info as to what kinds of desperate options are actually now being put on the table in Trump’s manic war room:
Well, when you run out of usable munitions—for both attacking and defending yourself—one supposes that the consideration of an all out nuclear option is only logical—in a manner of sheer desperation. Given that America’s decline is clearly on its final terminal arc, it would almost be a kind of poetic valediction, in a twisted sort of way: the country which rose to ‘superpower’ prominence with the first ever use of nuclear weapons in 1945 comes full circle to reach its waning civilizational surrender with another final nuclear send-off.
More likely though, no such thing will happen, and the only thing resembling nuclear fallout will be the US economy, with the continuation of Trump’s blind intransigence on the Iranian issue. We’ve now seen that he is willing to stake everything on his Hormuz vanity project, including the wellbeing and livelihoods of all Americans.
Yesterday, he remarked that the economy was doing “unbelievably….from the standpoint of Wall Street”—a rather gobsmackingly disconnected bit of messaging. Soon after he explained that rising gas prices are a small price to pay for stopping an “evil country” from having nuclear weapons—all after having promised lower gas prices in 2024:
But many such “small prices” can rather quickly add up to one big price.
Your support is invaluable. If you enjoyed the read, I would greatly appreciate if you subscribed to a monthly/yearly pledge to support my work, so that I may continue providing you with detailed, incisive reports like this one.
Alternatively, you can tip here: buymeacoffee.com/Simplicius
Even if the base in Bahrain was untouched, there's still no way to get supplies through the Strait, so congratulations to whatever genius thought that one up. Either way, the navies of ALL the western countries are in really, really bad shape. I think Britain is down to what? A single operable submarine? And France had to send the CDG back home a few months ago as well. Pretty odd spectacle to observe, albeit a welcomed one.
"The loss of power meant sailors were without galley services, toilets and air conditioning. Potable water was also affected, Comer said. He did not respond to a question about how sailors handled waste."
How does this even happen? Every ship I ever worked on had (at least) two diesel generators that were independent of the main engine(s) and had their own dedicated electrical panel for distribution to the ship's grid. Redundancy is a major consideration when designing ships as you can't exactly pull into a service station when something goes wrong. I can't believe a navy ship wasn't designed with the same considerations, so what exactly is going on here?