Ukrainian military drone shot down over NATO country, prompting apologies



Ukrainian military hardware appears to have once again endangered the people of a NATO member nation.

Estonian Prime Minister Kristen Michal announced on Tuesday that "a drone entering Estonian airspace was detected quickly and shot down over Southern Estonia by a NATO Air Policing fighter jet."

'These trajectories have to be as far from the NATO territory as possible.'

Michal thanked Estonia's "NATO allies, the Romanian Air Force, and the fighter pilots who carried out this mission with professionalism and precision," adding that "NATO is vigilant, prepared, and capable of acting rapidly when needed."

Hanno Pevkur, the defense minister for the Baltic nation of 1.36 million souls, confirmed that a Romanian Air Force F-16 pilot participating in a training flight shot down the drone using a single missile. The remains of the drone crashed several hundred meters away from a residential building in the Central Estonian town of Põltsamaa.

A resident told state media that he saw two fighter jets soar overhead, then heard a loud bang.

"There was a loud blast, and I saw the drone falling from the sky," said the witness. "As it was already close to the ground, I heard another blast."

It's presently unclear whether the drone was carrying any warheads.

Heorhii Tykhyi, a spokesperson for Ukraine, apologized to Estonia "for such unintended incidents," reported DW.

RELATED: Killer drones have conquered the skies. Can we ever be safe again?

Sergei SUPINSKY/AFP/Getty Images

The Estonian Defense Forces claimed that the Ukrainian drone stole into Estonian airspace "under the conditions of heavy electronic warfare, including GPS spoofing and jamming, by Russia."

Defense Minister Pevkur said in an interview with Estonian Public Broadcasting that Ukrainian officials — who do not have permission to use Estonian airspace — "have indeed apologized, but they have also reaffirmed that they are doing everything on their part to ensure that these drones do not enter NATO airspace."

Pevkur expressed some frustration with Kyiv, telling the Associated Press, "We’ve said to the Ukrainians all the time that if you’re attacking Russian positions or Russian targets, then these trajectories have to be as far from the NATO territory as possible."

The Estonian Internal Security Service has launched a criminal investigation into the aerial intrusion.

In recent months, numerous Ukrainian military drones have entered the airspace of friendly neighboring countries.

A pair of Ukrainian drones entered Estonian and Latvian airspace on March 25, for example. One of the drones struck Estonia's Auvere power ⁠station and the other crash-landed. Officials suggested that the drones were supposed to be part of a Ukrainian attack on Russia.

Days later, two drones entered Finnish airspace, then crashed near the city of Kouvola. Finnish Prime Minister Petteri Orpo told his country's state media that the drones appeared to be of Ukrainian origin.

Earlier this month, two more Ukrainian drones strayed into NATO airspace, crashing ultimately on Latvian soil. Reuters reported that one of the drones exploded at an oil storage facility, damaging four tanks.

Drones aren't the only unwanted surprises Ukraine had sent into NATO's back yard.

A S-300 air defense missile landed in Poland on Nov. 15, 2022, rocking the village of Przewodów and killing two farm workers.

Ukrainian officials and numerous media outlets — including the Associated Press, CNN, CBS News, and Fox News — rushed to suggest that the explosion was the handiwork of the Russians, which would have been sufficient to trigger articles 4 and 5 of the NATO charter, potentially putting the U.S. into direct conflict with the nuclear power.

Volodymyr Zelenskyy, the Ukrainian president whose term officially ended in May 2024, said in the wake of the deadly explosion, "Russian missiles hit Poland, the territory of our friendly country. People died."

The Polish and American governments rejected the suggestion that Russia fired the missile, noting instead that it was likely a Ukrainian missile that had accidentally been lobbed into a NATO country.

Dmytro Kuleba, Ukraine's foreign minister at the time, called the claim that the explosion was caused by Ukraine a "conspiracy theory."

Polish investigators, denied any relevant intelligence from Kyiv, later claimed that the missile was fired by Ukraine. The particular missile that landed in Przewodów has a maximum range of 56 miles, and Russian forces were nowhere near close enough to land the shot.

Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

The Pentagon is blowing a fortune fighting bargain-bin drones



For the past two years, one image has circulated among defense analysts: a U.S. Navy destroyer firing a Standard Missile-2, which costs about $2.1 million, to intercept a Houthi drone that likely cost $2,000.

Nobody in that chain made a bad decision. The ship had to be defended. But the Navy has now fired more than 200 such missiles in the Red Sea since late 2023 at a cost of hundreds of millions of dollars. Project that math onto future conflicts — Taiwan, the Baltics, the Persian Gulf — and the picture gets alarming fast.

Sophistication matters. Volume matters more. Flexibility may matter most of all.

The standard answer is to demand better technology: lasers, interceptor drones, smarter jamming. But that misses what Ukraine has shown over three years of the largest sustained drone war in history. Much of the technology needed to defeat cheap drones at reasonable cost already exists. What America lacks is the doctrine, procurement flexibility, and industrial base to field it at scale.

What defenders need is simpler: distributed sensors, disciplined targeting, and layered defenses that match the cheapest effective response to each threat.

Ukraine now produces about 1,500 interceptor drones per day. They cost $1,200 and $4,700 apiece, a fraction of the $29,100 to $46,520 Shahed drones they destroy. One in three Russian aerial threats over Ukraine is now brought down by an interceptor drone rather than a missile. Ukraine’s overall interception rate sits around 80%, achieved not through Patriot batteries alone but through layers of cheap, rapidly iterated hardware built by 450 domestic manufacturers.

Ukraine’s advantage is not just volume. It is decentralization. Units, volunteers, and defense-tech firms operate in a flexible ecosystem that lets them adapt systems to terrain, weather, and enemy tactics as conditions change.

The American model moves the other way: centralized requirements, standardized programs, and long acquisition cycles. That system can produce extraordinary weapons. It cannot adapt when the battlefield changes faster than the program office. The United States faces different constraints, especially at sea and across global commitments, but the underlying economics do not change.

As of 2022, the United States was producing roughly 500 to 600 Patriot missiles per year. That stock can be burned through in weeks during a high-intensity conflict. This is not a missile-design flaw. It is the result of three decades of underinvestment in manufacturing capacity and a procurement system optimized for sophistication over volume. America still buys platforms better than it buys kill chains — the linked system of sensors, decisions, and interceptors — and counter-drone defense demands the reverse.

Meanwhile, Russia, working from Iranian Shahed blueprints, scaled launches to more than 44,000 in the first 10 months of 2025, four times the previous year’s rate. The United States is now in an industrial competition and, on current trajectory, losing it on volume.

RELATED: The combination that can renew America’s defense industry

Sean Gallup/Getty Images

The tactical lessons from Ukraine are hardly mysterious. Detect early, match the weapon to the threat, and keep defenses mobile. Ukraine’s mobile fire groups — pickup trucks with machine guns and thermal imagers — proved effective enough that Russia rushed to copy them, with limited success. Israel’s Iron Beam laser intercepts threats at roughly $2 to $5 per shot. These systems work.

The problem is that “works in Ukraine” and “enters U.S. inventory at scale” are separated by an acquisition process that takes years, prizes exquisite performance over adequate volume, and was never designed for six-week innovation cycles.

The 2020 war in Nagorno-Karabakh offers another warning. Armenia’s air defenses collapsed not because drones are invincible, but because Armenia lacked modern, layered defenses. Institutional neglect, not technological inevitability, proved decisive.

None of this means expensive interceptors are obsolete. Advanced threats still require advanced interceptors. And as CSIS has noted, a $2 million missile protecting a $2 billion ship and its crew is rational. The point is not to abandon high-end systems. It is to stop treating them as the first and only answer to every aerial threat and to build the lower tiers of the defense stack with the same urgency we bring to the top.

That means procurement reform that many defense insiders regard as somewhere between very hard and politically impossible. It means accepting lower unit performance in exchange for higher production volume, a trade the Pentagon’s acquisition culture instinctively resists. It means pressuring major defense contractors to share production with smaller, faster manufacturers.

Sophistication matters. Volume matters more. Flexibility may matter most of all.

Ukraine learned that lesson under bombardment, because it had no choice. The United States still has the luxury of learning it in advance.

The danger is that luxury breeds delay.

Trump demands other nations clear Strait of Hormuz, claims NATO's future at stake



President Donald Trump seeks to enlist the international community in helping the United States clear the Strait of Hormuz and suggested that a lackluster showing by NATO members may place the alliance's future in doubt.

Trump said in a Truth Social post on Saturday, "The United States of America has beaten and completely decimated Iran, both Militarily, Economically, and in every other way, but the Countries of the World that receive Oil through the Hormuz Strait must take care of that passage, and we will help — A LOT!"

'Whatever it takes.'

"The U.S. will also coordinate with those Countries so that everything goes quickly, smoothly, and well," continued Trump. "This should have always been a team effort, and now it will be — It will bring the World together toward Harmony, Security, and Everlasting Peace!"

After the U.S. and Israel again bombed Iran last month, Tehran effectively closed the Strait of Hormuz in what War Secretary Pete Hegseth said on Friday was an act of "sheer desperation" that people "don't need to worry about."

According to Lloyd's List Intelligence, 16 commercial vessels have been attacked in and around the Strait of Hormuz since the outset of the conflict. The attacks, effected largely with surface-to-surface missiles but also with the use of drones and mines, have killed numerous crew members and forced others — at least in the case of the Safeen Prestige, a container ship flying under the flag of Malta — to abandon ship.

The strait's corresponding closure has proven globally consequential, as roughly one-fifth of the world's oil normally transits the strait, which lies between Iran and Oman and links the Persian Gulf with the Gulf of Oman.

RELATED: The most honest phrase you’ll hear all week

Photo by Nikolas Kokovlis/NurPhoto via Getty Images

Energy prices have skyrocketed in recent weeks. The price of Brent crude, for example, was over $100 per barrel ahead of market opening on Monday. U.S. gas prices are reportedly at their highest level since Oct. 7, 2023.

Patrick De Haan, head of petroleum analysis at GasBuddy, noted on Sunday, "Americans today will spend $300 million more on gasoline than they did 30 days ago."

On Saturday, Trump specifically expressed hope that China, France, Japan, South Korea, and Britain "will send Ships to the area so that the Hormuz Strait will no longer be a threat by a Nation that has been totally decapitated."

Trump told the Financial Times the next day that it is "only appropriate that people who are the beneficiaries of the Strait will help to make sure that nothing bad happens there."

"If there’s no response or if it’s a negative response, I think it will be very bad for the future of NATO," added Trump, who told U.K. Prime Minister Keir Starmer on March 7 that he didn't need the help of British aircraft carriers.

"We have a thing called NATO," Trump told the Times. "We’ve been very sweet. We didn’t have to help them with Ukraine. Ukraine is thousands of miles away from us ... but we helped them. Now we’ll see if they help us. Because I’ve long said that we’ll be there for them but they won’t be there for us. And I’m not sure that they’d be there."

When asked what kind of help is needed, the president said, "Whatever it takes."

It appears that some nations are not in a rush to help.

Japanese Prime Minister Sane Takaichi said her nation, which has begun releasing oil reserves, has yet to make "any decisions whatsoever about dispatching escort ships," reported the Independent.

Australian Transport Minister Catherine King said her country "won't be sending a ship to the Strait of Hormuz," adding that "we know how incredibly important that is, but that’s not something we’ve been asked or we’re contributing to."

Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

What History Tells Us About Trump’s Plan To Defeat Iran By Air

President Donald Trump called for Iran’s “unconditional surrender” on March 6. But can he do that with U.S. air power alone? The answer is likely yes — if the Iranian people themselves are also the “boots on the ground.” Air power advocates have promised decisive results since the Italian general Giulio Douhet authored “The Command […]

Israeli strike rocks meeting to choose Iran’s next supreme leader, official claims



The Israeli military has carried out a strike on Iran’s Supreme Council during a meeting to select a new supreme leader, an Israeli official claims.

A senior Israeli official told Fox News that the attack happened on Tuesday “while they were counting the votes for the appointment of the supreme leader.” The strike reportedly took place in Tehran, where the regime’s remaining senior officials were gathered to determine who would replace the late Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, who died in a strike over the weekend.

Israeli analysts estimate more than 1,000 enemy combatants have been killed inside Iran since the campaign began.

The bombing is one of the most direct blows yet against Iran’s political command structure as part of the joint U.S. and Israeli campaign now entering its fourth day. Since the launch of the coordinated operations targeting Iranian leadership and infrastructure, more than 40 of Iran’s top leaders, including Khamenei, have reportedly been killed, fracturing the regime’s chain of command.

Israeli analysts estimate more than 1,000 enemy combatants have been killed inside Iran since the campaign began.

RELATED: Iranian state TV hijacked with Trump, Netanyahu message urging citizens to 'seize control'

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has framed the broader operation as necessary to dismantle Iran’s ballistic missile and nuclear capabilities, arguing the regime’s long-term objective threatens not only Israel but the West.

Vice President JD Vance says that the administration’s objective remains limited: Prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon and ensure it cannot rebuild that capability.

"There's just no way that Donald Trump is going to allow this country to get into a multi-year conflict, with no clear end in sight and no clear objective," Vance said, according to Fox News. "He's defined that objective as Iran cannot have a nuclear weapon and has to commit long-term to never trying to rebuild the nuclear capability."

Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

Netanyahu denies forcing US into war after mixed messages from Rubio, Johnson



In his Monday appearance on Fox News' "Hannity," Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu defended the latest U.S.-Israeli military operation against Iran and denied the dominant interpretation of Secretary of State Marco Rubio's and House Speaker Mike Johnson's recent remarks about the genesis of the attacks.

Compelled to act?

The Trump administration attempted on Monday to address the mounting confusion about the justification and objectives for the Iran strikes.

'We knew that that would precipitate an attack against American forces.'

As part of this broader effort, Rubio told reporters on Capitol Hill, "Why now? The first is it was abundantly clear that if Iran came under attack by anyone, the United States or Israel or anyone, they were going to respond and respond against the United States."

"The assessment that was made that if we stood and waited for that attack to come first before we hit them, we would suffer much higher casualties," said Rubio.

"We knew that there was going to be an Israeli action, we knew that that would precipitate an attack against American forces, and we knew that if we didn’t preemptively go after them before they launched those attacks, we would suffer higher casualties and perhaps even higher [than] those killed," continued the secretary. "And then we would all be here answering questions about why we knew that and didn’t act."

House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.), a member of the Gang of Eight who was briefed ahead of the resumption of strikes against Iran on Feb. 28, echoed Rubio, suggesting to reporters that the strikes were a "defensive measure."

"Israel was determined to act in their own defense here with or without American support," said Johnson, suggesting further that Iran posed an "existential threat" to Israel, and its missile production was outstripping "our allies in the region."

RELATED: Iranian state TV hijacked with Trump, Netanyahu message urging citizens to 'seize control'

Fatemeh Bahrami/Anadolu via Getty Images

"Because Israel was determined to act with or without the U.S., our commander in chief and the administration and the officials I just named had a very difficult decision to make," continued Johnson. "They had to evaluate the threats to the U.S. — to our troops, to our installations, to our assets in the region and beyond — and they determined because of the exquisite intelligence that we had that if Israel fired upon Iran and took action against Iran to take out the missiles, then they would have immediately retaliated against U.S. personnel and assets."

The suggestion that probable blowback from an ally's planned preemptive attack on another country forced America's involvement in a deadly conflict prompted outrage and debate — even on the right.

Conservative commentator Matt Walsh, for instance, said in response to Rubio's statement, "So he's flat out telling us that we're in a war with Iran because Israel forced our hand. This is basically the worst possible thing he could have said."

RELATED: Poll: GOP voters' lukewarm support for Iran strikes significantly lower than past conflicts

Photo by Joe Raedle/Getty Images

On the flip side, National Review editor Philip Klein suggested that critics had misconstrued Rubio's meaning.

Klein noted that later in Rubio's press conference, the secretary of state said that the U.S. was not forced to strike because of an impending Israeli action and that "this operation needed to happen because Iran in about a year or a year and a half would cross the line of immunity, meaning they would have so many short-range missiles, so many drones, that no one could do anything about it because they could hold the whole world hostage."

'Nobody drags Donald Trump into anything.'

Democrats such as Sen. Ruben Gallego (Ariz.), Rep. Pramila Jayapal (Wash.), and former Biden White House Domestic Policy Council Director Neera Tanden made hay of Rubio's and/or Johnson's remarks as did Iran's Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi, who stated, "Mr. Rubio admitted what we all knew: U.S. has entered a war of choice on behalf of Israel. There was never any so-called Iranian 'threat.' Shedding of both American and Iranian blood is thus on Israel Firsters."

The outrage over the suggestion that America's hand was forced not by an enemy but by a friend appears to have prompted a response from President Donald Trump, who noted on Monday evening,

The Radical Left Democrats, a Party that has completely lost its way, are complaining bitterly about the very necessary and important attack, by the United States and Israel, on Iran. What most people understand is that they are only complaining BECAUSE I DID IT and, if I didn’t do it, they would be screaming — Why didn’t “TRUMP” attack Iran, he should do it, IMMEDIATELY?

Trump then urged his followers to watch Netanyahu's interview on Fox News, where Hannity asked the Israeli prime minister about the forced-to-act claim.

"There are people that say, 'Well, the prime minister of Israel dragged Donald Trump into it,'" said Hannity. "As somebody that's been friends with him over 30 years, nobody drags Donald Trump into anything, number one, but I want to get your reaction to that."

Netanyahu laughed, then said, "Well, you're right. I mean that's — that's ridiculous. Donald Trump is the strongest leader in the world. He does what he thinks is right for America. He does also what he thinks is right for future generations, and frankly, we're partners in that effort."

The Israeli leader suggested that it was necessary to strike because Iran "started building new sites, new places, underground bunkers that would make their ballistic missile program and their atomic bomb programs immune within months. If no action was taken now, no action could be taken in the future."

Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

Iran, China, and Trump’s ‘art of the squeal’



The combined bombing campaign that began in Iran Saturday morning, decapitating senior leadership and hammering military targets across the map, may look like a massive undertaking.

And it is — for Israel.

Iran looks like an existential threat.

It is — for Israel.

An invasion does not run on slogans. It runs on fuel.

For the United States, the existential threat sits elsewhere. Iran has financed and fueled anti-American violence for 47 years — from the 1979 hostage crisis to the Beirut barracks bombing in 1983, from Hezbollah and the Houthis to the IED pipeline that chewed up Americans in Iraq and Afghanistan. President Trump on Saturday morning laid out a clean rationale for turning the mullahs’ war machine into mulch and ending, once and for all, Tehran’s nuclear obsession.

Still, the bigger strategic picture points east — to China.

Beijing’s global ambitions rise and fall on one commodity that keeps modern economies alive and modern militaries moving: oil. If you want to understand why pressure on Iran matters beyond the Middle East, start with the tankers.

Xi Jinping has ordered the People’s Liberation Army to be ready for Taiwan by 2027. Call it an invasion timeline or call it a readiness deadline — the intent reads the same.

China has spent years preparing the battlefield: artificial islands to extend maritime control, relentless air and naval exercises that rehearse the encirclement of Taiwan, and a missile force built to hunt U.S. ships and push America back behind the horizon.

That missile layer — DF-21s and DF-26s — supports the bigger concept: anti-access/area denial. China wants to make U.S. intervention costly, slow, and uncertain. It wants American commanders staring at a clock they cannot beat.

Washington answered with its own doctrine and its own race against time. The U.S. built concepts like AirSea Battle doctrine and pushed Agile Combat Employment — a dispersed, resilient approach designed to survive missile salvos and keep aircraft flying. The Air Force started rehabilitating old Pacific airfields and expanding access across Guam, Saipan, and especially Tinian, because the next war in the Pacific will punish concentration.

Then Orange Man Bad made two moves in two months that hit Xi exactly where he lives. Not more nasty rhetoric on Truth Social or posturing. Logistics.

First, the United States seized Nicolás Maduro and dumped him in a Brooklyn jail. That operation did more than embarrass a dictator. It jolted the real-world flow of Venezuelan crude — and with it, a slice of China’s import stream that Beijing prefers to keep quiet, rebranded, and discounted. Analysts peg Venezuela’s contribution to China’s seaborne crude imports in the low single digits, roughly 3% to 5% depending on the year and the counting method. In Beijing’s world, even “small” percentages matter when the margin for error narrows.

Second, the joint strike campaign against Iran instantly put a hand on another lever: Iranian exports.

RELATED: Israeli officials say Khamenei is dead. Update: Trump confirms.

Photo by Mario Tama/Getty Images

China buys the bulk of Iran’s shipped oil. Various trackers place Iranian barrels at roughly 10% to 15% of China’s seaborne crude imports in recent years. Tehran sells because it needs the cash. Beijing buys because it wants the discount. Trump’s move did not need to “block” every barrel to land the message. It only needed to introduce uncertainty, disruption, rerouting, insurance spikes, interdiction risk, and political friction. Oil markets react to fear faster than to facts.

Put the two together, and the math starts to hurt: a meaningful share of China’s oil — not symbolic, not academic — now sits under pressure from U.S. action in Venezuela and Iran.

That creates a Taiwan problem.

An invasion does not run on slogans. It runs on fuel. It runs on shipping. It runs on industrial output. It runs on a domestic economy that stays stable while the military gambles. Xi can build missiles all day long, but he cannot launch an island war on an economy gasping for discounted crude.

So yes, the current Iran campaign matters for the obvious reasons: international terrorism, Hezbollah, the Houthis, the nuclear program. Those are legitimate reasons for “Epic Fury.”

Trump’s larger play hits the supply lines that make China’s invasion timetable plausible.

In only two months, Trump has put Xi in the position of a man getting a testicular palpation from a recalcitrant physician in a hurry.

Do not distract him. He might clench.

I think Trump wrote a book about it, or he should. Call it “The Art of the Squeal.”

Would Iran strikes 2.0 exhaust America's munitions?



Military officials, defense analysts, and critics have issued numerous warnings in recent years about the state of America's military readiness.

While the Trump administration has taken steps to address some of the problems identified by scrutineers, there is at least one outstanding issue that could impact America's ability to wage a protracted ballistic war against its adversaries, namely its depleted stores of critical munitions.

'I don't want our adversaries to think for a second that we don’t have enough resources.'

Two U.S. military officials recently told the New York Times that the Department of War presently lacks the requisite forces and munitions for an extended bombing campaign against Iran.

One of the officials suggested that the American forces presently positioned in the region could continue strikes in the region for only seven to 10 days.

Christian Brose, the president of the American defense firm Anduril, similarly suggested earlier this week in a piece for the Wall Street Journal that "in a conflict with China, the U.S. would run out of critical munitions in days, according to the results of war games."

Amid such chatter and mounting concerns over what America's stockpiles might look like in the wake of a lengthier conflict with Iran, Pentagon spokesman Sean Parnell said in a statement to Politico, "The Department of War has everything it needs to execute any mission at the time and place of the president’s choosing and on any timeline."

RELATED: Nukes by the numbers: A problem we can’t wish away

Handout photo by Mass Communication Specialist 1st Class Jesse Monford/U.S. Navy via Getty Images

The Pentagon's confidence notwithstanding, some American officials and analysts are worried about how America's stockpiles will look after a potential conflict with Iran.

After all, by arming Ukraine for its ongoing war with Russia, bombing Houthi terrorists in Yemen, vaporizing numerous alleged Venezuelan drug-runners, and helping to protect Israel — which has its own sophisticated albeit depleted missile defense system — from regional threats, the U.S. has reportedly burned through a great many Patriot missiles, Standard Missile-3s, and Terminal High Altitude Area Defense interceptors.

According to American Enterprise Institute fellows Mackenzie Eaglen and Todd Harrison, the U.S. expended over 150 THAAD anti-ballistic missile interceptors defending Israel in June 2025 during its 12-day conflict with Iran.

That's reportedly nearly 25% of its total number of THAAD interceptors and reportedly three times the average annual procurement since 2010.

Each THAAD interceptor is valued at approximately $12.7 million.

The AEI duo noted that during the same conflict, the U.S. also launched over 80 Standard Missile-3 interceptors.

According to a December report by the Center for Strategic and International Studies, the SM-3 missiles fired last June — which range in cost from around $9.6 million to $27.9 million — represented nearly one-fifth of the military's stockpile at the end of 2025.

"If the Iranians can deplete 25% of America’s THAAD stocks and a significant portion of our SM-3 magazines in a few days, the Chinese can and will exhaust them in a few hours," wrote the AEI duo, who proposed that the military "regain its ability to compete at scale."

American forces in the Red Sea have also expended a significant number of munitions battling Houthi terrorists in recent years.

Stars and Stripes reported last month that Navy forces had fired over 200 missiles and 150 artillery rounds in response to Houthi attacks since November 2023.

Vice Admiral Brendan McLane, commander of Naval Surface Forces, told Stripes that over the past 15 months or so, the Navy had fired 120 SM-2, 80 SM-6, and 20 Evolve Sea Sparrow and SM-3 missiles.

SM-2 and SM-6 missiles roughly cost $2.1 million and $3.9 million each, respectively.

While Rep. Ken Calvert (R-Calif.) acknowledged to Politico that munitions scarcity was "not a secret," he indicated that assembly lines for air defenses such as THAAD systems and Patriot interceptors have been "set up, and they just have to maximize, with double or triple shifts."

"I don't want our adversaries to think for a second that we don’t have enough resources," Calvert added. "We do."

Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

After the bombs, Iran sharpens its digital daggers



The footage was unmistakable: plumes of smoke rising over Iran’s nuclear sites, a fiery punctuation mark on years of brinkmanship and intelligence coups. With one sweeping air campaign, the United States delivered a message: The Islamic Republic won’t cross the nuclear threshold.

But anyone assuming the threat has been neutralized is mistaken. Iran’s nuclear humiliation may hasten a shift already under way — from building bombs to waging war through digital disruption.

Cyber warfare offers something the mullahs crave: the ability to humiliate, disrupt, and retaliate without risking direct military confrontation.

Even as diplomats celebrate a ceasefire, cybersecurity experts remain on alert. In 2025, a regime doesn’t need enriched uranium to paralyze an enemy. It needs a cadre of skilled hackers, access to stolen exploits, and no scruples about targeting civilian infrastructure.

Iran’s cyber playbook didn’t appear overnight. In 2012, the Shamoon virus devastated Saudi Aramco’s systems, wiping tens of thousands of computers. Since then, Tehran has steadily advanced its cyber operations.

Today, Iran commands a capable and motivated digital force. With its nuclear facilities in ruins, the regime has every reason to flex other muscles. Cyber warfare offers something the mullahs crave: the ability to humiliate, disrupt, and retaliate without risking direct military confrontation.

They’re not the first to embrace this model.

Russia, long dominant in the cyber realm, has hammered Ukraine with digital attacks targeting power grids, satellites, and financial systems. Criminal groups like Conti and Black Basta operate under Moscow’s protection, extorting ransoms and leaking stolen data to sow chaos.

This blending of espionage, sabotage, and state-backed crime has become a blueprint for autocracies under pressure. Iran, hemmed in by sanctions and unrest, doesn’t need to invent the model. It just needs to adopt it.

Most Americans still think of cyberwar as an abstract threat — something IT departments handle behind the scenes. That complacency works to our enemies’ advantage.

Take zero-day vulnerabilities: flaws in software even the developers don’t yet know exist. They’re sold on dark markets for eye-watering sums and let hostile actors bypass traditional defenses undetected.

Then there’s Chaos RAT, a remote access trojan capable of burrowing into a network and sitting dormant for months. Once triggered, it can steal sensitive data, erase backups, or crash entire systems on command.

Iran possesses both the motive and the skill to deploy these weapons — and the timing couldn’t be better for the regime. With its nuclear program crippled, it needs a new front to demonstrate relevance.

RELATED: Google confirms Iranian hacking group targeted Trump, Harris presidential campaigns

daoleduc via iStock/Getty Images

China’s cyber militias show what’s possible. Groups like APT Silver Fox specialize in patient infiltration, building access over years. Iran lacks Beijing’s global reach, but the methods are accessible. Tehran’s hackers borrow code from Russia, shop the same black markets, and lease infrastructure from the same digital underworld.

The global cyber arena now functions like a black-market bazaar: fluid alliances, shared tradecraft, and few rules. Almost everything’s for sale.

So while headlines tout the ceasefire between Israel and Iran, they miss the next act. No truce binds a nation’s hackers. Cyber operations offer deniability by design. When a hospital network locks up or a power grid fails, Tehran’s response will be predictable: denial, distraction, and a smirk about the West’s poor “cyber hygiene.”

Expect Iran to probe how far it can push in cyberspace without drawing more missiles in return. And unless the West prepares accordingly, those probes may succeed.

America still leads the world in conventional firepower. But cyber defense remains its soft underbelly. Agencies like the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency have made strides, but critical infrastructure — power plants, water systems, hospitals — still run on aging software and patchwork security.

Iran doesn’t need to destroy a city to spread fear. A flip of a switch in a power station or the theft of sensitive government files can inflict lasting damage — and create leverage.

This imbalance between battlefield dominance and digital vulnerability demands urgent correction.

Cybersecurity must move from an IT line item to a strategic national priority. That means building AI-driven detection systems, developing real deterrence for cyberattacks, and forging public-private partnerships to defend vital infrastructure.

Iran’s nuclear setback matters. But no bomb erases a hacker’s know-how. No missile strike disables an ideology that thrives on asymmetrical warfare.

The coming months will test whether the West has learned anything. Tehran’s leaders need to prove they still have teeth. While their nuclear ambitions smolder, their cyber arsenal remains sharp — and likely emboldened.

The next war may not begin with jets roaring over deserts. It may start silently in the fluorescent-lit halls of a data center, where intruders already hide behind blinking servers, waiting.

In that theater, the rules are different — and the consequences no less severe.

America Needs Stronger Missile Defenses Against Expanding Enemy Arsenals

Our enemies fear the strategic edge Golden Dome would give us and are desperate to stop it before it starts.