President Donald Trump has projected confidence throughout Operation Epic Fury, the US-Israeli campaign against Iran that began on 28 February 2026. In public statements, including a recent Cabinet meeting, he has claimed Iran has "very few rockets left" and that its missile capabilities have been dramatically degraded or "obliterated."

Yet a Reuters report citing five US intelligence sources paints a more cautious picture. As of late March 2026 — nearly a month into the operation — the United States can only confirm with certainty the destruction of about one third of Iran's vast missile arsenal. The status of another third remains unclear, though strikes have likely damaged, destroyed, or buried many in underground tunnels and bunkers. The final third is presumed still available in some form.

This gap between optimistic public messaging and the intelligence reality highlights a hard truth about modern warfare against a determined, dug-in adversary: degrading a missile-heavy force is rarely clean or quick.

The Scale of Iran's Arsenal and the Challenges of Assessment

Before the current conflict, Israel estimated Iran possessed around 2,500 ballistic missiles capable of reaching its territory, supported by hundreds of launchers. Many of these assets are stored in extensive underground facilities — hardened sites that have proven resilient to airstrikes. Iran has invested heavily in tunnels, bunkers, and dispersal tactics precisely to survive this kind of campaign.

US Central Command reports significant progress: Iranian missile and drone attacks have dropped by about 90%, over 66% of production facilities and shipyards have been hit, and more than 10,000 military targets struck overall. Israeli assessments claim around 70% of launch capacity neutralised (over 335 launchers). Yet confirming exact destruction from the air remains difficult. Buried missiles may be recoverable later. Production lines can be repaired or relocated. And Iran has shown it can still launch smaller salvos, including recent strikes on the UAE and a long-range shot toward Diego Garcia.

Experts note that the "last 30%" of any such arsenal is often the hardest to eliminate. Mobile launchers, decoys, and deeply buried stockpiles complicate the maths. As one analyst put it, Iran's ability to sustain even reduced fire suggests US/Israeli success may have been somewhat overstated in public.

Trump's Claims vs Intelligence Reality

The contrast is stark. Trump's statements emphasise overwhelming dominance — navy largely sunk, air force degraded, missile production hammered. The administration's goal is clear: cripple Iran's conventional missile threat and prevent any path to nuclear weapons.

Intelligence sources, however, urge caution. One senior official admitted uncertainty about buried assets: "I don't know if we'll ever have an accurate number." Democratic Rep. Seth Moulton suggested Iran may be conserving remaining missiles, "laying in wait." This doesn't mean the campaign is failing — production capacity is being systematically targeted — but it does mean complete neutralisation could take far longer than initial boasts implied.

Could This Drag On Until the Last Missile… Then the Rocks?

In principle, yes. Iran's strategy appears to be attrition and survival: fire when possible, hide the rest, absorb punishment, and hope international pressure or US domestic politics forces a pause. With a significant residual stockpile potentially intact or recoverable, Tehran can continue sporadic attacks on shipping in the Strait of Hormuz, Gulf targets, or Israel.

As missiles run low, the conflict risks descending into lower-tech resistance — drones, rockets, proxies, and eventually small arms or improvised attacks. The phrase "until the last missile, then they throw rocks" captures the grim logic of asymmetric warfare. A state with deep tunnels, dispersed forces, and ideological commitment can prolong fighting even after losing sophisticated capabilities. We've seen versions of this in Gaza, Lebanon, and elsewhere: high-tech superiority meets dug-in resilience.

For the US and Israel, the dilemma is real. Continuing methodical strikes burns expensive munitions (Tomahawks are reportedly being expended rapidly), risks escalation (including with Iranian proxies or opportunistic moves by Russia/China), and strains alliances. Stopping short leaves Iran with enough missiles to threaten shipping lanes, regional bases, or future reconstitution. The underground nature of much of the arsenal makes a decisive "mission accomplished" elusive.

Broader Implications

This episode underscores the limits of air power against a prepared adversary. Space assets, cyber operations, and special forces can degrade capabilities, but verifying and finishing the job on the ground (or through sustained bombing) is another matter. It also highlights the fog of war in real time: public optimism serves morale and deterrence, while intelligence briefings remain sober.

For Australia and other nations reliant on stable energy flows through the Strait of Hormuz, a protracted conflict carries economic risks. Oil price spikes, shipping disruptions, and refugee flows could follow if the war grinds on.

The coming weeks will test whether intensified strikes can push Iran toward meaningful concessions or if the conflict settles into a war of attrition. Complete missile elimination may prove illusory; the realistic aim is reducing the threat to a manageable level while crippling reconstitution and nuclear ambitions.

In the end, modern conflicts against tunnel-dependent regimes rarely end with a single dramatic knockout. They often fade into exhaustion — after the last guided missile is gone, the rocks may fly, but the strategic balance will have shifted decisively against the side that started with the bigger, more vulnerable arsenal.

https://www.reuters.com/world/middle-east/us-can-only-confirm-about-third-irans-missile-arsenal-destroyed-sources-say-2026-03-27/