The US war against Iran has "completely" destroyed the country's ability to build missiles or other sophisticated weaponry, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth said Wednesday
"We finished completely destroying Iran's defense-industrial base, a core pillar of our mission," Hegseth told reporters.
"They can no longer build missiles."
For his part, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Dan Caine said: “We attacked, along with our partners, approximately 90 percent of their weapons factories,” including facilities producing Shahed-type drones, as well as facilities manufacturing guidance systems used by these drones.
Regarding the naval fleet, Caine said that it will take years before Iran can rebuild its surface combatant capabilities.
The general added that approximately 80 percent of Iran’s nuclear industrial base was targeted, significantly undermining its nuclear weapons development efforts.
He warned that US forces remain ready to resume fighting with Iran if the ceasefire ends, stating: “Let’s be clear: the ceasefire is just a temporary pause. The armed forces remain ready, if ordered, to resume combat operations with the same speed and precision demonstrated over the past 38 days.”
Statements by Dan Caine, and his warning about a possible resumption of fighting, suggest that the announcement of a suspension of the war came under US pressure, according to Michael Rubin, a researcher at the American Enterprise Institute.
As for the restoration of freedom of navigation, military officials’ statements did not indicate that it has been fully secured, instead emphasizing the need to “ensure Iran’s compliance” and the safe passage of vessels.
At the same time, there were continued indications that ships received messages from Iranian forces stating that they require permission to transit the strait, suggesting that Tehran is seeking to establish a new equation: keeping Hormuz open on the condition of recognizing a supervisory or sovereign role for itself.
If that is the case, the region and the global economy would be entering a phase that goes beyond a mere ceasefire, as the risk shifts from missiles to the rules governing transit, insurance, pricing, and maritime fees.
Statements by Pentagon leaders, followed by remarks from Donald Trump, reveal that the real dispute is not over the ceasefire itself, but over what comes after it. Washington rejects the continuation of Iranian uranium enrichment and is demanding that the stockpile of highly enriched uranium be handed over, or “taken” by force if necessary.
By contrast, narratives circulating in Iranian media about the “ten points” of the ceasefire agreement point in a completely different direction: recognition of Iran’s right to enrich, the lifting of sanctions, and no clear position on the fate of the enriched stockpile.
This is precisely where the structural contradiction lies, one that could undermine the negotiating round from its very first day, according to Michael Rubin.
The second aspect of the dispute concerns the scope of de-escalation. The United States and Israel have made clear that a ceasefire with Iran does not mean a halt to Israeli operations in Lebanon against Hezbollah, while reports continued of missile and drone attacks on Gulf states in the hours following the truce. This suggests that the region is facing a form of “selective de-escalation,” according to observers: a direct easing between Washington and Tehran, while proxy arenas and exchanges of messages remain active.
Remarks by Hegseth that Washington had been prepared, just hours earlier, to strike power stations, bridges, and oil and energy infrastructure “that Iran cannot rebuild” indicate that the decision to halt hostilities did not stem from a fully realized settlement, but rather from the suspension of a massive escalatory strike against Tehran.
Accordingly, the ceasefire appears more like a testing window: if Tehran complies with conditions related to navigation and the transfer of uranium, the truce could hold and pave the way toward a definitive end to the war. If not, the United States may return to the option of large-scale destruction of infrastructure.
