WSJ Raises Questions Over U.S. Ability to Sustain Global Order, Citing Doubts About Alliance Defense and Weapons Shortages

[Financial News] As the Iran war drags on and the burden on U.S. military force management grows, questions are mounting over whether the United States can continue to support the global order at the same level as before. The Wall Street Journal said uncertainty over Washington's willingness to defend its allies, along with the limits of hard power, is fueling simultaneous doubts about both capability and credibility.
According to industry sources on the 22nd, The Wall Street Journal reported that concerns over whether the United States would continue to stand behind its allies have accumulated in the international community since the launch of the Trump administration. As pressure tactics such as signals of closer ties with Russia, demands for higher defense spending, and steep tariffs continue to pile up, allies are being forced to question not only Washington's intentions but also its actual ability to deploy forces in a real conflict.
The key issue is that the prolonged Iran war is straining weapons stockpiles and deployments. WSJ warned that even if the United States remains willing to defend its allies, it may no longer have enough military power left to back that commitment because its arsenal is running low. Matthew Kroenig, a senior fellow at the Atlantic Council, said deterrence requires both credibility and capability. In the past, he noted, people questioned whether the United States could be trusted. Now, they are questioning whether it can actually deliver.
The report also pointed to growing unease within alliances, not just emotional concern but operational anxiety. WSJ said U.S. think tanks and experts have recently cited steps such as the reduction of RIMPAC exercises and proposals for dialogue with North Korea as examples that have deepened skepticism. With North Korea drawing closer to Russia and supplying troops and ballistic missiles for the Russia-Ukraine War while putting pressure on Europe, some interpret Washington's unilateral cuts to training as a signal that the United States sees North Korea as less of a threat.
There are also warnings that a prolonged shortage of weapons could weaken response capabilities across the battlefield. WSJ reported that the extended Iran war has shifted U.S. strategic assets from Asia to the Middle East, while concerns are growing that Russia, China, and North Korea may be producing ballistic missiles faster than the United States can produce interceptors. The article said skepticism is spreading not only over U.S. force posture in Asia, but also over whether Washington would come to Europe's defense if Russia launched another attack there.
In Europe, doubts about the nuclear umbrella and defense capabilities are even more direct. Roderich Kiesewetter, a lawmaker from Germany's Christian Democratic Union and a former Bundeswehr colonel, was quoted as saying that everyone knows the United States would not risk its own security for the Baltic states or Germany, suggesting that the nuclear umbrella has effectively disappeared.
The United States says the claims of depleted weapons stocks are not true, but warnings keep recurring that key inventories are nearing dangerous levels and could take years to replenish. The Center for Strategic and International Studies estimates that stocks of critical air defense weapons such as MIM-104 Patriot interceptors and THAAD missiles have already been cut roughly in half, while Tomahawk cruise missiles and JASSM missiles have also been used in significant numbers. WSJ said this situation could leave allies and friendly nations unable to receive protection against strategic rivals.
Warnings have also emerged over the China factor. A report by experts at the Council on Foreign Relations warned that if U.S. weapons stockpiles are depleted, Washington's ability to deter a Chinese attack on Taiwan could weaken, and that missile mass-production systems must be shifted closer to wartime footing. The logic is that trying to ramp up production after a conflict begins may be too late.
Analysts also say bottlenecks in defense systems could intensify specific crises. John Bew, a professor of war studies at King's College London, said shortages of interceptor missiles and missile defense systems create the risk of serious crises across multiple theaters. He added that this is seen not only as a short-term shock in the Persian Gulf region, but also as a structural weakness in Europe's defense, with possible consequences in Asia as well.
At the same time, some observers say the likelihood of a sudden full-scale war remains limited. Bilahari Kausikan, a political analyst in Singapore, said munitions can be replenished and that the chances of a major conflict erupting in East Asia in the near term are very low. He pointed to China's reluctance to take reckless risks over Taiwan and to the many domestic challenges Beijing still has to address.
Another view is that the Iran war could serve as a wake-up call. Ludovic Hood, a senior fellow at the Hudson Institute, said the conflict has exposed vulnerabilities that the West may have been too complacent about, and that this could become an opportunity to prepare for more difficult situations ahead. He stressed that war is never a good thing, but it can reinforce the need for strategic readiness.
An expert on international politics said WSJ was asking not only whether the United States has the will to defend the global order, but also whether it still has the weapons and military power to back up that will. He added that allies are now moving beyond political signals of military cooperation and are beginning to assess the reality of capability, including logistics, production, and stockpile management.

[email protected] Kang Gu-gwi Reporter