Iran “Activates” Special Mode: A Worrying Signal for the U.S. and Israel?

Mar 19, 2026

Iran “Activates” Special Mode: A Worrying Signal for the U.S. and Israel?

Officials at the Pentagon say Iran’s retaliatory attacks have dropped sharply, with missile launches down 90% and UAV deployments falling 83% compared to the early phase of the conflict.

Range of several Iranian missiles (Photo: Israeli Ministry of Foreign Affairs).

Bloomberg reported that the shift reflects lessons learned by the U.S. military from last summer’s confrontation with Iran. U.S. and Israeli commanders identified missile launchers as a key vulnerability, shifting strategy toward destroying launch platforms, underground silos, and command centers rather than relying solely on air defense interception.

At first glance, the data appears to support that view. On the first day of fighting (Feb. 28), Iran launched 309 missiles, followed by 584 on day two. But from March 9 to 17, the number dropped to an average of just 30 missiles per day.

Chart showing the number of weapons launched by Iran at the UAE as of March 17. Blue bars represent missiles, while yellow bars indicate UAVs (Photo: ISW).

Iran “Activating” a Special Mode?

Retired U.S. Army Col. Douglas MacGregor, a former Pentagon adviser during the first administration of Donald Trump, offered a different perspective.

He suggested the decline may partly reflect missile depletion—but not entirely. Iran may also be running out of high-value U.S. targets after damaging infrastructure, command-and-control systems, radar installations, and air defense batteries such as Patriot and THAAD across the region.

Questions about Iran’s missile and UAV stockpiles have become a major concern for U.S. and Israeli intelligence, though Tehran keeps such information tightly guarded.

According to The Guardian, Iran rejected two ceasefire messages from Trump’s envoy Steve Witkoff, as its leadership believes it is not losing the war and that the White House is under growing political pressure.

Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi added that unilateral claims of victory by Trump would not end the conflict—suggesting Tehran may be prepared to continue hostilities in some form, including tightening control over commercial shipping through the Strait of Hormuz.

Iran launches a massive wave of missile strikes in retaliation for the killing of senior leaders and top commanders (Photo: ISW).

A War of Attrition

An analysis by Center for Strategic and International Studies, cited by Military Watch Magazine, describes the conflict as “a race to see who runs out of ammunition first.”

Analyst Mark Cancian argues that Iran’s offensive missile stockpile may far exceed the interceptor inventories of the U.S. and its allies.

In fact, the U.S. entered the conflict with already strained air defense reserves. By early 2025, the Pentagon reportedly had around 600 THAAD interceptors remaining—each costing about $12.6 million—with more than 150 used in just 12 days of fighting with Iran in June 2025.

Supplies for Patriot systems had also dropped to roughly 25% of required levels by mid-2025, according to Pentagon assessments.

Sources cited by CBS News said that while Washington is aware of severe interceptor shortages among Gulf allies, little has been done to address the issue.

Meanwhile, Middle East Eye reported that the U.S. declined requests from some Gulf states for additional weapons and ammunition—potentially reflecting shortages and a prioritization of defending U.S. and Israeli positions.

Why Isn’t Iran Escalating?

Given these conditions, Iran could theoretically strike U.S. bases and interests across the Middle East with fewer constraints. So why hasn’t it intensified attacks?

One possible explanation: Tehran may have “activated” a form of strategic restraint—conserving missiles for a longer war.

How Large Is Iran’s Arsenal?

Russian analysts estimate Iran possesses at least 5,000 missiles of various types. Tehran appears to be using them selectively:

Short-range targets (250–350 km) such as U.S. bases in Kuwait and Bahrain: Fateh-110 and Fateh-313—light, mobile, and highly accurate.

Medium-range targets (~600 km) in Qatar, the UAE, and Saudi Arabia: Zolfaghar (700 km range) and Qiyam-1 (800 km).

Long-range strikes (1,200–1,600 km) against Israel: Khorramshahr-4 ballistic missiles with a 2,000 km range and heavy payloads, capable of evading air defenses in the terminal phase.

Iran is the only country in the region with a fully domestic precision-guided missile production chain. It is believed to be producing around 100 ballistic missiles per month, with much of its manufacturing hidden in underground facilities operating around the clock.

The Bigger Question

In this asymmetric war, the central question remains:

Who will run out first—the United States and its allies, or Iran?

Inside Trump’s Bold Health Agency Shake-Up: Reform or Risk for America’s Medical System? The administrationof Donald Trump has reignited debate in Washington after proposing a sweeping reorganization of America’s federal health agencies. Supporters say the changes would modernize a bloated bureaucracy, while critics warn the restructuring could weaken oversight and disrupt the nation’s public-health infrastructure. At the center of the proposal is a plan to consolidate overlapping offices within the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. Officials argue the move would reduce redundancy, streamline decision-making, and accelerate responses to national health emergencies. Advocates inside the administration say federal health agencies have grown too complex over decades. They believe merging departments and cutting administrative layers could help government scientists focus on research, disease prevention, and rapid crisis response rather than bureaucratic procedures. However, critics fear the reorganization could weaken specialized institutions such as the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the Food and Drug Administration. Public-health experts warn that structural changes might disrupt ongoing programs and slow the nation’s ability to track outbreaks or approve new treatments. Supporters counter that reform is necessary after years of criticism about inefficiency within federal health agencies. Some lawmakers argue that outdated structures make it harder for the government to coordinate research funding and respond quickly to emerging threats. Political reactions have been sharply divided. Several Republican lawmakers praised the proposal as a long-overdue overhaul of government institutions. Many Democrats, meanwhile, questioned whether the changes were driven by policy needs or by broader political goals. Healthcare professionals are also watching closely. Some hospital administrators say clearer chains of command could improve communication during crises, while others worry that reshuffling agencies could create confusion across the healthcare system. Public-health researchers stress that stability is critical for long-term scientific programs. They note that federal health agencies manage complex projects, from vaccine development to disease monitoring, that require consistent leadership and funding over many years. As debate intensifies, the proposal highlights a larger question about the future of American healthcare governance. Whether seen as bold reform or risky disruption, the plan has already triggered one of the most significant discussions about federal health policy in recent years.