NOURNEWS: The controversy over the depletion of U.S. weapons stocks, particularly Patriot and THAAD interceptors, has yet to fade from the Trump administration’s agenda. Now, reports about conditions aboard the aircraft carrier USS Abraham Lincoln are revealing fresh signs of strain on U.S. military capabilities. The carrier was once touted by Trump as a symbol of American military strength when he ordered its deployment to West Asia.

With around 5,000 sailors and Marines on board, the Abraham Lincoln is now facing troubling accounts of physical and psychological exhaustion among its crew after months of involvement in the war against Iran. Families of some sailors have spoken of extreme fatigue, deteriorating mental health, concerns about personal safety, and even suicide attempts. Reports have also emerged of food shortages and declining food quality aboard the Lincoln and the USS Tripoli.

Although U.S. Central Command has denied reports that seven sailors were killed in physical altercations and that suicide cases had increased aboard the Lincoln, the combination of these reports, warnings from some senators, and calls for accountability—along with the carrier’s return and departure toward San Diego and the deployment of the USS George Washington to replace the Lincoln—suggests that all signs of crisis cannot simply be dismissed as part of a media campaign.

An Army Cracking Beneath the Hollywood Image

Trump entered the White House promising to restore what he called “the world’s greatest military” and repeatedly claimed that the United States could bring Iran to its knees in a matter of days. Glossy images of military equipment, missile preparations, and U.S. forces aboard American warships were also part of this display of power.

But the accounts now emerging from aboard the Abraham Lincoln present a different picture: a military facing not only the pressures of the battlefield, but also the effects of personnel fatigue, logistical challenges, and mounting pressure on weapons supplies.

Reports of the loss of dozens of MQ-9 Reaper drones and declining stocks of Patriot and THAAD interceptors, combined with the enormous costs of the war, have raised a more serious question: Can the United States sustain a prolonged and costly war without facing increasingly steep costs?

From Promises to Destroy Iran to Concerns Over Oil Prices

The contradiction between Washington’s initial claims and the positions now being taken by U.S. officials is also noteworthy. While the war was initially portrayed as a short and limited mission, months later, Washington’s stated priorities have increasingly shifted from “destroying Iran” toward reopening the Strait of Hormuz, lowering oil and gasoline prices, imposing a naval blockade, and intensifying economic pressure.

Statements by officials including the U.S. vice president and secretary of war, along with threats by the Treasury secretary to intensify economic pressure, point to a shift in Washington’s calculations—a shift that can be seen as the result of ambitious military objectives colliding with the harsh realities of the battlefield.

Against this backdrop, the Abraham Lincoln has become more than just a warship. It has emerged as a symbol of the gap between the image of American power and the real costs of sustaining that power in a war of attrition.

Iran Is Not Just Closing the Strait; It Can Also Determine When It Reopens

The central lesson of this equation is that the outcome of a war cannot be measured solely by the number of warships, missiles, and aircraft involved. Resilience, asymmetric warfare, strategic depth, and the smart use of geographic and geopolitical advantages can fundamentally alter the balance of power.

From this perspective, maintaining national cohesion, avoiding emotional calculations, and preventing decisions that could undermine social and economic resilience are all part of the strategy for moving forward. By relying on its existing capabilities, Iran can potentially shift the equation governing the end of the war from the “imposition of terms” to the “setting of terms.”

Within this framework, the Strait of Hormuz is not merely a question of whether it should be closed. The more important issue is when and under what conditions it will be reopened. If regional security, the lifting of the blockade, and the release of Iran’s frozen assets become part of the equation for ending the war, Tehran could effectively have a decisive role in determining when the strait returns to normal operations.

The appointment of new commanders, their emphasis on maintaining the wartime posture and managing security around the strait, together with diplomatic warnings against falling into the trap of fake news and miscalculations, send a clear message: A war may begin with military power, but its conclusion is determined by a combination of military, economic, psychological, and geopolitical factors.

The Abraham Lincoln may be just one aircraft carrier. But if signs of strain aboard the vessel have begun to spill over into Washington’s decision-making, what lies ahead is no longer merely a maritime crisis. It is a test of the claim of having “the world’s greatest military” against Iran’s resilience and strategic capabilities.