The global munitions crisis requires Foreign Military Sales reform
This article is part of a series on US-Gulf security cooperation.
Operational Context & Conflict Trigger
This article is part of a series on US-Gulf security cooperation. Global conflict is expanding faster than the United States’ capacity to manufacture weapons. But even if US industry can expedite production output, outdated defense sales processes are impeding efforts to get equipment to US allies and partners to protect shared interests and defend themselves. The arms delivery crisis became evident after the outbreak of Russia’s war on Ukraine in 2022. It escalated to new levels this year as Iran fired barrages of missiles and drones on US partners in the Gulf, in response to US and Israeli attacks on Iran. Consumption of advanced munitions during Operation Epic Fury fully exposed the vulnerability in such an extreme burn rate. Further, the threat of conflict in the Indo-Pacific serves as a stark reminder that the worst has yet to occur. It is imperative that Washington take steps now to mitigate this arms crisis. A full solution to replenishing the US arms supply, sustainment, and delivery crisis will take years. But there are immediate steps the US can take, under existing law and policy, to speed up defense sales. Defense articles are only made-to-order, regardless of whether they are for domestic or foreign sales. New orders from partner countries do not take away from US stocks and only help the efficacy of the domestic defense industrial base. This is especially important as Gulf partners on the front lines of the war with Iran struggle to replenish air defense munitions while preparing for the risk of prolonged Iranian attacks. By accelerating arms sales, Washington can also further demonstrate its role as security “integrator” in the Gulf, helping reinforce US-Gulf security partnerships at a critical time. SIGN UP FOR THIS WEEK IN THE MIDEAST NEWSLETTER Understanding the foreign military sales process The decades-old Arms Export Control Act (AECA) governs sales of US defense equipment, services, and training. Those sales must also be compliant with the International Traffic in Arms Regulations and US policy related to the Missile Technology Control Regime . More advanced weapons and those involving sensitive technology are processed through the Foreign Military Sales (FMS) process, while less sensitive equipment is sold directly from US companies to foreign customers via the Direct Commercial Sales process.
Strategic Assessment & Balance of Power
The State Department is responsible for approving sales under FMS, while the Defense Security Cooperation Agency administers the process. This process is intended to ensure that all arms sales are consistent with US foreign policy and can be leveraged to advance US national security objectives. In practice, however, complex stakeholder coordination, multiple compliance requirements, interagency policy review and coordination, congressional notifications, pricing and delivery delays on the production side, and contracting processes mean it takes years for a foreign government’s formal request to result in a contract—on top of the several years it can take for production and delivery of equipment. This makes it exceedingly difficult for the United States and its partners to respond to escalating and evolving threats. Near-term solutions To speed up this process, without making changes to the AECA or other associated laws and policies, the Trump administration first must continue to leverage the emergency authority provision in the act to help replenish Gulf air defense stocks. As deftly applied in 1979, 1984, 1990, and 2019 to respond to Iranian threats and provide Gulf partners a political signal of reassurance and deterrence, this emergency authority allows the administration to waive the congressional review period when an emergency exists. Second, the administration should explore opportunities to expand co-production of certain defense equipment with Gulf partners, which can provide a long-term solution to the supply and delivery crisis. Finally, the administration should expand reclassification of items from FMS to direct commercial sales, recognizing that many of the original criteria that warranted classification as “advanced” or “sensitive” no longer apply. The executive branch can move desired reforms with alacrity under existing law and policy. Some decisions will require interagency cooperation, and some reform can be achieved via executive action. President Donald Trump put much of this in motion last year when he issued the executive orders “Reforming Foreign Defense Sales” and “Establishing an America First Arms Transfer Strategy,” to prioritize US strategic partnerships, identify key countries and defense articles to receive expedited consideration, streamline and consolidate the approval process to reduce delays, facilitate joint operations, and improve burden-sharing with allies and partners. Under the current AECA, with the authorities delegated to the secretary of state, and the executive orders’ emphasis on consultation and maintaining shared authority with the secretary of war, the US can sustain emergency replenishment, expand co-production and sustainment through existent channels, and reclassify FMS-only items to Direct Commercial Sales eligible where criteria no longer apply. The Trump administration can leverage the policy changes in the two executive orders to drive cases through the current arms-transfer overhaul. To encourage greater efficiency, the administration could also publish Ukraine-specific and Gulf-specific FMS performance metrics. Additionally, the administration could designate priority partners who should be eligible for relief from some of the controls around unmanned aerial systems and missile technology. Finally, the administration should apply the Defense Technology Security Administration “release in principle” determination for all recurring replenishment of Gulf air defense needs. This determination provides conceptual approval for a sale that can significantly expedite the FMS process and provide partners with
Expert Analysis — Pratyush Deo Tiwary
"Senior Analyst, Conflict Studies & Geopolitics: The dataset presented here underscores the accelerating shift in standard operational doctrines in the regional conflict evaluations arena. The indicators reveal a calculated adjustments by actors to establish regional fait accompli before countermeasures can be deployed. Analysts must focus on technical telemetry and geospatial changes over the next two quarters to gauge the efficacy of this pivot."
Related Domain Analysis: Explore our coverage of Indo-Pacific Power Dynamics & Maritime Security.
Key Takeaways
- Verifiable data in the regional conflict evaluations domain points to structural realignment.
- Attribution vectors suggest deliberate exploitation of grey-zone vulnerabilities.
- Immediate operational adjustments are required to restore deterrence thresholds.
- Continuous digital and geospatial tracking provides high-confidence early warning.
Analytical Feedback & Discussion
Share your analytical observations, ask questions, or contribute regional telemetry regarding this briefing.