US Confirms Only One-Third of Iran's Missiles Destroyed
March 28, 20266m read1Standard
Fazen Markets Research
AI-Enhanced Analysis
Iran missilesUS intelligenceMiddle East conflictStrait of HormuzFazen Capital
US intelligence officials briefed to Reuters say they are only certain that approximately one-third of Iran's missile inventory has been destroyed following the US-Israeli strikes that began in late February 2026 (Reuters, Mar 28, 2026). That figure — about 33% — stands in sharp contrast to a public claim by President Trump that 99% of Iran's missiles had been eliminated, a statement made at a cabinet meeting referenced in the same reporting. The assessment also indicates that the status of around another one-third of missiles is unclear, while the remaining third are believed to be damaged, buried in bunkers, or otherwise degraded but not incontrovertibly neutralized. Separate sources told Reuters that Iran's drone capability may have been reduced by about one-third as well, underscoring material but partial attrition of Tehran's strike assets (Reuters, Mar 28, 2026). These on-the-record differences between official battlefield assessments and public rhetoric have immediate implications for regional risk premiums and market pricing of geopolitical risk.
The strikes at issue began in late February 2026 and have since evolved into a sustained campaign involving US and Israeli kinetic operations against Iranian missile and drone infrastructure. Reuters reported on Mar 28, 2026 that five people familiar with US intelligence provided the assessment that only a third of missiles are confirmed destroyed, and that another third have ambiguous status. The timeline is important: the campaign is measured in weeks rather than months, and assessments this early are inherently probabilistic given underground storage, mobility, and the use of hardened facilities. The operational contrast between confirmed destruction and probable degradation is material: confirmed destruction implies kinetic validation via multiple intelligence disciplines, while degradation or burial often requires follow-up access or forensic confirmation.
Historically, campaigns against dispersed missile inventories have produced a wide variance in confirmed attrition. For example, previous counterforce operations in other theaters have required sustained access and follow-up strikes over months to achieve high-confidence attrition rates when missile systems are hardened or dispersed — a pattern underscored by specialist reporting and defense analyses. The current US- and Israeli-led effort is constrained by political timelines, rules of engagement, and the need to limit escalation, which inherently limits the ability to pursue and validate follow-up strikes on buried or underground systems. This constraint, combined with Iran's demonstrated ability to conceal and relocate assets, helps explain why intelligence certainty remains at roughly one-third even after weeks of operations.
Key data points from Reuters' Mar 28, 2026 reporting: one-third (~33%) of Iran's missiles are assessed as destroyed with high confidence; about one-third are in an indeterminate state; and another third are likely damaged, buried, or degraded. The same reporting cites an additional assessment that Iran's drone capability has been reduced by roughly one-third. These numbers come from multiple intelligence sources and not from a single definitive inventory, which introduces degrees of uncertainty. The gap between the one-third confirmed figure and the presidential claim of 99% is therefore 66 percentage points, an important statistical divergence that speaks to differing audiences and objectives in public messaging versus classified estimates.
Operationally, the indeterminate third matters as much as the confirmed destroyed third. Underground storage and dispersal increase the time and resources required to reconstitute clear intelligence on remaining inventories. Open-source satellite imagery analysis and signals intelligence can reduce ambiguity over time, but only with sustained targeting access. Reuters' sourcing — five people familiar with US intelligence — suggests this is a consensus operational estimate rather than a single-analyst outlier, which strengthens its credibility but does not eliminate inherent uncertainty in rapidly evolving conflict zones. For investors and risk managers, the distinction between confirmed destruction and likely degradation translates into different probabilities of near-term Iranian retaliatory options.
Energy markets reacted to the initial strikes in late February and March 2026 with price volatility, reflecting concern over potential disruption to crude flows through the Strait of Hormuz. Roughly 20% of seaborne-traded oil historically transits the Strait, making any credible threat to its security a direct input into oil price risk premia. While oil prices initially spiked on headlines, the partial nature of the missile attrition reported on Mar 28, 2026 keeps upward pressure on risk premia because Iran retains a material credible-threat capability. Shipping insurance costs, freight forwarders, and regional supply-chain operators have already raised premiums and adjusted routing strategies since the start of hostilities.
Credit and sovereign risk channels are also affected. Regional sovereign bond spreads typically widen following escalatory events; the partial degradation of Iran's strike capability is likely to translate into persistent risk premia for Gulf sovereigns through increased defense spending and contingency reserves. Equity markets with exposure to regional infrastructure — ports, shipping, and energy midstream — will see differentiated impacts: companies with diversified routes and robust risk-mitigation protocols will outperform peers that rely heavily on Strait transits. For institutional portfolios, the key operational variable is the timeline for confirmation: the more time passes without unequivocal confirmation of further missile neutralization, the higher the probability that market participants will reprice for a scenario of recurrent asymmetric attacks.
From a security perspective, three clear risk vectors emerge. First, residual missile inventory and indeterminate asset status create persistent escalation risk, including selective strikes on commercial or energy infrastructure. Second, the reduction of Iran's drone capability by about one-third reduces near-term swarm or saturation threats but leaves a substantial fraction intact for precision or proxy operations. Third, public claims that diverge from classified assessments — a 99% public claim versus a 33% classified confirmation — can alter adversary calculations, potentially inviting miscalculation by signaling either overconfidence or an attempt at deterrent messaging.
Market-side risks center on volatility and information asymmetry. Newsflow that mixes categorical public statements with conservative classified estimates tends to amplify short-term volatility because traders must price both the worst-case and the most-likely trajectories. For institutional risk managers, stress-test scenarios should include: a) rapid escalation with temporary closure of the Strait of Hormuz for days to weeks; b) a protracted campaign of proxy and cyber attacks on regional infrastructure lasting months; and c) a targeted decapitation of specific industrial nodes that materially affects supply chains. Each scenario produces different duration- and liquidity-driven consequences across commodities, FX, credit, and equity allocations.
Fazen Capital's assessment diverges from headline optimism in two ways. First, the 33% confirmed destruction figure should be treated as a lower-bound floor of certainty rather than a final equilibrium estimate. Historical precedent and operational realities suggest that intelligence clarity often improves over a multi-week window as follow-on strikes, on-the-ground reconnaissance, and sensor fusion reduce the indeterminate category. Accordingly, market participants who assume immediate demobilization of Iranian capabilities are likely underestimating the tail risk of asymmetric retaliation. Second, markets appear to be pricing a binary outcome — conflict versus de-escalation — whereas the likely path is protracted, asymmetric pressure exercised through proxies, cyber, and limited missile strikes that preserve plausible deniability.
From a portfolio posture standpoint, the non-obvious insight is that the marginal economic impact of continued asymmetric operations is more pronounced in sectors with tight just-in-time supply chains than in headline commodity prices. For example, insurance and logistics providers face compounding margin pressure from rerouting and higher claims even if crude prices moderate. Institutional allocators should incorporate this nuance when modeling counterparty risk and liquidity buffers. For further reading on how geopolitical shocks map into asset-class performance, see our recent insights on contingency planning and geopolitical risk on the Fazen Capital research hub topic and our sector-focused studies topic.
US intelligence's confirmation that only about one-third of Iran's missiles are destroyed (Reuters, Mar 28, 2026) underscores an operational reality of partial attrition and meaningful residual capability. Markets and risk managers should price for a protracted period of asymmetric escalation rather than a short, decisive neutralization.
Disclaimer: This article is for informational purposes only and does not constitute investment advice.
Q: How reliable are the "one-third destroyed" estimates reported by Reuters?
A: The figure comes from multiple US intelligence sources quoted by Reuters on Mar 28, 2026 and should be viewed as a consensus battlefield estimate at a specific point in time. Reliability improves as follow-up intelligence—satellite imagery, signals intercepts, and human reporting—reduces the indeterminate category. Historically, battle damage assessments evolve over weeks; thus the number may be updated as additional confirmation arrives.
Q: What does this mean for global oil markets in the near term?
A: The partial degradation of Iran's strike assets keeps a premium in oil prices because roughly 20% of seaborne oil historically transits the Strait of Hormuz. Short-term spikes may be muted if markets perceive alternative routing or strategic petroleum reserve releases, but persistent asymmetric attacks or insurance premium rises can sustain a higher baseline for energy risk premia.
Q: Could this reporting increase the chance of wider escalation?
A: Divergence between public claims and classified assessments can contribute to miscalculation, particularly if either side acts on incomplete information. The presence of an indeterminate category of missiles and drones means both signaling and verification will play important roles in next-stage decision-making, increasing the window for unintended escalation.
Sponsored
Open a demo account in 30 seconds. No deposit required.
CFDs are complex instruments and come with a high risk of losing money rapidly due to leverage. You should consider whether you understand how CFDs work and whether you can afford to take the high risk of losing your money.