Only President Trump could have ordered Operation Midnight Hammer, which dealt a blow to the Iranian nuclear program while blazing a path toward a real diplomatic solution to the Iran-Israel conflict. The president has demonstrated peace through strength, and it is now the responsibility of policymakers and defense officials to ensure the military can deter and, if necessary, win in a range of conflict environments.

By all accounts, Operation Midnight Hammer was a stunning success. It was a meticulously executed, 37-hour tactical operation that was meant to cripple Iran’s nuclear program. It demonstrated America’s unrivaled ability to project force across continents, penetrate air defenses, and strike hardened targets with precision.

The coordination of stealth bombers, mid-air refueling aircraft, and supporting naval assets showcased the professionalism and lethality of the U.S. military. At least a dozen B-2 bombers, including those that were part of the deception flights that flew out of Guam, were joined by mid-air refueling tankers, multiple fighter jets, and even a few nuclear-powered submarines that acted in concert against three Iranian nuclear sites. For many observers, it appeared to reaffirm the conviction that when the United States chooses to act, it can do so with unmatched resolve and capability. President Trump’s decisiveness is fundamental to this reality, one that our enemies are only beginning to come to grips with.

The public reception to Operation Midnight Hammer has largely focused on the visual and symbolic power of the strike itself and the audacity of a long-range deception campaign. Yet, it also demonstrates a perilous future for the projection of American military power across different theaters and threats, especially ones that involve more capable, less degraded adversaries. Focusing on the courage that skilled military pilots and planners showed should not keep us from making a broader commitment to modernize the military in light of the battlefields and deterrence zones of the 21st century.

To grasp this point, it is necessary to understand the proportion of our bomber fleet and bunker buster arsenal Central Command used against the Iranian regime.

Well over half of the nation’s B-2 fleet took part in one bombing run in the Middle East. The same dynamic applies to America’s inventory of GBU-57 “bunker buster” bombs. Far from having hundreds of this type of bomb, the known size of the Air Force’s bunker buster arsenal is anywhere between 20 and 30 bombs. By all accounts, B-2 pilots dropped 14 “bunker busters” on two Iranian nuclear facilities (Tomahawk cruise missiles launched from a submarine hit the third site, Isfahan), meaning that at least half of our capacity is now gone. More can be built, but replenishing our stockpile will not happen overnight.

While President Trump’s fans can be supportive of a daring bomber mission, they should be sober-minded about the strategic implications of employing a high proportion of strategic bombing assets in the Middle East—especially at a time when economic and security realities necessitate a focus away from a continent that has cost much American blood and treasure over the past two decades.

In stark contrast to a rather feeble adversary like Iran, one like North Korea may present the need for future bomber deployments. Aside from having at least two underground nuclear facilities each, China and Russia possess dozens of underground aircraft taxiways and artillery sites. China apparently maintains an “Underground Great Wall,” a series of strategically significant military assets that are protected from observation and kinetic activity. New operational considerations and military resources are necessary for America to confront such threats in the coming years.

Both interventionists and realists can find vindication in the diplomatic optimism Midnight Hammer produced. The U.S. used force to reopen diplomatic channels, which is the only permanent path to peace and denuclearization.

But awe is not strategy. A display of strength, while tactically sound, conceals the troubling reality that more than half of the nation’s stealth bomber fleet and a significant portion of its bunker-buster munitions were consumed in a single operation. Military power is not simply measured in the ability to strike once, but in the capacity to do so repeatedly, and across multiple theaters over time. Policymakers and defense officials should couple the celebration of a successful mission with scrutinizing the kinds of military and technology America needs to compete and win at scale in the 21st century.