After reflecting on Iran’s attack on Israel over the weekend, I arrived at some possible conclusions.
The first, widely lauded in the West, is that Iran’s missiles and drones aren’t as good as Israel’s anti-missile defenses.
It is being reported that U. S., British, Jordanian, and French aircraft took part in the defense against the Iranian attack. If true, it suggests one of two things, either a) those countries have been defending Israeli airspace for some time or, more likely, we had good intelligence about the actual timing of the Iranian attack.
We have also learned that Iran can attack Israel pretty much any time it cares to. We have suspected that for some time but this attack confirms it.
There are some other things we haven’t learned. We haven’t learned, for example, that Iran has “shot its wad”, as an old Navy friend of mine used to say. Maybe it has maybe it hasn’t.
Iran’s reported foreign reserves of $75 billion could pay for a lot of missiles and drones. Therefore we haven’t learned that Iran will not engage in attritional attacks against Israel.
We haven’t learned whether Israel required U. S., British, Jordanian, and French support to repel the attack.
We haven’t learned whether Israel would be as successful in defending against simultaneous missile and drone attacks from Lebanon, Syria, Iran, and maybe even Iraq.
I am hearing some assertions that this attack demonstrates that we need to “isolate Iran”. I have few ideas on how that might be accomplished. It is my understanding that 90% or more of Iran’s oil exports go to China and I am confident that China and North Korea will continue to be delighted to sell missiles and drones to Iran. Not to mention those they produce domestically.
We haven’t learned (yet) whether Israel will respond to the attack. I suspect it will.
What else have we learned or not learned from Iran’s attack on Israel?
Someone leaked to the WSJ that about half of Iranian ballistic missiles failed and did not need to be intercepted. If true, then the ballistic missile defense in this incident is much less impressive, but Iran’s missile capabilities are also not very impressive.
For “shooting your wad” anything will have a sortie or throughput capacity. Iran will have X number of missiles/drones in inventory, but they can only shoot a limited number off at one time and can only sustainably fire a different number on a daily basis. The reason is that they have only so many launch crews, launchers, and all the associate support equipment and functions necessary. A lot of their ballistic missiles are liquid-fueled, for instance, which takes specialized equipment, personnel, and time.
Every military has this issue. I don’t know for certain, but I strongly suspect that Iran with this strike was at it’s capacity for what it could do at one go. If the war were to continue, it could keep firing missiles, but at a much lower volume, most likely.
“We haven’t learned whether Israel required U. S., British, Jordanian, and French support to repel the attack.”
That’s hard to judge. From what I’ve read today, US aircraft shot down 80 drones and cruise missiles over Iraq and Syria alone. Maybe the Israelis would have shot those down later on, hard to say.
The two US Aegis ships I’ve seen reported primarily intercepted ballistic missiles aimed at the southern Israeli air base. So without them, it’s likely more missiles would have hit that.
Does that reach the level of “required?” I don’t know. But I think the more damage that Iran is able to inflict, the more likely Israel will retaliate and the stronger the retaliation will be.
I do think a lot of lessons will be technical related to ballistic missile systems effectiveness. The data from this engagement will be used to make improvements as this is the kind of scenario that can’t be tested outside of actual combat.
As I just said elsewhere, put yourself in the Israelis’ shoes. Having attacked Israel from Iran directly, is Iran likely to do so again? If your answer is yes, then Israel will undoubtedly counter-attack. If your answer is no, there is no need.
Israel should not be bombing diplomatic buildings. If the target was running terrorist operations, he is a legitimate target.
Neither Iran nor Israel can effectively attack the other’s territory from their territory. Missiles are a one shot use. I am not sure about the drones, but I suspect they have the same fuel restrictions as jets.
More than likely, the Iranians have used all they can. Unless they are total idiots, they should have a larger supply for self defense. Israel has the same problem, but they are surrounded on all sides.
This has nothing to do with the US, and we should keep our noses out of it. In my opinion, the US should provide the same protection for Iran.
This is not going to end well.
No argument here about that although as I noted it’s ironic for the Iranians to complain about attacking embassies or consulates.
That’s basically my view. It’s how I differ from the Biden Administration (and steve) on the subject.
“Having attacked Israel from Iran directly, is Iran likely to do so again? If your answer is yes, then Israel will undoubtedly counter-attack. If your answer is no, there is no need.”
I think the answer is no. However, Iran and Israel will keep at their proxy war, and a similar situation is likely to come up in the future.
“Having attacked Israel from Iran directly, is Iran likely to do so again?”
No, Iran’s strategy of using proxies doesn’t require direct attacks on Israel.
So I don’t expect Iran to hit Israel directly; I do expect them to arm and encourage their proxies Houthis and more importantly Hezbollah to attack Israel.
In this case, the existence of buffers like Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Iraq are preventing a hot ground war.
As I said before, Iran announced the attack so they surely expected many missiles to be intercepted. I suspect they were surprised at how effective the coordination was in shooting them down. I supported our aiding them as they are the closest thing to a democracy in the area, but they are also dominated by religious factions and have nukes. If you think God is directing your actions you can justify anything so I could see Israel pulling out a nuke.
Steve
Nine missiles did get through, and hit two Israeli airbases in the south that launched the attack on the Iranian embassy in Damascus. An Israeli signals intelligent base on the Golan Heights was also hit. There appears to have been little or no loss of life.
If an Arleigh Burke destroyer did launch 70+ missiles, it will have to return to base for refit.
Iran gave the US 72 hours of warning, which allowed ample time to organize a defense. John Helmer called the attack theater, and it was likely meant to be a demonstration of capability.
If Israel launches an attack on Iran itself, we likely will be in WW III by the end of this week.
Just to give a sense of the pertinent fact of the “war”.
It is 970 miles from Jerusalem to Tehran.
It is 1000 miles from Moscow to Berlin.
Or in US terms, it is 1020 miles from New York to Des Moines.
By contrast, it is “470” miles from Kyiv/Kiev to Moscow.
A direct war between the two countries will be limited since both armies have little to no force projection capabilities to cover that distance.
The distance between Moscow and Kiev is about the same as the distance between Washington, DC and Dayton, Ohio.
I’ve gotten pretty used to Iranian over the top, apocalyptic, end of days, total annihilation language , but 40 years on the Islamic regime clings to life and power and hasn’t brought on Harmagedon.
I suspect the Ariel attack was brought on by domestic politics demanding a response to the Israeli attack on the embassy in Syria.
I also think they hope that’s the end of the exchange for now.
But domestic politics in Israel may not allow for inaction, so they will need a target of little importance to the Iranians to attack and save face.
If I’m right, the Iranians will protest the act and let it go at that.
If I’m wrong then they’ll shoot their wad and get the worst of the exchange.
Protests around the world against the (again) genocidal zionists.