Great post, Ryan, always great to hear basic analysis from somebody who actually knows what he is talking about. I think you may be limiting yourself in talking down the possibility of regional warfare to the actual attempts of one side to invade or directly attack the other beyond the use of missiles or drones.
In one sense, they are already in a regional war with all the proxies doing the dying, and we would not want any other country to get involved or anything to happen that would screw up the oil business. But your point is well taken.
Some years ago I spent about 40 days in Iran and the majority of the population there that I met had no particular animosity towards the US (even on Death to America Day, during which I stayed in my hotel room). Many Iranians have family in the States and yearn for a normalization that might improve their economic condition. So the idea that many Americans have that there are a bunch of blood thirsty Islamic nuts waving swords in the streets of Tehran is a fallacy (though they are there in the leadership). I think both sides were pretty careful to keep the reprisals powerful enough to appease their own hard liners, but modest enough that it would not get out of hand. Neither side wants a big war, and as you point out, probably can’t make much of one if they wanted to. Maybe we have Biden to thank for that, but more likely Bibi makes up his own mind. Thanks again for the useful post.
Yes, I agree; in one sense the regional war is already happening. If by war we mean escalating levels of violence between two nations, then war is already here with no clear objectives or path to deescalation.
But if by war we mean there is a declaration of war and the entire population of both nations are mobilized to fight, then Ryan's right. That war simply can't happen with the current actors.
But the problem with people posting online about "escalation towards a regional war" aren't the semantics; the problem is blaming Israel for a conflict Iran started.
But I also don't want to paint everyone who is worried about escalating violence with the same brush. If someone who is worried about escalation sees Israel as a rational ally that the US has influence over, and they see Iran as an irrational actor that the US has no influence over. Then it makes sense that their pleas for peace would be directed at Israel because that is the path most likely to lead to success.
But to be entirely clear about my position, posting about Bibi being a warmonger is NOT a useful position to take if your goal is peace. Posting about how is Israel is at fault for responding to Iran's missile strike is frankly counter-productive.
The 100+ aircraft included some for the 669 search and rescue extraction team.
669 is considered to be at the very top of the IDFs elite units alongside the more internationally famous Sayaret Matcal, Shayetet 13, Shaldag, etc. I'm curious how their inclusion in the mission as well as the high level of this team compares to other militaries.
What I want to point out that funnily enough, the fact both Syria and Iraq are still "at war" with Israel makes the thing so much simpler. Jordan just wants to not get involved and even if the IDF did do a flyover there's so much more deniability.
You make an interesting point about this not being a regional war. Taking into account the time between attacks, I wonder if this is a form of negotiation. Iran strikes Israel, Israel strikes Iran, Iran says this can stop if Israel stops its ground attacks into Gaza. What could be next.
First, Air LORA is indeed a recent announcement, but it has nothing to do with the Sparrow family of target missiles. It's an air launched version of LORA, which has been around for years. ROCKS is an air-launched version of the Sparrow, but the original assessment had it as being based on Black Sparrow. More recently there has been talk of an ALBM based on the Blue Sparrow, but we don't have a name for it. The U.S. leak talked about a missile called Golden Horizon, and that may actually be this Blue Sparrow-based missile.
None of these weapons fit in the F-35 IWB and would likely have been launched from outside Iran's borders by F-15s or F-16s. Some claim the Blue Sparrow-based missile has a range of 2000km, so every target hit in Iran would have been reachable without entering Iranian airspace.
ROCKS is known to have an anti-radiation seeker offering, which would make it a potential culprit for striking air defense radars. Of course, a Blue Sparrow-based missile could also be equipped with an anti-radiation seeker.
Interesting. Can you explain how this factors into to the analyses Ryan has done recently on how Israel could strike Iran, which was modeled around refuel requirements assumptions that strike aircraft would fly the distance all the way to Tehran? My naive follow-up question is, if you can attack that precisely from that far away, why would you ever put yourself at risk by crossing into enemy airspace? (An utterly naive question stemming from my ignorance about the capabilities of fighter aircraft)
You have to think in terms of desired effects and cost per effect. Missiles are expensive ($Ms per missile vs ~$50K per precision guided bomb), their warheads are usually limited in size compared to bombs, and they are heavy. Heavy enough that the munitions per aircraft are low (1-2 per aircraft). Aircraft also have only a few hardpoints that can handle more than 1000kg, and those are the ones also used for external fuel tanks. These missiles way 1600+kg, to deliver a warhead of 500-750kg. Meanwhile a good "bunker buster" bomb is 900kg and a deep penetrator is 2200kg. The only way Israel has to deliver a 2200kg penetrator is with an F-15E, and it has to be done pretty up close and personal. Or you can deliver a lot of 100kg class glide bombs to strike multiple targets with one aircraft, further reducing the cost per effect when 100kg bombs are sufficient to the task.
Also, long range missiles have very limited capability against mobile and relocatable targets. Fighters can hunt them and use shorter range weapons to strike.
Tel Aviv is only 1,600 km from Tehran, so there's no need for any elaborate long distance airstrike, when Israel can lob Sparrow and ROCKS ALBMs at any target they choose.
Is there any actual evidence that Israel left their own airspace to conduct these operations? They certainly had no reason to, just to hit 20 targets. Sparrows have a range of at least 2000km and ROCKS likely reach much farther.
Regarding targets, we know that intense pressure has been put on Israel to avoid refineries or nuclear facilities, and the THAAD deployment was part of that. So what was left were military targets which, for the US and Europe at least, are very high priority since these drones are being fielded by Russia in Ukraine.
It's fun to think about elaborate scenarios, but Israel's planners are likely to take the lowest risk and highest reward path, which is also the least exciting.
There is an Iran-Israel regional war already, the Iranians using proxies to fight Israel so that they don't need complex logistics or even much of an army. Hezbollah's job was to threaten Israel to that the Israeli air force could not attack Iran.
The view in the Middle East is that both sides are waiting for the results of the US election.
For that reason, Hezbollah soldiers usually run away from direct engagements with the IDF and the (alleged) 150k pro-Iran soldiers in Syria and Iraq haven't done anything.
For that reason, the Israelis destroyed most of the Iranian air defense (S-300s) and drone manufacturing (helping the US war against Russia), but acquiesced to the American demand not to attack any nuclear or energy-producing sites.
If this view is correct, then things will probably heat up as soon as the results of the US elections are clear.
Great post, Ryan, always great to hear basic analysis from somebody who actually knows what he is talking about. I think you may be limiting yourself in talking down the possibility of regional warfare to the actual attempts of one side to invade or directly attack the other beyond the use of missiles or drones.
In one sense, they are already in a regional war with all the proxies doing the dying, and we would not want any other country to get involved or anything to happen that would screw up the oil business. But your point is well taken.
Some years ago I spent about 40 days in Iran and the majority of the population there that I met had no particular animosity towards the US (even on Death to America Day, during which I stayed in my hotel room). Many Iranians have family in the States and yearn for a normalization that might improve their economic condition. So the idea that many Americans have that there are a bunch of blood thirsty Islamic nuts waving swords in the streets of Tehran is a fallacy (though they are there in the leadership). I think both sides were pretty careful to keep the reprisals powerful enough to appease their own hard liners, but modest enough that it would not get out of hand. Neither side wants a big war, and as you point out, probably can’t make much of one if they wanted to. Maybe we have Biden to thank for that, but more likely Bibi makes up his own mind. Thanks again for the useful post.
Yes, I agree; in one sense the regional war is already happening. If by war we mean escalating levels of violence between two nations, then war is already here with no clear objectives or path to deescalation.
But if by war we mean there is a declaration of war and the entire population of both nations are mobilized to fight, then Ryan's right. That war simply can't happen with the current actors.
But the problem with people posting online about "escalation towards a regional war" aren't the semantics; the problem is blaming Israel for a conflict Iran started.
But I also don't want to paint everyone who is worried about escalating violence with the same brush. If someone who is worried about escalation sees Israel as a rational ally that the US has influence over, and they see Iran as an irrational actor that the US has no influence over. Then it makes sense that their pleas for peace would be directed at Israel because that is the path most likely to lead to success.
But to be entirely clear about my position, posting about Bibi being a warmonger is NOT a useful position to take if your goal is peace. Posting about how is Israel is at fault for responding to Iran's missile strike is frankly counter-productive.
The 100+ aircraft included some for the 669 search and rescue extraction team.
669 is considered to be at the very top of the IDFs elite units alongside the more internationally famous Sayaret Matcal, Shayetet 13, Shaldag, etc. I'm curious how their inclusion in the mission as well as the high level of this team compares to other militaries.
What I want to point out that funnily enough, the fact both Syria and Iraq are still "at war" with Israel makes the thing so much simpler. Jordan just wants to not get involved and even if the IDF did do a flyover there's so much more deniability.
You make an interesting point about this not being a regional war. Taking into account the time between attacks, I wonder if this is a form of negotiation. Iran strikes Israel, Israel strikes Iran, Iran says this can stop if Israel stops its ground attacks into Gaza. What could be next.
Ryan, you get some of the Israeli weapons wrong.
First, Air LORA is indeed a recent announcement, but it has nothing to do with the Sparrow family of target missiles. It's an air launched version of LORA, which has been around for years. ROCKS is an air-launched version of the Sparrow, but the original assessment had it as being based on Black Sparrow. More recently there has been talk of an ALBM based on the Blue Sparrow, but we don't have a name for it. The U.S. leak talked about a missile called Golden Horizon, and that may actually be this Blue Sparrow-based missile.
None of these weapons fit in the F-35 IWB and would likely have been launched from outside Iran's borders by F-15s or F-16s. Some claim the Blue Sparrow-based missile has a range of 2000km, so every target hit in Iran would have been reachable without entering Iranian airspace.
ROCKS is known to have an anti-radiation seeker offering, which would make it a potential culprit for striking air defense radars. Of course, a Blue Sparrow-based missile could also be equipped with an anti-radiation seeker.
Basically, it isn't clear what the F-35's role was in the strike and if it had to enter Iranian airspace at all. This is reflected in analysis by TWZ as well https://www.twz.com/news-features/israels-reprisal-strike-carefully-calculated-unclear-if-jets-ever-flew-over-iran
I'll have to do some research on that.
Interesting. Can you explain how this factors into to the analyses Ryan has done recently on how Israel could strike Iran, which was modeled around refuel requirements assumptions that strike aircraft would fly the distance all the way to Tehran? My naive follow-up question is, if you can attack that precisely from that far away, why would you ever put yourself at risk by crossing into enemy airspace? (An utterly naive question stemming from my ignorance about the capabilities of fighter aircraft)
You have to think in terms of desired effects and cost per effect. Missiles are expensive ($Ms per missile vs ~$50K per precision guided bomb), their warheads are usually limited in size compared to bombs, and they are heavy. Heavy enough that the munitions per aircraft are low (1-2 per aircraft). Aircraft also have only a few hardpoints that can handle more than 1000kg, and those are the ones also used for external fuel tanks. These missiles way 1600+kg, to deliver a warhead of 500-750kg. Meanwhile a good "bunker buster" bomb is 900kg and a deep penetrator is 2200kg. The only way Israel has to deliver a 2200kg penetrator is with an F-15E, and it has to be done pretty up close and personal. Or you can deliver a lot of 100kg class glide bombs to strike multiple targets with one aircraft, further reducing the cost per effect when 100kg bombs are sufficient to the task.
Also, long range missiles have very limited capability against mobile and relocatable targets. Fighters can hunt them and use shorter range weapons to strike.
So, lots of reasons.
Thanks, this was very instructive.
Tel Aviv is only 1,600 km from Tehran, so there's no need for any elaborate long distance airstrike, when Israel can lob Sparrow and ROCKS ALBMs at any target they choose.
Is there any actual evidence that Israel left their own airspace to conduct these operations? They certainly had no reason to, just to hit 20 targets. Sparrows have a range of at least 2000km and ROCKS likely reach much farther.
Regarding targets, we know that intense pressure has been put on Israel to avoid refineries or nuclear facilities, and the THAAD deployment was part of that. So what was left were military targets which, for the US and Europe at least, are very high priority since these drones are being fielded by Russia in Ukraine.
It's fun to think about elaborate scenarios, but Israel's planners are likely to take the lowest risk and highest reward path, which is also the least exciting.
Well done piece of work. It took 2 F-22 Raptors to take down a Chinese balloon, so yes the F-35 Lightning II is a better AC. Lol
This video is age restricted on here?
There is an Iran-Israel regional war already, the Iranians using proxies to fight Israel so that they don't need complex logistics or even much of an army. Hezbollah's job was to threaten Israel to that the Israeli air force could not attack Iran.
The view in the Middle East is that both sides are waiting for the results of the US election.
For that reason, Hezbollah soldiers usually run away from direct engagements with the IDF and the (alleged) 150k pro-Iran soldiers in Syria and Iraq haven't done anything.
For that reason, the Israelis destroyed most of the Iranian air defense (S-300s) and drone manufacturing (helping the US war against Russia), but acquiesced to the American demand not to attack any nuclear or energy-producing sites.
If this view is correct, then things will probably heat up as soon as the results of the US elections are clear.
That flyover gave me goosebumps. Thanks for the videos you produce.