The outcome of the twelve day conflict can be summarised in two undeniable realities, according to the opinion of most independent analysts. Number one, Israel is not the impregnable fortress it was touted to be and is on the contrary quite vulnerable; lack of strategic depth being its achilles heal. P4P Iran will do far greater damage to Israel than Israel to Iran or even USrael to Iran as its a vast country with strategic assets spread across its length and breadth and a large population that understands and more importantly accepts that sacrifices have to be made to survive with dignity. Its part of their religious beliefs, heritage, and national identity. Number two, Iran cannot be defeated with conventional means (regime change was always a non starter) even if its a USrael imposed war with boots on the ground. So what options do USrael have? Another round of more or less the same weapon systems with some tactical changes or improvements? That will certainly harm Iran but Iran's retaliation will damage Israel much more which is still reeling from its earlier misadventure and has demonstrated that it cannot sustain any amount of prolonged war with a country like Iran. A long drawn out stand off allows Israel to keep the Iran card alive domestically and abroad but it also allows Iran to beef up its defenses and further strengthen strategic ties with Russia and China that may keep USrael in check. That leaves us with the nuclear option. I do not put that past Israel one bit given its now historical proclivities particularly the ongoing genocide in Gaza. Israel also knows its backers in the West will do their utmost to minimize the diplomatic and economic fallout from even a dastardly unthinkable act like that. If a live telecast genocide does not remotely prick the conscience of Western powers, a tactical nuclear strike on Iran, a thorn in the West's side for decades, certainly will not. So, what options does Iran have? In my opinion, just ONE. USrael will never back down and will continue to provoke it, attack it, malign it, and sanction it when it cannot attack it militarily. Iran has to go nuclear for its own sake and for the sake of some semblence of stability in the region. That is the only 'deterrent' that ensures Iran's sovereignity and survival. I hope their Ayatollahs understand.
Regarding: "The big mistake that Iran made was not equipping itself with missile defense systems."
Alastair Crooke has explained in surprising detail that Israel did NOT penetrate Iranian air space; the deaths and damage Israel delivered were by stealth, with pre-placed assets like Ukraine's Spiderweb attack on Russia; and from cross-border missiles & drones.
It's not implausible that Israel's flubbed attack several months earlier was an exercise in identifying Iranian defenses. So if Iran had had more Russian-supplied defenses, they might well have been targets.
As it turned out, Iran recovered fairly quickly.
I don't know how Iran could have prevented the sneak assassinations of its military and scientists, and their families: assassination is how Israel does things.
Iran seems to have a conscience, a moral compass, and religious principles that govern behavior even in battle, in contrast to Israel whose religious principles are "Arise and kill first" and "war by way of deception."
I doubt that Crooke maintains that the "deaths and damage" were caused *exclusively* by the pre-placed assets. I'm sure he's well aware of the role of stand-off missiles launched from aircraft on the periphery of Iranian air space--the Caspian (via Azerbaijan) and Iraqi Kurdistan. That's the point that Orlov is making--that early warning radar capabilities would have made the sneak or surprise attack, which was quite massive and detectable by those means, impossible. Iran does have air defense radar, but not of the sophistication that it should have and could have had.
The updated S-300 missiles Iran is reported to have obtained from China (HQ-9) are said to be highly effective against low observable craft--airplanes, missiles, UAVs. Again, I believe what Orlov is saying is that Iran placed too much reliance on the deterrent effect of their own missile program. Orlov agrees that the Iranian missile response was highly effective, implicitly stating that USrael grossly miscalculated in launching the attack--in effect, USrael should have been deterred but wasn't, dues to miscalculation. The result was a disaster for USrael, but in the process USrael damaged Iran to an avoidable extent. That's Orlov's contention: that the damage to Iran could have been avoided--at least to a great extent--if Iran had had a more adequate missile defense.
Agree that Iran could have and should have been better prepared.
However, imo the far larger failure was Israel's: numerous Israeli sources spoke of their absolute confidence that Iran would topple. Even now, it is not certain that Israelis have modified their perceptions.
The outcome of the twelve day conflict can be summarised in two undeniable realities, according to the opinion of most independent analysts. Number one, Israel is not the impregnable fortress it was touted to be and is on the contrary quite vulnerable; lack of strategic depth being its achilles heal. P4P Iran will do far greater damage to Israel than Israel to Iran or even USrael to Iran as its a vast country with strategic assets spread across its length and breadth and a large population that understands and more importantly accepts that sacrifices have to be made to survive with dignity. Its part of their religious beliefs, heritage, and national identity. Number two, Iran cannot be defeated with conventional means (regime change was always a non starter) even if its a USrael imposed war with boots on the ground. So what options do USrael have? Another round of more or less the same weapon systems with some tactical changes or improvements? That will certainly harm Iran but Iran's retaliation will damage Israel much more which is still reeling from its earlier misadventure and has demonstrated that it cannot sustain any amount of prolonged war with a country like Iran. A long drawn out stand off allows Israel to keep the Iran card alive domestically and abroad but it also allows Iran to beef up its defenses and further strengthen strategic ties with Russia and China that may keep USrael in check. That leaves us with the nuclear option. I do not put that past Israel one bit given its now historical proclivities particularly the ongoing genocide in Gaza. Israel also knows its backers in the West will do their utmost to minimize the diplomatic and economic fallout from even a dastardly unthinkable act like that. If a live telecast genocide does not remotely prick the conscience of Western powers, a tactical nuclear strike on Iran, a thorn in the West's side for decades, certainly will not. So, what options does Iran have? In my opinion, just ONE. USrael will never back down and will continue to provoke it, attack it, malign it, and sanction it when it cannot attack it militarily. Iran has to go nuclear for its own sake and for the sake of some semblence of stability in the region. That is the only 'deterrent' that ensures Iran's sovereignity and survival. I hope their Ayatollahs understand.
"But then Iranians will argue otherwise, saying that they don't believe escalation in terms of nuclear arament is right".
The Iranian's have so many brilliant scientists, and their engineers know full well that explosive nuclear fission is an impossibility. .
We're drowning with the empire of lies and no one is ever critical of what they cannot prove with empirical science.
The peaceful uses for enriched uranium is actually quite extraordinary.
Regarding: "The big mistake that Iran made was not equipping itself with missile defense systems."
Alastair Crooke has explained in surprising detail that Israel did NOT penetrate Iranian air space; the deaths and damage Israel delivered were by stealth, with pre-placed assets like Ukraine's Spiderweb attack on Russia; and from cross-border missiles & drones.
It's not implausible that Israel's flubbed attack several months earlier was an exercise in identifying Iranian defenses. So if Iran had had more Russian-supplied defenses, they might well have been targets.
As it turned out, Iran recovered fairly quickly.
I don't know how Iran could have prevented the sneak assassinations of its military and scientists, and their families: assassination is how Israel does things.
Iran seems to have a conscience, a moral compass, and religious principles that govern behavior even in battle, in contrast to Israel whose religious principles are "Arise and kill first" and "war by way of deception."
I doubt that Crooke maintains that the "deaths and damage" were caused *exclusively* by the pre-placed assets. I'm sure he's well aware of the role of stand-off missiles launched from aircraft on the periphery of Iranian air space--the Caspian (via Azerbaijan) and Iraqi Kurdistan. That's the point that Orlov is making--that early warning radar capabilities would have made the sneak or surprise attack, which was quite massive and detectable by those means, impossible. Iran does have air defense radar, but not of the sophistication that it should have and could have had.
The updated S-300 missiles Iran is reported to have obtained from China (HQ-9) are said to be highly effective against low observable craft--airplanes, missiles, UAVs. Again, I believe what Orlov is saying is that Iran placed too much reliance on the deterrent effect of their own missile program. Orlov agrees that the Iranian missile response was highly effective, implicitly stating that USrael grossly miscalculated in launching the attack--in effect, USrael should have been deterred but wasn't, dues to miscalculation. The result was a disaster for USrael, but in the process USrael damaged Iran to an avoidable extent. That's Orlov's contention: that the damage to Iran could have been avoided--at least to a great extent--if Iran had had a more adequate missile defense.
Thanks for reply.
Agree that Iran could have and should have been better prepared.
However, imo the far larger failure was Israel's: numerous Israeli sources spoke of their absolute confidence that Iran would topple. Even now, it is not certain that Israelis have modified their perceptions.
I am sure you have seen this, but just in case: https://youtu.be/cv0Pfw9p9ZU?si=8Q0IeL2-MBDT_wkq. Thank you for your analyses.
Thanks.
Maybe should have done the world a favour and carried on for those two extra weeks.
The problem is that Israel will resort to nukes if their back is to the wall. Iran stopped just short.