As Israeli provocations seem to be dragging the world into war, I initially thought to jump straight into a piece on a world war. In the hopes we don’t get there, I am writing instead on the military capabilities of Iran. I think most Americans have lost sight of the reality that it is MUCH harder to project (ie invade) another country than it is to defend your own. In this article I will try to touch on some of the strategic challenges us and/or our “allies” would face in this conflict. Much like any of our wars, I do not see a winnable objective for the United States. For Israel, I believe their objective IS to get the US to fight Iran on their behalf. I do not believe it is in the best interest of the United States to get involved, either directly or indirectly.
Outstanding summary and I am honored you would use my quote. Not only do they have some advantages but they also have been in close coordination with Russia to work with developing drone technology and TTP in an active near-peer and peer fight.
The salvo competition of servicing low cost drone targets with high cost missile defense will quickly drain the magazines of the west.
I am concerned we are the 'dangerously low' side of missile defense. At what point does our defense of israel start to put our ships and assets at DIRECT risk due to lack of anti-missile/drone munitions.
Western missile defense capability doesn't hold a candle to the Russian and Chinese A2AD efforts. The West's Achilles heel is it cannot synchronize fires across services and with allies.
Boutique singleton IRBM and ICBM fires are almost there but dynamic retasking in a near-peer and peer fight. Big zero.
Here are some overviews. A bit dated but relevant.
Very interesting, especially for someone like me with no military background. I DO have extensive political/cultural/economic knowledge and decades of experience in the region. If "war is an extension of politics," then, quite aside from the grave military difficulties attacking Iran would face, as you have outlined, the POLITICAL consequences regionally would be simply catastrophic. The whole idea, so beloved by some (e.g. Sen Cotton, John Bolton) that we should attack Iran is utterly idiotic and deeply dangerous. Thanks for your very informative posting!
Thank you! I wrote a bit on how disastrous our 'bomb and gun' diplomacy is in my other article "America's Waning Power". We have no credibility and our 'influence' in the region is tied to dictatorships we help prop up. If the war were to continue to escalate and spread even those 'allies' would have to think hard about what is the best way for them to stay in power. As I argued in that article, we have to 'let go' of our empire before it collapses on top of us.
You are very welcome! I fully agree. I am rather pessimistic about our ability to "let go." I fear our Imperial-Overstretch mindset, instead, will "rave and burn at close of day." I would love to be wrong, of course.
Outstanding summary and I am honored you would use my quote. Not only do they have some advantages but they also have been in close coordination with Russia to work with developing drone technology and TTP in an active near-peer and peer fight.
The salvo competition of servicing low cost drone targets with high cost missile defense will quickly drain the magazines of the west.
I am concerned we are the 'dangerously low' side of missile defense. At what point does our defense of israel start to put our ships and assets at DIRECT risk due to lack of anti-missile/drone munitions.
Western missile defense capability doesn't hold a candle to the Russian and Chinese A2AD efforts. The West's Achilles heel is it cannot synchronize fires across services and with allies.
Boutique singleton IRBM and ICBM fires are almost there but dynamic retasking in a near-peer and peer fight. Big zero.
Here are some overviews. A bit dated but relevant.
China: https://press.armywarcollege.edu/parameters/vol49/iss1/3/
Russia: https://press.armywarcollege.edu/parameters/vol49/iss1/4/
Very interesting, especially for someone like me with no military background. I DO have extensive political/cultural/economic knowledge and decades of experience in the region. If "war is an extension of politics," then, quite aside from the grave military difficulties attacking Iran would face, as you have outlined, the POLITICAL consequences regionally would be simply catastrophic. The whole idea, so beloved by some (e.g. Sen Cotton, John Bolton) that we should attack Iran is utterly idiotic and deeply dangerous. Thanks for your very informative posting!
Thank you! I wrote a bit on how disastrous our 'bomb and gun' diplomacy is in my other article "America's Waning Power". We have no credibility and our 'influence' in the region is tied to dictatorships we help prop up. If the war were to continue to escalate and spread even those 'allies' would have to think hard about what is the best way for them to stay in power. As I argued in that article, we have to 'let go' of our empire before it collapses on top of us.
https://www.eomar.news/p/americas-waning-power
You are very welcome! I fully agree. I am rather pessimistic about our ability to "let go." I fear our Imperial-Overstretch mindset, instead, will "rave and burn at close of day." I would love to be wrong, of course.
Great analysis, I recommend you follow Brian Berletic New Atlas who delivers as you do great insides into the US foreign policy.