Do you acknowledge that Iran's ballistic missile production facilities and launchers are not all underground? This is a very easy one.
The vast majority of their ballistic missile assets are underground. The fact that they have a handful of aboveground production facilities (mostly holdovers from before they developed their underground capabilities) doesn't change that.
I never claimed otherwise, but this doesn't contradict my point which is that Iran launched exactly as many missiles as they needed to hit their targets and to maximally exhaust Israeli AD. Iran had to operate under the assumption that the war could last for months and potentially involve the US, they couldn't just blast off everything they had right at the beginning of an attritional war.
That's not particularly relevant in evaluating the overall status at the end of the conflict, where Israel overwhelmingly kicked Hezbollah in the nuts by killing its leader, a bunch of its personnel, maimed a shit ton more of them, and also significantly reduced their missile stockpile, all while taking relatively light casualties and rendering the missile threat mostly ineffective.
Tellingly, they didn't do much to help out their pals in Tehran. Weird way to behave if actually they weren't hurting so badly. Kinda defeats the point of having an alliance.
Yet they somehow made even less progress on the ground compared with 2006 despite all this. The rate of rocket fire actually increased towards the end of the war. They assassinated plenty of Hezbollah leaders but historically that hasn't made much difference; the day Nasrallah's predecessor was assassinated one of the Israeli papers (I want to say Maariv) ran the headline of "HEZBOLLAH DEFEATED". As Obama discovered, assassinations don't win wars.
There is a different way to read Hezbollah's inaction when Iran was hit, namely that they recognized that their help wasn't necessary. Had they pulled off a coup on day 1 then Hezbollah would have made no difference and otherwise it was clear that Israel lacked the ability to win in an extended exchange.
The most retarded bit of logic here is that if we, for the sake of argument, grant that you're correct about only IAF drones poking around Iranian airspace then, wow, the IAF is really capable of doing a lot of damage to buildings using air-launched missiles at scale. Also, hitting the Mashhad airport at 1400 miles strongly implies operating within Iranian airspace even with ALBMs.
So all those photos of IAF aircraft loaded with bombs were just for propaganda purposes? Why? Who are they trying to convince? The U.S. and Iranian militaries know the reality regardless.
There's no good reason to believe the IAF is lying here, but you need it to fit your highly evidence-challenged view that actually Iran was the one winning this conflict. The real irony here is that the Iranians don't contest that the IAF was operating in Iranian airspace, they just pretended to shoot an F-35 or two down. You're doing more work than even the Iranian propagandists!
Hitting Mashhad proves that they didn't control Iranian airspace, because it's known at this point that Israel was attacking Iran from the north by crossing Azeri airspace to reach the Caspian. From that distance Mashhad is just 550 KM or less than 350 miles, well in range of ALBMs, potentially closer if they were willing to go through Turkmenistan.
Here's a question: if Israel actually controlled that airspace then why didn't they fly over the most fortified and valuable targets dropping dozens of bunker busters the way they did to get Nasrallah? Instead all of the satellite imagery matches up with the theory of missile strikes on soft targets. If the Mashhad airport strike is your best evidence that the IAF had air supremacy then that basically proves they didn't.
Why send drones on obvious suicide missions if air defenses are not suppressed much at all?
You think air defenses are suppressed but the political cost of being wrong and an IAF pilot getting taken hostage is unlimited, so you send drones first. The drones get shot down, confirming that AD remains operational. You then agree to a ceasefire, having confirmed that you can't just bomb them without.
Makes more sense then "non-operational air defenses miraculously down drones and then you agree to a ceasefire for no reason"
How many missiles do ya reckon this took? Would the IAF really use its fancy LORAs on a TV broadcaster?
If you thought that blowing up the TV broadcaster would cause the Iranian people to spontaneously rise up then a few ALBMs would be a small price to pay. The goal was clearly regime change, not a war of attrition. As soon as they failed they called in Trump to give them a face saving exit before the cost of using fancy missiles to blow up clocks, jails and TV broadcasters became apparent.
There's plenty of evidence Israel dropped bombs in Iran, just none you find compelling enough that you have to accept it. You resist the obvious because your narrative collapses if actually the IAF did have air dominance and you can pretend they were going to run out of ALBMs before Iran ran out of its ballistic missiles.
On my side, literally all of the OSINT satellite evidence, strike location and damage assessments matching up with my explanation. On your side, the Israel government making claims with zero proof of any kind.
It's good to see you understand why this is such an important dispute, though,
The IAF demolished large buildings and took out at least one command bunker, we know. Hard and expensive to do that with merely missiles.
They hit took out a lot of military leaders assembled for exercises but as far as I know nobody confirmed that it was an actual command bunker or even that the IAF was responsible. Most of the confirmed assassinations have been ascribed to Mossad drones, Mossad Spike missiles and the occasional Mossad bomb, all of which could plausibly have taken out the assembled generals just as easily as an IAF bomb.
Alternatively, penetrating a bunker is within the capabilities of the higher yield Sparrow variants like the Silver Sparrow and the Golden Horizon. The damage assessed from the (failed) attempted strikes on Arak and Natanz were performed by such missiles so it wouldn't be farfetched to assume that the successful assassination was their responsibility too.
Still, lets be generous here and assume it was the responsibility of the IAF, and that it was a bomb and not just a missile (or several). Why did this only happen on day 1? Why weren't they able to replicate the pace of assassinations for the remainder of the war, or to take out comparably valuable targets like the missile cities? Even if it were true, this seems more suggestive that they had temporary access to Iranian airspace granted by Mossad blowing decades of assets to give a few hours of access rather than actual aerial supremacy.
Trump's change in preference came right after the U.S. strikes on the nuclear facilities, obviously. The volume of Iranian missile strikes was going down and Israel was not taking meaningful damage relative to Iran.
So Iran was defenseless, Trump decides to call off Israel for no reason thereby saving Iran, Israel decides to obey Trump despite having previously had no problem disobeying him regarding Lebanon and Syria. Today, Iran is openly defying Trump by continuing nuclear enrichment and Trump is threatening to restart strikes, yet Israel is still doing nothing to Iran while continuing to bomb Syria in active defiance of Trump. I dunno, I still think the explanation that he was saving Israel rather than Iran makes more sense.
Also, fact check, Israel took billions of dollars in losses over just twelve days, and that was with Israeli and American AD operating at peak efficiency. I've yet to hear what "meaningful damage" done to Iran makes that comparatively not meaningful, since they recovered from the assassinations pretty easily.
Israel did not expect to get regime change that easily. Come on now. As far as we know, the Supreme Leader was not targeted (whether by impossibility or choice I'm not sure).
It's been made abundantly clear within Israeli media that they never had a shot at Khamenei regardless of the bluster, they just assumed that taking out a significant portion of the top military leadership combined with direct threats to murder their families if they didn't rise up would cause the regime to collapse. Instead the older and more cautious elements were instantly replaced by young IRGC hardliners, pretty much the exact opposite of the intended result. It increasingly seems like your arguments only make sense if you unquestioning believe Israeli claims and also assume they would never unwittingly do something stupid and shortsighted.
No, they very much did not. All those missiles, so few strategic sites hit. Blowing up grandmas doesn't win wars, even when they were able to do that.
90% of those missiles were basically chaff designed to drain Israeli AD. The higher quality ones actually intended to hit something had no issue getting through and obliterating Israel's highest value targets. The longer the war lasted, the less "chaff" needed and the more effective strikes on target, particularly since several of the more accurate and higher yield (but slower and easier to intercept) missiles weren't even brought out once.
This is backwards logic. The IAF could afford to start hitting secondary targets on day 12 because they had been so successful the previous 11 days. It's not like they suddenly couldn't hit Tehran, as you've pointed out.
The nuclear program wasn't gone and neither were the missile cities. If the IAF actually had total air control then they wouldn't be sending missiles at clocks, they'd be Nasrallah-bunker-busting every Iranian fortress and knocking out those capabilities for good.
There was no "deal" here. It was just an unofficial ceasefire. If Iran was on the verge of really turning the tide against their main enemy who did a surprise attack and killed a bunch of its top leaders and destroyed a bunch of their military and nuclear sites, why would they have stopped instead of getting even? They knew the U.S. really did not want to get drawn in beyond the attack on the nuclear sites. Why would Iran let Israel get away with it?
Yes, the US didn't want to get drawn in. But if Iran had responded to Trump's ceasefire offer by humiliating him Putin style and continued pounding Israel indefinitely then it's pretty hard to imagine Trump not getting drawn in. Beating Israel is easy but beating America is not. Their only options were to risk an existential war immediately or to take a ceasefire and to prepare for the day when Israel no longer has American backing. There are arguments for the former but it's easy to see why they chose the latter. On the flipside there's no reason why Trump or Israel would cut a favourable truce with their worst enemy at their weakest only to impotently threaten to return to fighting by the end of the month because said worst enemy continues to defy them.
p
The vast majority of their ballistic missile assets are underground. The fact that they have a handful of aboveground production facilities (mostly holdovers from before they developed their underground capabilities) doesn't change that.
I never claimed otherwise, but this doesn't contradict my point which is that Iran launched exactly as many missiles as they needed to hit their targets and to maximally exhaust Israeli AD. Iran had to operate under the assumption that the war could last for months and potentially involve the US, they couldn't just blast off everything they had right at the beginning of an attritional war.
Yet they somehow made even less progress on the ground compared with 2006 despite all this. The rate of rocket fire actually increased towards the end of the war. They assassinated plenty of Hezbollah leaders but historically that hasn't made much difference; the day Nasrallah's predecessor was assassinated one of the Israeli papers (I want to say Maariv) ran the headline of "HEZBOLLAH DEFEATED". As Obama discovered, assassinations don't win wars.
There is a different way to read Hezbollah's inaction when Iran was hit, namely that they recognized that their help wasn't necessary. Had they pulled off a coup on day 1 then Hezbollah would have made no difference and otherwise it was clear that Israel lacked the ability to win in an extended exchange.
Hitting Mashhad proves that they didn't control Iranian airspace, because it's known at this point that Israel was attacking Iran from the north by crossing Azeri airspace to reach the Caspian. From that distance Mashhad is just 550 KM or less than 350 miles, well in range of ALBMs, potentially closer if they were willing to go through Turkmenistan.
Here's a question: if Israel actually controlled that airspace then why didn't they fly over the most fortified and valuable targets dropping dozens of bunker busters the way they did to get Nasrallah? Instead all of the satellite imagery matches up with the theory of missile strikes on soft targets. If the Mashhad airport strike is your best evidence that the IAF had air supremacy then that basically proves they didn't.
You think air defenses are suppressed but the political cost of being wrong and an IAF pilot getting taken hostage is unlimited, so you send drones first. The drones get shot down, confirming that AD remains operational. You then agree to a ceasefire, having confirmed that you can't just bomb them without.
Makes more sense then "non-operational air defenses miraculously down drones and then you agree to a ceasefire for no reason"
If you thought that blowing up the TV broadcaster would cause the Iranian people to spontaneously rise up then a few ALBMs would be a small price to pay. The goal was clearly regime change, not a war of attrition. As soon as they failed they called in Trump to give them a face saving exit before the cost of using fancy missiles to blow up clocks, jails and TV broadcasters became apparent.
On my side, literally all of the OSINT satellite evidence, strike location and damage assessments matching up with my explanation. On your side, the Israel government making claims with zero proof of any kind.
It's good to see you understand why this is such an important dispute, though,
They hit took out a lot of military leaders assembled for exercises but as far as I know nobody confirmed that it was an actual command bunker or even that the IAF was responsible. Most of the confirmed assassinations have been ascribed to Mossad drones, Mossad Spike missiles and the occasional Mossad bomb, all of which could plausibly have taken out the assembled generals just as easily as an IAF bomb.
Alternatively, penetrating a bunker is within the capabilities of the higher yield Sparrow variants like the Silver Sparrow and the Golden Horizon. The damage assessed from the (failed) attempted strikes on Arak and Natanz were performed by such missiles so it wouldn't be farfetched to assume that the successful assassination was their responsibility too.
Still, lets be generous here and assume it was the responsibility of the IAF, and that it was a bomb and not just a missile (or several). Why did this only happen on day 1? Why weren't they able to replicate the pace of assassinations for the remainder of the war, or to take out comparably valuable targets like the missile cities? Even if it were true, this seems more suggestive that they had temporary access to Iranian airspace granted by Mossad blowing decades of assets to give a few hours of access rather than actual aerial supremacy.
So Iran was defenseless, Trump decides to call off Israel for no reason thereby saving Iran, Israel decides to obey Trump despite having previously had no problem disobeying him regarding Lebanon and Syria. Today, Iran is openly defying Trump by continuing nuclear enrichment and Trump is threatening to restart strikes, yet Israel is still doing nothing to Iran while continuing to bomb Syria in active defiance of Trump. I dunno, I still think the explanation that he was saving Israel rather than Iran makes more sense.
Also, fact check, Israel took billions of dollars in losses over just twelve days, and that was with Israeli and American AD operating at peak efficiency. I've yet to hear what "meaningful damage" done to Iran makes that comparatively not meaningful, since they recovered from the assassinations pretty easily.
It's been made abundantly clear within Israeli media that they never had a shot at Khamenei regardless of the bluster, they just assumed that taking out a significant portion of the top military leadership combined with direct threats to murder their families if they didn't rise up would cause the regime to collapse. Instead the older and more cautious elements were instantly replaced by young IRGC hardliners, pretty much the exact opposite of the intended result. It increasingly seems like your arguments only make sense if you unquestioning believe Israeli claims and also assume they would never unwittingly do something stupid and shortsighted.
90% of those missiles were basically chaff designed to drain Israeli AD. The higher quality ones actually intended to hit something had no issue getting through and obliterating Israel's highest value targets. The longer the war lasted, the less "chaff" needed and the more effective strikes on target, particularly since several of the more accurate and higher yield (but slower and easier to intercept) missiles weren't even brought out once.
The nuclear program wasn't gone and neither were the missile cities. If the IAF actually had total air control then they wouldn't be sending missiles at clocks, they'd be Nasrallah-bunker-busting every Iranian fortress and knocking out those capabilities for good.
Yes, the US didn't want to get drawn in. But if Iran had responded to Trump's ceasefire offer by humiliating him Putin style and continued pounding Israel indefinitely then it's pretty hard to imagine Trump not getting drawn in. Beating Israel is easy but beating America is not. Their only options were to risk an existential war immediately or to take a ceasefire and to prepare for the day when Israel no longer has American backing. There are arguments for the former but it's easy to see why they chose the latter. On the flipside there's no reason why Trump or Israel would cut a favourable truce with their worst enemy at their weakest only to impotently threaten to return to fighting by the end of the month because said worst enemy continues to defy them.
More options
Context Copy link