Missiles are an expensive solution to compensate for the firepower that modern fighter jets can provide. I know that Iran has been working on reducing the costs for decades, but still, a proper modern fighter jet can be reused many times (sure, it has maintenance costs) and each time it can do what 10-20 missiles can achieve.
The November 2015 contract for 24 Su-35 cost China 2,5 billion USD. Let's assume for argument's sake that an up-to-date fighter jet will cost Iran 60 million USD apiece, including considerable amounts of air-to-ground munitions (in reality, I'm sure the price tag will be significantly superior). A fleet of some 300 to 400 would have to be amassed in order to achieve nominal parity with just part of Iran's regional rivals and adversaries. 300 x 60 million = 18 billion USD. That's without counting training costs as well as the costs for new hardened airbases as well as machinery and R&D investment for spare parts production if the deal doesn't come with a transfer of technology (ToT which itself would probably be billed another couple of billion dollars), again for argument's sake.
In parallel, Iran's nationalized and largely self-sufficient defence industries can source almost every needed raw material and component for ballistic missiles domestically at a bargain price, their manufacturing process does not generate significant intermediary costs since they do not involve major private corporations calling for profits of their own (as opposed to arms industries in capitalist states of the west), and they're fully benefiting from economies of scale given the considerable mass production levels accomplished by Iran's BM production lines. Consequently, it is a realistic assumption that the IRGC will have to spend an average amount of 150.000 USD on a ballistic missile, let's increase that the number to 250.000 USD for the sake of our argument (although this is probably a somewhat exaggerated figure).
This means that for the price of an complete air force overhaul, bringing the latter to prevailing contemporary standards and enabling it of challenging a large number of potential regional enemies head on, Iran can produce 72.000 ballistic missiles... If we put the average unit price for a capable fighter at 100 million USD, the corresponding number of ballistic missiles will exceed 100.000 (!). Sure, Iran's hardened underground missile cities (large, comprehensively equipped bases) didn't come for free, but these one-time investments have now been completed, supplying Iran with at least 31 such bases (as per the statement of a military official, at least one was built in each province).
Furthermore, maintenance costs will be vastly superior for the hypothetical air force under discussion. So will training costs. Compared to ballistic missile crews, fighter jet operators are significantly more specialized thus their training is far more time-consuming and it costs more. Pilots - who theoretically could be identified and subject to attempts on their lives, are harder to replace than BM operators, whose instruction time may not exceed a couple of weeks if not days.
And we also left out various types of auxiliary aircraft essential in supporting jet fighters, namely early warning and aerial refueling planes etc, which Iran would need to spend another couple of billions on.
So cost-wise, the maths are not favoring fighter jets over an arsenal of precision-guided ballistic missiles, as long as the necessary human and material resources are available for indigenous mass-production.
The only subsidiary advantage to fighters I can see is their multi-role application, insofar as they can serve both for strike and interception missions, whilst ballistic missiles are limited to the strike role against ground targets. However, even a vast fleet of fighter jets will not dispense from the necessity to set up a solid ground-based air defence network, so in this regard an augmented air force will not lead to enormous savings either. Plus, the whole point of a massive stockpile of highly survivable, pin-point ballistic missiles usable on short notice in the framework of an effective doctrine like Iran is operating, is precisely to fulfill the A2/AD role otherwise dedicated to the air force, and neutralize enemy air power beforehand by saturating with continuous precision strikes the bulky type of infrastructure an air force generally cannot forego, namely air bases.
In conclusion, it's precisely the relative cost-effectiveness of the BM-centered defence doctrine, more than comparative procurement opportunities, which motivated Iranian planners to choose this option over an expensive air force. Especially for post-revolutionary Iran, whose main adversaries (US, NATO and zionist regime) are enjoying a disproportionate advantage in terms of material resources, cost has always been a fundamental and overriding criterion shaping the national defence doctrine and subsequent armament procurement policy.
- - - - -
You know what's remarkable.
For so much less, they banned Iran from SWIFT, but for the literally invasion of a country, they have not imposed a SWIFT ban on Russia. (Yet).
No matter how much people want to pretend everything is fine, their were alot of miss chances and mistakes in strategy. An Iranian gas pipeline to Europe would've prevented a swift ban..
Neither the EU nor any other major economic actor would have been willing to render itself dependent on Iranian energy supplies, given the Islamic Republic's principled opposition and Resistance to global arrogance, read to the zio-American empire. Iran did not miss out major opportunities. Especially since Iran never rejected acceptable offers in this regard, ie offers not conditioned upon acceptance by Iran of a de facto status of vassalage.
Not to mention that for Iran herself, increased dependence upon exports of crude oil and gas would have represented a disadvantageous venture as far as economic and human development are concerned. If Iran tops Saudi Arabia in industrial, technological and scientific prowess as well as in self-sufficiency, it's precisely thanks to lesser reliance on energy exports, not the other way around. All things being equal, due to the Dutch Disease and assorted dilemmas, oil isn't an opportunity for development, but it's rather an obstacle.
I seriously hope the monkeys in the current Iranian establishment learn from this.
Somehow I seriously doubt that "monkeys" would have been capable of overthrowing one of the major US client regimes known for being armed to the teeth with some of the most exquisite weapons systems, of then proceeding to challenge and undermine zio-American and NATO imperial interests all over their neighborhood and beyond, to deter that same enemy from military aggression, to hold in check two global superpowers and then the single global superpower throughout its unipolar period of hegemony, to withstand the most intensive "regime change" attempts by those same superpowers assisted by an endless array of lackeys for forty-three full years and counting.
- - - - -
Ukainian forces have allegedly launched 4 ballistic missiles into Belarus
4 ballistic missiles launched from the territory of the Republic of Belarus in the south-western direction
The two quoted statements seem contradictory - did Ukraine launch missiles into Belarus, or is it the opposite?
That was because of Iran's TERRIBLE diplomacy under IR. Say what you will about the Shah, but he convinced the west to give Iran the F-14, the 1970's equivalent of the F-22 today. He also convinced the west to give Iran nuclear weapons on a silver platter.
The shah convinced the west to supply Iran with nuclear weapons? Definitely not. I'm puzzled as to what this supposition is based on. There's simply no way the west would ever have supplied Iran with nuclear arms.
As for the F-14, it's not really comparable to the F-22 from a political point of view since the US regime never hesitated to go ahead with the F-22 program whereas at one stage it pretty much did so concerning the Tomcat, seeing that it was the shah who bailed out Grumman to the tune of billions of dollars and thereby made the F-14 possible to start with.
But more importantly and to be perfectly honest, I fail to see where the huge accomplishment is with the F-14 contract. Yes, Iran was offered and spent colossal sums on a uniquely advanced fighter jet of which it had the privilege of being the only operator outside the USA - although there should be no doubts in anyone's mind that Washington would immediately have obliged, had the zionist regime expressed a similar wish to operate the type. This said, the Iran-US relationship remained within the limits of classic imperial clientelization. Case in point, the US regime making sure Iranians wouldn't operate the much vaunted Tomcats autonomously, having to rely on American technicians instead. They even forbade Iranian personnel from carrying out maintenance of the jet on their own. Tremendous efforts would thus have been required to acquire this capacity, as the Islamic Republic experienced once US personnel had left the country and Iran was placed under total arms embargo.
In short, under the previous regime Iran would not have been able to use its F-14's other than for operations approved or dictated by its American patrons.
Wanting to support various movements in Palestine and what not is one thing, but then opening your mouth to stand out and make yourself out to be villain no 1 is the worst thing any country could do. This was especially problematic during Ahmadinejad era.
First, I can think of various interventions conducted by Iran that were not proactive efforts initiated by Tehran's, but purely defensive ones. Had Iran not proceeded with these, the fight would have reached her own borders now. Perhaps the most significant example of this is of course the Syrian crisis, given that a defeat of the government in Damascus would likely have led to a chain reaction, with Lebanon's Hezbollah being targeted next and the Iranian-led Axis of Resistance being essentially uprooted. This in turn would have deprived Iran of one of her main assets of deterrence against aggression or against intensive destabilization attempts by the zio-American empire.
Secondly, other policies which may more readily be considered as Iranian support for a cause, such as the Islamic Republic's principled and uninterrupted backing of the Palestinian Resistance, have simultaneously had a defensive dimension to them. To stay within the mentioned example, the zionist regime indeed has no tolerance for large nation-states with vast potentials in its neighborhood, as highlighted by the Bernard Lewis and Oded Yinon plans, of which the protracted wars and chaos spread across West Asia and North Africa by US neoconservatives in 2001, followed up upon by every one of their successors, represent the practical implementation.
Honestly I think Iran has done more than enough and sacrificed more than enough for the various causes throughout the region. In the next few years Iran needs to focus on building its infrastructure and international relations, especially now with these Russian moves in Ukraine, it's the optimal time to do this, and especially if the JCPOA is revived Iran needs to scramble.
Beyond and in addition to the Islamic Revolution's ideological convictions, Iran needs to counter NATO and the zionist regime for the sake of her own survival. This then takes the shape of Iranian support lent to various anti-imperial and anti-colonial liberation movements, primarily in the Islamic world but also outside its boundaries. As long as the enemy does not revise its stance and destructive goals vis a vis Iran, dropping support for these movements is out of the question - for make no mistake, total balkanization and obliteration of the Iranian nation-state, society and civilization is what they are aiming for, and so far they haven't shown any readiness to settle for less.
Even if they came to accept Iran's continued existence as an independent and sovereign state, the ethical and religious question remains as to whether Iran can abandon the just causes she has been standing up for. But for the time being, whether contemplated through the prism of ideology and Islamic tenets or through that of realism and national interest, Iran has no actual choice but to keep resisting zio-American imperialism.
What is more, Iran has done so in a remarkably affordable manner in terms of expenditures. Genius-level decision making and planning, which resulted among others in an incredibly well thought out, extremely cost-effective and affortable asymmetric military doctrine, made sure of this.
- - - - -
That means you AGREE Russia is the same as the US, UK and France, which are both invader countries. Are you two-faced? Remember Ukraine is not a member of NATO, even if Ukraine is a member of NATO, Russia/Putin has no right to attack an independent country like Ukraine, unless Ukraine attacks first.
The countries illegally destabilized, invaded and destroyed by NATO and their minions never posed a realistic threat to the security of the US and EU states. Whereas the menace to Russia emanating from these same western imperialists is very authentic, palpable and concrete. Moscow is much more in a position of legitimate self-defence vis a vis western encroachment in its immediate neighborhood, than Washington was with regards to fictive Iraqi "WMD" in 2003, etc.
- - - - -
Iran: *breaths*
west: you are kicked out of SWIFT for breathing to loud
Russia: invades another country illegally
West: no plans on SWIFT
That’s what happens when you have economic leverage on your opponent. Iran’s “neither east nor west” made it so Iran had leverage on NOBODY.
This statement appears to reflect two misconceptions about the Islamic Revolution's slogan 'Neither East nor West'.
One, the term 'East' was referring to the Soviet Union and its illegitimate empire. Which is no longer in existence, hence this notion is no longer of relevance.
Two, the motto basically implied refusal of any form of vassalage, no more and no less. Where economic ties are possible without preconditions that lead to subjugation (be it economic, political or cultural), Islamic Iran would be ready to enhance bilateral cooperation.
It's just that none of the major power centers of the west, owing to their oppressive nature, have been willing to establish deeper relations with Iran on an equal footing. Eastern powers currently do, hence why Iran is developing her economic relations with them.
People forget Ukraine has/had a big arms production industry during the Soviet Union days.
And Ukraine's defence industries and arms manufacturing plants are mostly situated in the eastern parts of the country. Soon Kiev can say goodbye to much of her military production capabilities.
If true, huge incompetence on Russian military part. Reminds me of the Nohed raid outside of Aleppo during Syrian civil war that ended in a terrible ambush and became a National embarrassment for Iran’s artesh.
This isn't exactly how it went down.
It wasn't an embarrassment for the Iranian army but rather a source of pride and inspiration. User Mithridates had addressed it before:
The US didn’t not want to attack. They could have gotten directly involved in Iran-Iraq war and they mostly sat on sidelines.
They could invaded Iran at anytime and had a country with strategic natural resources and strategic location.
But the West NEEDED a boogeyman, Israel NEEDED a boogeyman. Or else if Iran did not exist. Why would Arabs need hundreds of billions of dollars of weapons? Why would Israel need tens of billions in aid? Why would US need to develop newer and newer weapons? The US military industrial complex LOVES iran. If they could kiss Rahbar they would for making them so much money milking all these countries around the world.
The answer is the deep state never wanted a war with Iran or if it did, a window was open that they were so unsure they couldn’t take action. They also wanted to go to war with communist China...ultimately never did. (Nixon moment).
No, the US and zionist regimes would have jumped on the first achievable opportunity to overthrow the Islamic Republic and subsequently dismantle the Iranian nation-state.
The efforts they put into their so-called "regime change" policy against Iran have surpassed any other such undertaking they engaged in since the 1979 Islamic Revolution: from the illegal sanctions imposed on Iran, which are the most stringent on earth, to the unbelievable propaganda and psy-ops campaign they launched against the Islamic Republic and the Iranian nation, which historically is completely unprecedented in intensity, scope and underhandedness, to all other forms of pressure they have been exerting on Iran: there can not be a shred of doubt as to their objectives, which at times are officially announced.
A whole spate of other states in the area (Iraq, Libya, Syria, Somalia, Sudan, Yemen etc), which never managed to challenge and set back zio-American imperial interests to the extent Iran has done, where bombed, invaded, torn apart by hordes of terrorist NATO proxies or client regimes. The ultimate prize in the all out zio-American offensive started after September 11, 2001 was and is Iran. Iran incarnates the stumbling block par excellence to the empire's remodeling plans for the region.
The reason they did not proceed with a military invasion against Iran is clear: simply, they know plain well that they cannot succeed in such a mad adventure barring costs so high that they would effectively prove unsustainable both politically and economically for any aggressor. Iran's unique, numerous and redundant assets of self-defensive mean that the US regime is not going to risk a large scale military aggression. Namely, the combination of a vast, ever expanding network of loyal and dedicated regional allies; Iran's geographic location atop the world's main artery of energy supplies, which can be successfully choked off or threatened for considerable amounts of time; Iran's characteristics as a highly integrated, large and populous nation heir to one of the oldest civilizations in continuous existence, coupled with a historically deep rooted, sophisticated state structure - again one of the oldest in existence; the weight of Islamic and specifically Shia Muslim martyrdom culture, empowered by an extremely astute and well-suited asymmetric defence doctrine; and last but not least, the inherent vulnerability of the zionist entity to a full blown Iranian counter-strike, zionist entity whose survival and stability is as vital to the US establishment as America's own.
Therefore, the idea that the US refrained from attacking Iran because it needs a bogeyman to milk its vassals or justify its unconditional support for Tel Aviv doesn't hold water. That Washington will go out of its way to demonize its enemies is only natural. Correspondingly, there's nothing out of the ordinary in the fact that they will point to Iran when trying to legitimize their dubious policies; but, this nowhere indicates that the conflict between Iran and the US / Isra"el" is bogus, quite the contrary. The two issues are not mutually exclusive at all. As a matter of fact, there's not a single example of the US regime not attempting to blacken an effective enemy. More over, PGCC monarchies were already purchasing immense amounts of American-made armament prior to the Islamic Revolution. These regimes being the repressive US puppets they are, there's not even a need on either side, other than a purely formal one, to present any justification for the ongoing "milking" process - Iran or no Iran, a simple phone call from D.C. will be enough to make them disburse whatever amounts the US may ask for. Just as Tel Aviv was receiving massive US aid way before 1979.
They are waiting for Khamenai to die and Putin to die/retire/get assassinated. Then they will make even more chess moves.
Luckily China solidified its internal power structure and made Xi leader for life which will provide stability for some time. But even in case of China, they are trying to influence who replaces Xi when he passes.
They can wait all they want. The Islamic Republic has proven to be a stable, solid and functional enough system to take adequate preparations for a seamless succession to its Supreme Leadership, ensuring political continuity and steadfastness. To date, all of Washington's "chess moves" relative to Iran have blatantly failed at achieving their underlying strategic goals, and as time passes, the Islamic Republic's geostrategic position against its enemies actually keeps getting stronger and stronger.
