If I may comment and ask a question about a particular aspect of your assessment (with all respect I owe and effectively have for you, of course): let's assume, as you say, that the enemy is meanwhile well informed about the numbers of Iranians ballistic missiles, as well as the launch methods and locations of dedicated missile facilities etc. However, aren't fighter jets, by their very essence, easier to locate in case of a war - unless of course Iran intends to bury them in the sand like Saddam did in 1990, instead of actually putting them to use against the aggressor? Because static air bases - precondition for the deployment of an air force, are surely as easy to detect for the enemy, as underground missile bases or storage facilities, aren't they?
In which case we'd be forced to conclude that considerable investment in upgrading the air force will offer no advantage over ballistic missiles as far as its survivability against enemy strikes is concerned. Is there not sort of a logical issue in postulating that because the enemy has improved its data on the numbers and on the locations of facilities related to Iran's BM power, the solution to this would reside in complementing these missiles with a jazzed up air force, air force which will depend on air bases that are, by definition, even easier for the enemy to identify...?
Naturally, when it comes to how well they really are informed about Iran's BM arsenal, I for one can't do anything but guesswork. If I was to give my opinion, I'd believe they're still groping in the dark to some extent and that they'd still be met by a number of surprises in case of a war. This being Iran's top strategic deterrence asset, I can imagine it will also enjoy top priority in terms of how well classified information pertaining to it will be protected. The IRGC should be capable of shielding at least some of its most prized secrets from the preying eyes of Iran's enemies and of assorted local traitors and spies, given that it will concentrate its very best capability on hermetically sealing any and all forms of undesired access to said data.
That said, even if the enemy's situational awareness about numbers and locations of missile-related facilities has grown significant, I would also wager that Iran will have deliberately spread out up to individual missiles across her 1.6 million square kilometers of territory, rather than massing them all inside a limited number of storage facilities. This, paired with a huge number of decoys should go a long way in making it much more difficult for potential aggressors.
As for Iran's buried container launchers, provided they are truly spread out and placed at a great distance one from each other, then even if their locations were known to the enemy, how is it going to effectively strike them all?
Finally, what about Iran's road mobile TEL's? If Iran did the right thing and manufactured not thousands but well over ten thousand of them, along with several times that number of decoys, to my understanding there's little the enemy could do to neutralize these assets. Please correct me if I'm wrong, I'd be surprised if they were able to track and monitor at all times and all over Iran's mountainous terrain, say 20.000 TEL vehicles made to look like ordinary civilian trucks, in addition to successfully distinguishing these from some 80.000 decoys for example... Is it not?
Many thanks again for your thought provoking and insightful contributions.
So many great points you made my friend, but let me start by mentioning a few of these great points before I try to give you my opinion regarding your question:
- "aren't fighter jets, by their very essence, easier to locate in case of a war"
- "static air bases, of an air force, are surely as easy to detect for the enemy, as underground missile base"
- " IRGC should be capable of shielding at least some of its most prized secrets from the preying eyes of Iran's enemies and of assorted local traitors and spies"
- "Iran's road mobile TEL's"
- "successfully distinguishing these from some 80.000 decoys"
The only way for Iran to "win" a military conventional conflict with U.S. is to achieve some strikes against U.S. and everything go back to status quo, as it is now. I think we all know that and recognize it. Iran cannot "WIN" an all out conventional war with U.S. if winning is in terms of defeating U.S. with "weapons" of war, absent of asymmetrical accomplishments (e.g. Vietnam's success against U.S.).
What Iran CAN do is to make the COST so high, that first the U.S. would resist a conflict, and then further, if it reaches the calculus that the Pentagon COST-BENEFIT-STRATEGIC-ACHIEVEMENT is a win for U.S., then they will initiate war with a strike against Iran.
Iran's greatest weapons, (which U.S. and its European Allies are petrified of) if these can be called that:
- retaliate with an attack against oil fields in PG and in particular the two oil pipelines in UAE and SA
- retaliate with an attack against shipping in PG which will cost the global economy as much as 1% decline
- retaliate with a constant tit-for-tat that does not end
- A conflict that lasts longer than 30 days or so
- A conflict that involves Suez Canal (BM strikes) or other strategic areas
Now to your question:
Iran needs to SPREAD U.S. THIN ... which is the first thing U.S. will try to do with Iran
If Iran can hit even 20 ships with F4E launched anti ship missiles, then U.S. is going to be in FOOTLOCKER PAIN, and will avoid that at all costs.
Let's hope U.S. will indeed go after all of Iran's AF runways and AF assets, NOW that leaves Iran's BM and CM to do REAL damage, in the 24 hours after the war. Operating a war by U.S. is so incredibly expensive. Let's use that against them.
At university, during my post grad, my final thesis, was DATA PACKET SWITCHING PROTOCOLS FOR SATELITE TELECOMMUNICATIONS and this is a few decades ago.
Today, U.S. knows about 30 min before Iran launches its MOST POTENT BMs, and that gives them some degree of planning. I rather if they have NO chance in planning a protective measure.
Strategically, a second rate air force that can do 1000 sorties per day, (new planes) would make U.S. DEVOTE so much assets for its own protection (ships and other assets in the Arab countries) that FIRST Iran will achieve a great degree of deterrence, and SECOND in case deterrence fails, and war is started, the RESULTS will force U.S. to end it fast, and not ignore the economic COSTS that will affect the entire planet.
One of Iran's GREATEST assets TODAY, is that ... it DOES NOT HAVE A LOT TO LOSE (materially).
that is not the case with UAE/SA/ISRAEL/KUWAIT/JORDAN/Europe etc.
Deterrence SHOULD be Iran's goal number one. War is a loss, no matter how to look at it.
Iran's stronger air force, will allow Iran to DO MORE to fight for its rights and take what rightfully belongs to it, from its neighbors.
p.s.
I have so much respect for the pieces you write. They are excellent. Educated me so much, in areas I knew nothing about. Thank you.