Turkey has drones and missiles too but iran doesnt have an airforce
Turkey has drones and missiles too but iran doesnt have an airforce
Military Point of view:
While your point about Turkey having drones and missiles stands, it's crucial to understand the nuance in Iran's capabilities. While Iran may not have a conventional air force comparable to many global powers, its missile capabilities are not to be underestimated. They possess the ability to operate not just on a tactical level, but strategically as well, and with remarkable precision. Drawing from real-world conflicts and wars over several decades, Iranian missiles have been continually refined and produced in large quantities. This makes them a formidable threat to any adversary in the region.
In the context of drones, Turkey indeed boasts a considerable arsenal of sophisticated drones with impressive technical capacities. However, comparing drones head-to-head might be an oversimplification. Drones, in a battlefield scenario, have adversaries different from other drones – they primarily face threats from fighter jets, anti-air systems, and electronic countermeasures. A Bayraktar drone, for instance, is a significant investment and isn't easily expendable. On the other hand, Iran has a vast and diverse range of drones, many of which are designed specifically to wear down an enemy's defenses and are easily replaceable. The conflict in Ukraine serves as a prime example. In areas where electronic countermeasures and air defenses are robust, the efficacy of drones can be compromised.
In my perspective, the synergistic combination of drones, missiles, and a robust air defense system can be remarkably effective. It's essential to approach this topic with a broader lens and appreciate the complexities involved.
Here's a thoughtful forum post based on the information you provided, summarized and translated into English:
Economic and Diplomatic point of view:
Beyond the military intricacies, it's essential to consider the multitude of factors that determine the outcome of a conflict. Chief among them are diplomatic ties and shared interests. Iran and Turkey share significant economic dependencies, robust trade relations, and mutual interests, particularly concerning the presence of Americans in Kurdish territories and the broader issues surrounding the Kurdish regions in Northern Iraq and Syria. Any direct conflict could jeopardize these shared interests, potentially plunging both sides into unintended chaos.
Let's also not forget the diplomatic dynamics at play. India, for instance, has a vested interest in ensuring the stability of the Armenia corridor, a crucial trade route for them leading to Russia. China would likely side diplomatically with Iran. While Russia, currently embroiled in the Ukraine situation, might diplomatically lean elsewhere. Saudi Arabia, given its recent rapprochement with Iran, would likely remain neutral. As for the USA and the EU, their stance remains speculative. They might offer support in exchange for further NATO alignments.
Conclusion:
All things considered, I perceive Turkey to be in a more precarious position than Iran. However, the culmination is clear: an outright war benefits neither. It's improbable to see Turkey intervening directly or Iran launching a direct assault on Azerbaijan. If a conflict erupts, I suspect it would primarily center around the corridor, with Iran providing technology, training, possibly troops (though unofficially), and other resources. This scenario might mirror situations like the Syrian Civil War, Yemen, or to some extent, Ukraine. That is to say, if an Iranian air defense system were to shoot down an Azeri drone, it'd be attributed to the Armenians; or if missiles immobilize Azerbaijani airstrips, the blame would likely fall on the Armenians, and so forth.
It's crucial to view these potentialities through a broader lens, understanding that war isn't just about missiles and drones, but an intricate dance of diplomacy, shared interests, and regional dynamics.
---
---