A Wider War: Iran
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.
Geography
Size
Iran is a large country. The visualizations below show it would span from Texas up through Oregon and encompass Nevada, Arizona, Utah and into Idaho, Colorado and Wyoming. For European readers, Iran (1,648,270 square km) is about the same size as France, Germany, Spain and the UK combined (1,658,640 square km). Iran has borders with several countries including Turkey, Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Turkmenistan and others. In addition it has access to the Persian Gulf, the Gulf of Oman and The Caspian Sea.
Terrain
“Mountainous terrain held by riflemen who know what they are about cannot be militarily defeated”. - Buppert’s Law of Military Topography
The CIA factbook describes Iranian terrain as “rugged, mountainous rim; high, central basin with deserts, mountains; small, discontinuous plains along both coasts”, for a point of reference, Afghanistan is described by them as “mostly rugged mountains; plains in north and southwest”.
The Rockies have an average height of ~6,600 feet, and a highest peak of 14,460ft [1], the Zagros have an average height of 7,650 feet and a highest peak of 14,629 ft [2]. I put this here because I think most ‘military interested’ Americans understand the strategic barrier that the Rocky Mountains would pose to any ‘Western invasion’ of the US. Now imagine a slightly higher mountain range forming an entire border, that is the Zagros Mountains in Iran.
If you look back at ‘America’s Waning Power’ I describe some of the vulnerabilities tanks face on the modern battlefield. The fact is Iran has a mountain border that would render our tanks and likely our armored vehicles effectively useless. A Foreign Policy article details the introduction of tanks into Afghanistan (which by the way, didn’t occur until 2010). This quote I believe emphasizes the challenges anyone would face with an invasion of Iran :
“the two most populated Mangal valleys in eastern Afghanistan had not seen a coalition or Afghan Army patrol in nearly two years — roughly since the introduction of the U.S. military’s lumbering MRAP (mine-resistant ambush-protected) vehicles, which are incapable of traversing the passes leading to their lands.” [5]
Borders & Relations
Examining border nations is important because strikes against Iran would need to have some level of acceptance or support from bordering nations. Without an overland path, strikes would need to be carried out from sea, which involves significantly more strategic risk for the attacker.
534 km border with Turkey
Turkey is a NATO ally, though I question if they would get involved or allow for launching of attacks from their country. Trade has been increasing between the two nations and as a Muslim nation, the Turkish population has been very actively protesting against Israel.
1599 km border with Iraq
Iraq is already trying to kick us out due to our support of the Gaza Genocide, if we try to launch operations from there, we would likely face local armed resistance
959 km border with Pakistan
Recently the two nations conducted strikes within the other’s borders claiming to be hitting ‘terrorist’ groups. While relations dropped off swiftly, they also began to rebuild them shortly after [6].
1148 km border with Turkmenistan
44 km border with Armenia
The relationship with Iran is “warm” and has been since the 90s [9]
689km border with Azerbaijan
traditionally rather hostile relationship due to Iranian support of Armenia [10] though it has ‘warmed’ a bit recently, perhaps due to increasing trade between the two nations.
Likely the largest threat to Iran, Israel helped Azerbaijan in its war against the Armenians [11]. There are multiple reports (from sources I am not familiar with) that Israel has ‘bought’ access to use Azerbaijan to launch attacks against Iran and that they have stationed aircraft there.
“Tehran maintains particularly close military-to-military ties with Syria and Iraq and has signed basic military cooperation agreements with Afghanistan, Belarus, China, Oman, Russia, South Africa, Sudan, and Venezuela’ [12]
Strategic Positioning
Tel-Aviv, the military and population capital of Israel
From Tel-Aviv to Tehran is about 975 miles.
Persian Gulf, likely a staging/launch point for our naval forces and Marines
From northern Persian Gulf to Tehran is ~400 miles
Home to the US 5th fleet, a major strategic location for resupply
From Bahrain to Tehran is ~670 miles
Straits of Hormuz, 20-30% of the worlds oil travel through these waters[13]
The Straits of Hormuz are about 55 miles wide at the northern point
Military of Iran
The general composition of the Iranian military is detailed below by the Defense Intelligence Agency (2019 report). I don’t know how significant a role the ground forces will have other than the support functions for air defense and a deterrent (along with the above described mountains) for any ground presence by invading countries.
Airforce
The current aircraft utilized by Iran are a bit dated but it does boast over 200 aircraft so I don’t think it is completely negligible. In addition there are a handful of ‘home made’ Kowsar (F-5 copies) in service though the role and capabilities are questionable [13]. The Iranian Airforce is in for a major update however with acquisition of two dozen Russian Su-35 [14], a highly advanced 4th generation aircraft. Despite the advantages 4th and 5th gen fighters have over these more dated aircraft, the West’s aircraft are not invulnerable. In a simulated encounter a French pilot ‘shot down’ an F-22 from a Rafale (a 4.5 gen fighter). The Rafale is not alone in these simulated ‘shoot downs’, a mirage-2000 (4th gen) as well a T-38 (a training aircraft but maybe 3rd gen?) [15] . Similar outcomes are highly unlikely in an air-to-air fight, but not impossible.
Air Defense
As we can see, Iran has a variety of air defense systems available to it. I Think it would take an entire article just to cover the span of weapons so I will instead focus on some highlights. The S20-C is an upgraded S-300 which can fire the missiles used in the S-400 system [18a]. This system would likely created ‘unsustainable losses’ to the majority of Israel’s air force if they were engaged [19].
The Misagh MANPAD (man portable air defense) systems are comparable to US stinger systems which have had a ‘high rate of success” in Ukraine [20]. There are also other older MANPADs in use by the Iranian forces as well.
Two newer systems were revealed earlier this year, the Azarakhsh and the Arman systems. According to Iranian military officials, the Arman missile defense system “has a medium range and a high altitude that can identify targets at 180km and engage and destroy them at 120km” [21]. The Azarakhsh low-altitude air defense system is likely to be us against helicopters, drones and cruise missiles [22]. They are armed with Azarakhsh missiles which were previously used in air-to-air roles and have a 10 km range.
What is significant is the multi-layered defensive capabilities. There are larger systems, like the S20-C and then smaller systems like the two new releases above. The MANPADs can be operated by a single individual. This makes striking targets within Iran an extremely dangerous operation. Even if an advanced platform like an F-35 penetrated and destroyed some targets in Iran it would then have to get out past (dated) aircraft, multiple air defense systems like the S20-C and the Azarakhsh and just lone soldiers or teams in the mountains with MANPADs. Each layer would also have the advantage of knowing that an enemy jet is in the area. Entering Iran would also expose the more ‘noticeable’ (to targeting systems) engines of our aircraft. In addition to layered defense, many of the Iranian platforms are highly mobile, this means it will be difficult to identify ‘safe’ routes and difficult to conduct retaliatory strikes against the SAM sites.
Navy & Coastal Defense
Iran’s navy is significantly larger than Israel’s with 261 vessels (including merchant marine ships) vs 64 [23]. Despite this, their navy seems mostly focused on controlling their coastal waters vs force projection. Other than mine laying and harrying operations I think its role will be rather limited. If the US gets involved directly, things become much harder for Iran, if not, some of their vessels likely could expand their reach and force projection. For example, the midget class Yono subs are based on the North Korean vessels which reportedly sank a South Korean Corvette in 2010[24]. A more recent development was the firing of Ballistic missiles from a ship and hitting targets over 1,000 miles away (1700km) [25]. Importantly, Iran does have Coastal Defense Cruise Missiles and capable of striking throughout the Persian Gulf and the Gulf of Oman. Additionally they have Antiship Ballistic missiles which have “terminal seekers that steer the missile to its target” [12].
Missile Armament
It is surprisingly difficult to get an accurate number of missiles that Iran has. DOD stated they have ‘over 3000’ ballistic missiles [26]. It was reported Iran sent 400 missiles to Russia [27]. Additionally, Hezbollah, reportedly ‘an arm of Iran’ has over 150,000 rockets and missiles. I feel like there is a large gap in the armament reported when sources say ‘over 3000’. Perhaps 3000 is the number available to strike against Israel (a focus of US policy in the area). Given that Hezbollah has such a sizeable armament, I’d imagine that Iran has more or at least a comparable amount, they are likely often left out of conversations because the range is comparatively limited. Despite the more limited range, many of these weapons would likely wreak havoc in the Straits of Hormuz and other near targets as well as any who tried to enter Iran or its neighbors. Increased proliferation of shorter range munitions could also expand the threat range that they offer.
Iran has reportedly developed the Fattah hypersonic missile which has a range of 1,400km [28]. Hypersonic missiles pose a significant risk thanks to their ability to penetrate air-defense systems. While these weapons were at once described as ‘unstoppable’ it appears that the Russian hypersonic missiles have been shot down multiple times as their speed “substantially decrease while maneuvering”[29].
For context, Tehran to Tel-Aviv is ~975 miles (1500km), western Iran to Tel-Aviv is ~650 miles (1000km). In terms of repelling attacks, Israel reportedly has 10 Iron dome batteries [30], I dive into their capabilities a bit in Wider War: Hezbollah. I think their are substantial risks and limitations here. I assume, utilizing the Iron Dome reveals its location to some degree. Moving it and setting it up again, while ‘easy’ takes several hours. This means that they cannot constantly shuffle the systems without leaving defense gaps. A consistent stream of attacks would then paint a target for Iranian drones , long range missiles or even their hypersonic missiles.
Drones
According to the Defense Intelligence Agency, “UAVs are Iran’s most rapidly advancing air capability.” Iran has a variety of drones as we see below. In addition to long range drones that can fly from Iran to Israel for strikes, Iran has also been ‘sharing’ this tech with regional allies. The proliferation of Iranian drones throughout the region means attacks can come from many different areas both near and far.
Conclusion
As I am writing this, news broke that Iran has launched a drone attack against Israel in retaliation for its bombing the Iranian embassy[32]. The Wall Street Journal is reporting that the United States intercepted and shot down several of these drones. This in turn, could make US launch sites valid targets (at least in the minds of Iranian leaders). If this were to occur the war would likely continue to escalate.
I want to reiterate, I do not see a winnable objective for us in this fight. We (Americans) could surely hit some targets in Iran but I do not believe we can do so with impunity (nor can the Israelis). Fighting Iran will not be similar to fights with insurgent groups we have fought in the past (it will be worse). We will not be able to line up thousands of troops and tanks on the border and push through the country like we did in Iraq. The mountains are likely largely impassable and its unclear if any of the surrounding nations would volunteer to host this force.
The War Hawks, whether bought by the military industrial complex or its sister group of Israel lobbyists, will clamor for war. They aren’t motivated by America’s best interest, they are motivated by money as I described in War is Still a Racket. The only thing worth fighting for is our lives and our rights and neither are at risk here. American leaders must avoid ANY further involvement and seek immediate de-escalation. If we continue on this path best case we further lose our influence and power in the region. The worst case scenario is a wider war that spreads even beyond the middle east. The conditions are ripe for world war and we must tread carefully to maintain peace.
![[3]](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Iran_Topography.png){kind=link}
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.
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!