Iran Refuses to Submit: The Gulf War Continues
Brownland
As the war in the Gulf approaches its 20th day, it has become clear that the size of Iran’s arsenal of unmanned systems far exceeds initial estimates.
Remarkably, this “belt” of unmanned systems appears capable of deterring any US-Israeli incursion into the Arabian Gulf for months to come, regardless of when Iran’s conventional naval forces are disabled.
Iran’s underwater unmanned vehicles pose a serious threat, and some models incorporate artificial intelligence. Their number is estimated at around 4,000. Effective countermeasures against them are virtually nonexistent, and they have not yet been used in combat.
Iran’s surface unmanned vehicles have also been used only a few times in this war.
Two things are unlikely to happen in this war: complete US-Israeli air superiority and total naval dominance. Iran is likely to be able to keep the Arabian Gulf closed to its enemies for an extended period.
The US and Israel maintain their air superiority, but consolidating this superiority is proving difficult. Iran possesses a large number of air defense systems deployed in fortified bunkers, in addition to 5,000 man-portable air defense systems (MANPADS) recently delivered by Russia.
Air superiority and complete air dominance are two different things. With air superiority, it becomes possible to conduct missions at a specific location and time. However, the enemy is still present and capable of attempting to shoot down aircraft, but lacks the power to dictate terms or disrupt operations.
This is the current situation for the United States and Israel in Iranian airspace. Dominance means the ability to operate in any area, at any time, and by any means necessary with minimal resistance.
Iran possesses a large number of short-range air defense systems, and their deployment is carefully planned, particularly to counter drones.
The Tor-M1 system is a prime example: throughout the entire war, only one launcher was destroyed. This means that Iran likely still possesses between 25 and 30 of these self-contained launchers.
The US-Israeli alliance has long been a powerful force in exerting coercive pressure and carrying out subversive operations in the region. Iran acts cautiously, plans strategically, and continues to conceal much of its capabilities.
Why isn’t a US victory in a regional war automatically assumed?
Militarily, the United States possesses the world’s largest military force, but modern wars are not always decided by military superiority alone. Experience over recent decades has shown that while force may win a battle, it does not guarantee control of the war or its political outcome.
1) The Changing Nature of Warfare
Modern warfare is no longer simply a direct conflict between regular armies. In the Middle East, conflict often transforms into a complex web of indirect confrontations involving local forces, regional allies, and sporadic missile and drone attacks. This model creates multiple fronts simultaneously and makes managing the conflict more difficult, even for major powers.
2) The Cost-Attrition Equation
One of the most significant shifts in modern warfare is the difference in the cost of weapons between offense and defense. Low-cost offensive tools, such as drones or simple missiles, can be used extensively, while intercepting them requires expensive defense systems. This cost disparity can transform a war into a protracted economic war of attrition rather than a short military confrontation.
3) The Risk of Conflict Expansion
The Middle East is a strategically interconnected region due to energy resources and maritime routes. Any major confrontation could quickly spread to multiple arenas, such as the Gulf, the Red Sea, or other regions, directly impacting global trade and energy markets. As a conflict expands geographically, controlling its trajectory becomes far more complex.
4) The Difference Between Military Victory and Strategic Outcome
Military power can achieve clear superiority on the battlefield, but true victory in modern warfare also depends on post-conflict political stability. Historical experience has shown that achieving military dominance does not necessarily guarantee long-term stability or a definitive end to the conflict.
The issue is not the weakness of the American military, but rather the complexity of the modern strategic environment. In multi-front wars characterized by attrition and overlapping regional interests, the ability to initiate a war may be far easier than the ability to control its course or bring it to a swift conclusion.
