United States Attacks Iran

The Last Question First; Attacking Iran

Editor's note: Unwanted advertising popups are now the default on Google Blogger. The Boresight highly recommends installing free Adblock Plus into your browser to suppress this annoyance and view our content in peace.

14 June, 2025: IDF strikes targets in Iran. Where this is headed is unknown. As of June 15, the Israeli Air Force cannot return to their bases in Israel, as this puts them at risk from Iranian missile fire, so they are operating from Cyprus. Massive US-tanker/transport airlift underway as of June 15, 2025, dozens of tankers assist aerial refueling of IDF aircraft. IDF ABM defense is taxed to its maximum, so how long they can try and intercept Iranian missile fire is unknown.

01 Oct, 2024: Heavy ballistic missile strike by Iran on Israel. As we predicted, US/Israeli air defenses were overwhelmed and largely ineffective. The IDF Nevatim Air Base appears to have been a primary target. The large number of MRBMs claimed by IDF/US sources is more likely to have been a much (much) lower number of MRBMs fired in total, but equipped with MIRV warheads. MIRV warheads are effectively impossible to stop:   

Links:
https://x.com/WarMonitors/status/1841168197762126018
https://x.com/clashreport/status/1841167927745069493
https://x.com/squatsons/status/1841172114977513773
https://x.com/WarMonitors/status/1841178605293818152

13-Apr, 2024 "Multiple [Iranian] missile strikes at Ramon Airbase in southern Israel." We wrote about this possibility back in 2015. Where this all leads is unclear. However, a new big war in the Middle East now seems likely.

"We judge that the introduction of nuclear weapons into the Near East would increase the dangers in an already dangerous situation and therefore not be in our interest. Israel has 12 surface-to-surface missiles delivered from France. It has set up a production line and plans by the end of 1970 to have a total force of 24–30, 10 of which are programmed for nuclear warheads." - Henry Kissinger
 
While a furious effort was underway in August of 2015 by Israeli lobbying groups in the United States to scuttle the Iran deal - they are all operating on the premise that US-Israel retains the option to conduct a military attack on Iran to stop or delay an Iranian nuclear program. However, neither the ZOA, NOPAC, or Washington beltway Iran hawks - can tell anyone - what a US-Israeli attack on Iran would look like - or what outcome(s) it would produce.

Not one.

While they are free to oppose the Iran deal, one must ask the last question first; will US-Israeli military action (a war) stop Iran from developing a nuclear weapon?
Iran has never been a legitimate threat to Israel's existence - as it is well known that Israel sits on a nuclear deterrent ‘Jericho ICBM force’ – which can hit any target in the Middle East (including Iran).
[Above] The 'Jericho' was started in the 1950s with assistance from Dassault.

Israeli survival has never (ever) depended on a “better” Iran nuclear deal.

Israel has ~ 100-600 nuclear weapons.

So those in the US Congress and elsewhere who oppose a negotiated deal are effectively either:
  1. Totally ignorant.
  2. Parroting the Israeli government's (a foreign entity) official policy of deliberate ambiguity regarding its nuclear weapons.
  3. Forced to maintain a position that Iran is not a rational agent.
In all cases, this precludes these voices from being taking seriously.

Some historical contexts is warranted here. History tells us the question is not will (will) Iran retaliate for a US-Israeli attack - but simply - in what manner will Iran retaliate. The Iranians did not sit back and absorb Iraqi airstrikes during the Iran-Iraq War. Iran went on the offensive within hours of the first Iraqi strikes on 22-Sept 1980, the IRIAF launched coordinated retaliatory strikes to hit Iraqi airfields near Baghdad and Basrah and includes the first (the first) successful attack on the Iraqi Osirak nuclear reactor on 30-Sept 1980 eight days later.  This joint operation was followed eight (8) months later by Israeli jets on 06-Jun 1981. (During the first attack an Iranian RF-4E took real-time photos of the reactor which were later shared with Israel as the Americans were supporting Iraq during the war. Iran and Israel cooperated in other areas during the war also.)

The Iranians did not target the main reactor because of radiation release concerns (prevailing winds blow east). This successful IRIAF deep-penetration strike on the Iraqi nuclear facility has been all but forgotten by Western analysts, historians, and defense press. Iran might be a lot of things - but irrational isn't one of them.

Iran has hundreds of  Shahab-3 (Sejil-2) class medium-range ballistic missile (MRBM), (never mind a dizzying array of other types) on mobile launchers. History instructs that mobile missiles cannot be “taken out” by Tomahawks, cruise missiles, airstrikes, area-denial munitions, or Special Forces teams.
You can’t find the missile-launchers before the missiles are fired – as the high number of Iraqi SCUD launches throughout the 1991 Gulf War attests.
Iraq launched ~ 86 Scud missiles throughout the 1991 Gulf War. Serious allied attempts to find and stop Iraqi SCUD mobile-launches - would prove totally futile.

The American Patriot Missile System was widely reported (and shown) intercepting Iraqi Scud missiles over Israel during the 1991 Gulf War. Indeed, then US President George H.W Bush exalted the Patriot for this "achievement." An investigation after the war concluded that Patriot hit one (1) or - none - of the Iraqi Scud warheads. This includes a Scud that hit the barracks of a US Army detachment in Dhahran, Saudi Arabia, on the night of 25-Feb, 1991. Seventeen (17) years after the war, Raytheon (builder of Patriot) literature continued to assert that Patriot missiles had destroyed Iraqi Scuds. No less than forty-two (42) Patriot missile rounds were fired at Iraqi Scuds during the war - for perhaps one (1)  or zero (0) hits.

We all understand that information/disinformation control during wartime can be vital, but fraudulent industry assertions 17 years after the fact - illuminate a vastly different problem.

Raytheon has introduced PAC-3 upgrades to address the issues of 1991 while Iran has moved beyond Scud-class 'Ghauri' Mach 5 capability.

Israel-US possesses no real defense against an Iranian counter-attack from hundreds (as of 2025, if not thousands) of Iranian mobile-MRBM class weapons. Both the Israeli ‘Arrow’ anti-ballistic missile system and the American Terminal High-Altitude Area Defense (THAAD) system claim "successful tests" but remain unproven. Israel's Arrow system hit no Hezbollah rockets in 2006. ‘Iron Dome’ cannot deal with targets of nearly 1-ton traveling upwards of Mach 3, and no amount of USN Aegis SM-2/SM-3 destroyers in the Persian Gulf or the Mediterranean can stop all the Shahab-3 (Sejil-2) rounds. Israel-US has tried to bolster 'Iron Dome' with Patriot interceptors - but it's hopeless. No air/missile defense system is perfect. We think under actual combat conditions the probability of interception/destruction of in-flight Iranian mobile-MRBM by all US-Israeli missile defenses is no greater than 30%. The speed of the Sejil-2 is Mach 13, while Shahab-3 is closer to Mach 7. Terminal reentry speeds are lower but still high. Simply too many Iranian mobile-MRBMs will get through.


The exact nature of Iran's missile forces is not well understood, with a dizzying array of missile name, designation, and configuration changes. Iran's years of isolation make accurate appraisal difficult. Western military planners best assume robust Iranian capability out to at least ~ 2000 km (~ 1240 mi).


 
[Above/Below] Although these two systems are operated by the DPRK, this is what could be on the horizon in Iran if American and Israeli hawks continue their threats of attack. Mobile missile launchers have a proven capability (under actual combat conditions) to avoid detection until it is too late. They are effectively impossible to find and stop in time. Russia maintains a large modern mobile-ICBM force for this very reason.
This means land-based US-Israeli air power needs to be based out of reach of Iranian mobile ballistic missiles. This equates to at least ~ 2000 km (~ 1240 mi) away from Iran. Examine carefully the graphic below. Note the red and yellow zones. US/Israeli planners would do well to ponder this point. For it is pivotal.
This then shifts the burden of offensive US power projection onto the U.S. 5th fleet, and American long-range B-1B, B-2, B-52H, (KC-135, KC-10) Tomahawk, and Cruise missile forces.
An Israeli attack might be possible from her submarines. Again IDF-AF bases are out of the fight - with the Israeli Air Force needing to operate from bases well outside Iranian mobile I/MRBM ranges or forced into aircraft dispersal off-base.
  
Iran’s air bases were designed and built by the Americans to project power into the USSR during the Cold War. They were also designed to survive an attack by the Soviets. Taking out these American-made Iranian bases could prove difficult. Iran can obviously also leverage aircraft remote dispersal away from its airbases. It is no accident that the IRIAF’s tactical response, target selection, combat tactics, and order of battle would be consistent with an American air arm. No accident.

To attempt to neutralize Iranian underground facilities using special deep-penetration munitions, one must get fixed-wing aircraft over (or near) the targets.

[Below] Test of the GBU-57 Massive Ordnance Penetrator (MOP) in 2009. The Northrop B-2 can carry two (2) GBU-57s.
Because the distances involved are so great, and sortie times very long, sustained US fixed-wing strike intensity will be “not high.”
Expect the use of decoys by Iran. This technique has proven to be highly effective throughout history and can produce enormous problems for an opponent attempting to make authentic assessments and targeting decisions. Because decoys produce a sufficient degree of uncertainty, typically, they must be attacked in order to alleviate that uncertainty. Aluminum paint formulations or wire mesh under the skin can produce a compelling "radar target," and decoys can even produce faux heat sources to fool in the IR spectrum.
[Above] Mobile ballistic missile decoy which the payload can be raised and lowered. [Below] S-300 SAM launchers also employ decoys. Launch tubes can also be raised (firing position) and lowered (transport) like the real ones. Effectively, anything can be a decoy, including buildings and hangars.
[Above] The LPPU-83 is a self-propelled decoy using a PT-76 light tank chassis and the actual launch tubes from expended missile rounds, to mimic parts of the S-300 SAM system series. Decoys can include faux radar-emitters keyed to the radar they are defending to draw the attention of anti-radiation weapons away from real assets. A decoy can be made of nearly any material imaginable.
[Below] The effectiveness of decoys should not be underestimated.
This then leaves the American 5th Fleet well within reach of the remaining Iranian arsenal. Iran also operates roughly 380 fast-jet fighters and attack aircraft. Expect overwhelming tactics to be employed by Iran against the US Navy in the Persian Gulf.
[Above] Iranian all-weather precision strike Sukhoi Su-24MK Fencer-D (this example has its serial numbers covered). The aircraft can carry all manner of precision munitions and air-to-ground missiles. It is in the same class as the Panavia Tornado or the American F-111 series - and puts it near the top of a short list of serious concerns for the US Navy. [Below] IRIAF McDonnell Douglas F-4E Phantom II fighter-bomber. The venerable 60s-70s era Phantom is still in service with many air forces around the world. Properly updated and flown, the F-4 should not be dismissed. The F-4 remains today the backbone of the IRIAF. 
Due to Iran's years of isolation, the exact nature of improvements and modifications made in Iran to its aircraft is not well understood in the West. So true, IRIAF capabilities remain difficult to assess. The Iranian Air Force is, however, widely regarded as one of the better air forces in the Middle East. We'd place IRIAF pilot skill and combat proficiency more akin to a Western air arm, and well above that of, say, the PLAAF (the Chinese Air Force). 
[Above] Along with the Phantom (front), Iran also operates a number of overhauled/derivative Northrop F-5 fighters (back). F-5 performance is similar to the Mach 2 MiG-21. The F-5 is simple, small, fast, and nimble. The F-5 is still in service in many countries around the world as a light fighter. [Below] The F-14 AM of the IRIAF. Iran may operate ~ 50 of these powerful fighter-interceptors. This includes ingeniously-produced reverse-engineered upgraded AIM-54 'Phoenix' missiles to arm them. Much more on the F-14 in Iranian service here.

[Above] IRIAF MiG-29A 'Fulcrum' firing its 30 mm GSh-30-1 cannon. The IRIAF operates ~ 30 MiG-29A. The purchase was a stop-gap measure after the Iran/Iraq war until the time Iran's existing Western inventory could be properly overhauled in country. American and Israeli aircrews are today more concerned about the Iranian F-14AMs, Su-24MKs, and F1EQ than the MiG-29A. [Below] Dassault Mirage F1-BQ. Together with the F1EQ5/6, Iran operates ~ twenty F1s as part of a contingent of ex-Iraqi aircraft that "evacuated" to Iran at the beginning of the 1991 Gulf War. This F1-BQ has been overhauled with a new blue paint scheme and drop tanks from the F-5.
[Below] Mobile Iranian anti-ship missile.
One need only look at the USS Stark, USS Vincennes incident, the Iranian counter-attack on the US airbase at Al-Assad, and the 25-Feb 1991 Scud attack on 14th US Army Detachment, DhahranSaudi Arabia – all multiplied 100 fold - to know what could occur. We believe the Iranian Navy would be neutralized relatively quickly by the Americans - however, due to the confines of the Persian Gulf and its proximity to the IRIAF and Iranian anti-ship missile forces (even if most of the IRIAF is out of action), expect the bulk of US 5th fleet surface ships in a major confrontation with Iran - overwhelmed - listing - and on fire.
[Above/Below] The USS Stark (FFG-31) guided-missile frigate after being struck by two (2) AM-39 Exocet missiles fired from an Iraqi Mirage F1EQ/Falcon 50 on the night of 17 May 1987 while the ship was on patrol. The first Exocet punched through the Starks' hull near the port bridge wing, spewing 1,920 C (3,500 F) rocket-propellant and smashed into the chiefs’ quarters  - its warhead failing to explode. The second Exocet, which hit ~ 1.5 meters (5 feet) forward of the first, detonated as designed, incinerating crew quarters, the radar room, and the ship's CIC (Combat Information Center). A quarter of the crew was incapacitated in the attack, with 29 Americans killed instantly (8 more dying later), with an additional 21 injured.
After the attack, the Stark was no longer mission-capable. The Iraqi pilot knew how to maneuver and approached an Oliver Hazard Perry-class guided-missile frigate in a manner (using the ship's radar blind spot) to employ his weapons. US Navy planners should best assume IRIAF's knowledge of American surface-ship weaknesses and idiosyncrasies. 
[Above] On 03-July 1988 the American Ticonderoga-class ‘Aegis’ guided-missile cruiser USS Vincennes (CG-49) mistakenly shoots down a civilian Airbus A300 (IA 655) over the Strait of Hormuz that kills all 274 passengers and crew. While engaging Iranian gunboat surface targets, in the span of just four (4) minutes the A300 is detected, misidentified, and attacked by Vincennes. This ambiguity (known as “the fog of war”) under the intensity of real-world operational conditions under compressed timeframes remains ever-present. A major confrontation with Iran would increase these factors by 100. [Below] Aftermath of the 25-Feb 1991 Iraqi Scud attack on 14th US Army Detachment, Dhahran, Saudi Arabia - killing 28 Americans and injuring 98. The area was under the protection of a Patriot missile battery at Dhahran.
Neither Israel nor the US can protect American strategic industry with any confidence from targeting by an Iranian missile counter-attack, either. [Below] Intel Corporation's sprawling semiconductor fabrication facilities at Kiryat Gat, especially FAB-28. 
These sprawling, costly, strategic facilities use extremely reactive chemical compounds designed to stay contained during an earthquake, but not from a near-hit (read: blast pressure wave) of a one-ton Shahab traveling upwards of Mach 5 - or pelted with MRBMs cluster-warhead sub-munition(s). Semiconductor fabrication facilities could represent irresistible targets for Iranian planners.
Suffice it to say these facilities will be forced to evacuate for the duration of hostilities, causing unacceptable monetary losses and logic supply disruption. These strategic American facilities need to be moved out of the region for this reason alone.

So putting it all together - let's do the numbers for an Iranian response to a US-Israeli attack on Iran's nuclear sites: 

Let us assume that Iran only fires one-hundred (100) Shahab-3 (Sejil-2) MRBM weapons within 6 hours of a US-Israeli strike.

Let us further assume that 60% of Shahab-3s fail to hit their targets (for all reasons) due to malfunction/ interception by Israeli Arrow, USN Aegis SM-2/SM-3 destroyers, and other air defenses. 

Because no air-defense system is perfect, this leaves forty (40) ‘Shahab-3’ hitting Israeli and US installations including the entire Arabian peninsula. 

Count with me up to forty (40) - and imagine an Iranian mobile Shahab-3 MRBM hitting Israeli and US installations each time:

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, ...

by eight (8) the military embarrassment and political price at home in the US – is already too high.

9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15...   

And this is just the Shahab-3s...and Iran has not 100, but over 200. Never mind a myriad of other longer/shorter-range missiles as well, reaching into the thousands.

Not a very appealing prospect for the Americans and her thousands of military service personnel, while Israel sits on a nuclear deterrent (and an official policy of deliberate ambiguity), Jericho ICBM force.

While no fans of the Iranian regime, when one actually looks at the mechanics of a massive US-Israeli strike on Iran, it is militarily and politically unworkable.
If hawks in Israel and Washington truly want a “better” Iran-deal - then they’ll need to enter formal treaty negotiations with Iran on delivery vehicles (which can include the number of tracked/wheeled mobile-launchers) – just like the US and the USSR. This would pull Israel’s Jericho force, submarines force, and any anti-ballistic missile systems – out of the shadows and into the daylight. It would almost certainly end Israel’s ‘nuclear ambiguity policy’ as well as force them to sign the NPT. Iran would need to acknowledge Israel's right to exist. So, welcome to the big leagues, everyone.
[Above] President Jimmy Carter and Leonid Brezhnev in Vienna on June 18, 1979, after signing the SALT II treaty limiting strategic arms. (AFP/Getty Images)

Your thoughts?

 Kissinger letter here

#IranDeal
- All media found here is for scholarly and research purposes and protected under U.S. Internet ‘Fair Use’ Law -

Comments

  1. Hi, firstly I'd just like to say, I love your blog and your work. I check it religiously everyday for updates! I would just like your opinion on 2 things. Both are the same. Iv read on alternative news sites, and yes I realise alot are bs ad propaganda, but in saying that, I think in this day an age we should be open minded, as the western msm are the real masters of propaganda. Iv read in July 2013 there was a reported loss of an isreali f16 to Syrian SAMs. This was reported in MSM as a lose due to "faulty" engine. I'm inclined to believe in the alternative narrative here. But here has been an even more recent news that another F16 was shot down. It seems only 2 website have really reported it. The propaganda arm of the Russian and Iranian news agency, Sputnik and FARS. What are your opinions on this 2 incidents? Both fakes?

    ReplyDelete
  2. I will look into. Remember the Israeli Air Force is highly (extremely) sensitive to losses caused by contact with the enemy. Its part of the Israeli-US narrative that their military is invincible. School has started up again for me – but I will look into. Thank you for visiting!! There is a lot of material here that focuses on fundamental issues that don’t change (the whole idea). The current war reporting done - either supports or detracts from the main ideas. It’s a way to test ones hypotheses.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thanks for the reply. It's ok I understand you do this blog on your free time. And I'd like to thank you again from everyone. This blog is very informative and I find it to be one of the more unbiased sites around. Well that's just my opinion. Hahaha. Thanks for you work. Keep it up!

      Delete
    2. Thank you. You are very kind. To try and break though the mountain of US military myth-making is not easy. It effectively propaganda…propaganda that our political ruling class too often believe. These beliefs can make for a very dangerous world.

      Delete
    3. Have you seen this?
      http://theaviationist.com/2015/09/02/russians-against-isis-over-syria/

      Delete
  3. thank you for your perfect analyse
    and thank you about your Real and Independent View

    ReplyDelete
  4. HI Obrescia, just to say you have been quoted:
    http://liberticida.altervista.org/missile-to-liberty-for-dummies/
    and reblogged.
    The article is an attempt to show how a nkorea retaliation could be effective, even if without any nuclear option.
    Compliments for your analysis.
    y

    ReplyDelete
  5. Yes, ok(?) I wouldn't know anything about "all jobs info".

    ReplyDelete
  6. This article is still tremendous.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Your premise is the only response is military or appeasement (negotiation). Real Multi-Domain warfare includes economic and political. Sanctions to squeeze them hampering their ability to build, keeping oil prices low further starving their military ambitions and supporting internal opposition until the government falls.

    Curiously, we were doing all those things until just over a month ago. Wonder what changed?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thanks for your comment.

      This writing refers to the implied threat to use military force to control Iran. We simply say that threat is not actually credible because of the high military cost(s) incurred. Iran have a very real counter attack capacity in the form of it mobile MRBM forces - that we (no one) can defend against.

      The Iran missile attack on 07-Jan 2020 on US basing at Ain al-Assad and Erbil air bases - simply underscores this issue. Iran's rather measured response also underscores that they are not an irrational actor.

      See link:
      http://theboresight.blogspot.com/2020/01/iran-counter-attack-hits-american.html

      Also we reject the entire premises that Iran having the bomb is a threat to Israel, when in fact Israel has a robust nuclear deterrent capacity.

      Now if US policy is to try and limit a nuclear arms race between Iran and say Saudi Arabia (?) then the US should clearly state that as the policy objective.

      - Boresight

      Delete
    2. The difference b/w an Iranian nuclear force and an Israeli nuclear force is that Iran is, to my understanding of their behaviors, willing to make a first strike - maybe on Israel, maybe on another country. The Iranian regime is very smart and sharp. As you write they are not 'irrational' in the literal sense of the word. Their motivations appear to accept brutal losses of their own citizens for the purpose of inflicting brutal losses on their enemies.

      Delete
    3. Thanks for you comments. I think the Iran missile counter attack on the US bases in Iraq (we have updated in another separate post) give some insight into Iranian behavior. At the end of the day MAD (mutually assured destruction) will keep the peace - as it always has done - no matter who hits who. Iranian nukes are effectively just political theater in Washington and Tel Aivi.

      This writing goes back to 2015, where we predicted Iran would most likely leverage its missile force to counter attack a US/Israeli strike - which is precisely what they did.
      - Boresight

      Delete
  8. Hello boresight recently I've heard that Isreal hit the industrial mixers for Iran's solid rocket motors, apparently the most likely culprit was a bomb dropped from a stealth fighter.
    Also Iran's own barrage seems to be incapable of stopping Israeli airstrikes, this could suggest that the conventional missiles used did not hit military infrastructure in significant quantities.
    From this perspective it seems that if Iran can't even protect it's airspace from Israel it's strategy won't work against a US or coalition force.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. There is little to no way to easily verify IDF assertions. We are simply "told" what they say happened. I would not (not) put much credence into IDF statements. How many IDF aircraft were used or not used is unknown. - Boresight

      Delete

  9. American stealth (or anybody else's) wouldn't last 40 seconds over modern integrated Russian Air defense manned by trained Russian crews. Stealth is effectively no longer relevant. Its old 80s tech that only works against poorly trained air defense operators that leave their system in 'automatic mode.' A global defense/marketing strategy (Radio Spectrum Airfoils) that is reliant on opponent-operator-ignorance of own-systems - is not a sustainable defense posture. https://youtu.be/ffGQLnlXks4?si=N8b2uUHknb6NaPal

    ReplyDelete
  10. There is absolutely no evidence for the assertions you regurgitated from either Israelis and/or the Americans. The heavy MRBM hits on IDF Air base(s) was independently documented by amateur cell phone video loads onto social media. US/IDF missile defense - was easily breached (as we predicted) - for all the world to see. The IDF response to the Iran missile strike was feeble (also as predicted). - Boresight

    ReplyDelete
  11. How was the Israeli counter attack feeble? It hit several sites over Tehran itself and destroyed key infrastructure such as a S300 battery and the main chemical plant for solid missile fuel.
    If Iran's missile capabilities were as you suggested Israel wouldn't even be able to mount a counter strike let alone hitting military targets over Tehran with zero F-35 losses.

    This can only be explained if Iran's missiles are either inaccurate or unreliable (reports indicated 50% failure rate) and the F-35 working against Russia's most common air defence system (the S-300).

    ReplyDelete
  12. Israel has provided no evidence for their assertions. They're just making claims. Stories of the F-35 vs S-300 are simply that. Israel has a long history of disinformation regarding it military. It part of Israeli deterrence policy - by overstating its militray prowess. Time will tell whether the F-35 has any capacity against the S-300. Certainly in Ukraine it has little.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. How come Israel is able to bomb Iranian F14's on the ground, why is Irans response so pitiful?

      It looks like israeli f8ghters not only could return tovthrir airbase but then strike Iran again.

      Delete
    2. They hit no flying F-14s. All the flying airframes are underground at placed like Eagle 44. They hit decoy or derelict aircraft that haven't moved in 2 years. One Tomcat had no tail fins at all and the other had its port tailfin flopped over like if was an inflatable decoy.

      Delete
  13. Israel just bombed Irans enrichment facilities.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yeah the same tactic used in Ukraine against Russian bombers. Infiltrate with small drones (propositioned) near your targets, then have the operators near by to fly them.

      Delete
  14. Hey boresite, I heard Iranian F-14's got hit on the ground, which israeli missil systems could have done this?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Very low yield. Almost certainly from drones. The Israelis are using some type of air launched stand-odd weapon from the manned aircraft for bigger targets. Iranian aircraft that have been hit have no secondary explosion(s) so either dialect or decoys. Iran real air arm are underground in places like Eagle 44.

      Delete
  15. Israel has air supremacy over Iran, Iran Air defence network was useless.

    ReplyDelete
  16. Yeah, we never predicted the Iran's AD would b up to the challenge

    ReplyDelete
  17. These predictions did not age well...the success of Israel's missile defense systems together with Iranian balistic missile issues can be seen to be less than 10% of the balistic missiles hitting a target (not even their original intended target, as I assume Iran did not target the hospital in Beer Sheba). Practically, Israel was hurt but not affected by the ballistic missile attacks.
    Iran's SAM networks were taken apart by Israel multi-dimensional attacks. Footage of launchers hit were on the Internet every day. The number of launches proved that the launchers were impacted.
    Was the Israeli attack a success? Probably a politcal success of Israel's PM. Also Trump is now not a TACO anymore. Were any US bases hit? No.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Our predictions were actually right on the money. Had the conflict expanded, more of our predictions would have materialized. The power of Iran's mobile ballistic missile force is no longer in dispute, as we predicted. True damage to Israel from Iran's MRBM force remains unclear (as strict censorship remains in place), but it is much worse than Israeli strategists predicted or will ever be acknowledged.

      Wild assertions about the effectiveness of Israeli ABM system - are just that. The same wild assertions were made about the Patriot vs Scuds in 1991. Here as in 1991, most intercepts were targeting missile boosters/decoys and other debris incoming to the target. Some TEL were hit - but some were also obviously decoys. Video after video show the high speed warheads flying straight through Israeli layered ABM. If Iran used its orbital maneuvering warheads - then ABM interception is effectively impossible. The true MRBM warhead interception rates for the conflict will turn out to be no more than ~ 60 percent. And yes Al Udeid AB was hit: https://x.com/LibralonEddi/status/1937259355369537914

      Delete
    2. Israelis know how to count. And censorship doesn't help. Every missile that hit Israeli cities was seen. As we're the number of incoming missiles. 60% ha. If you would be in Israel and see first hand you wouldn't just invent numbers with no basis. What is your basis by the way? Forget patriots and the first gulf war. I am talking about 2025 12 day war.

      Delete
    3. All types of censorship occurring out of Israel. I ignore their assertions. 60 interception rate is the right number. If you disagree - then show everyone an academic study that says otherwise. That what the 1991 data showed. We never said Iranian Air Force was a threat to Israel - but only to US Navy surface ships operating in the Persian Gulf. After Iran AD was cobbled - aircraft launch from underground bases was too risky while Israeli drones roaming about. No need to launch them when ballistic missiles could attack US airbases. And yes some warheads did indeed get through.

      Delete
  18. No Iranian planes in the air - why?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Israeli operatives cobbled Iran's air defense - so aircraft launch too dangerous, safe underground.

      Delete
    2. You stated the masses of Iranian planes would attack. None did. Claiming that he reason is that Israel cobbled Iran's air defense is of course nonsense. . It is actually the other way around. With no air defense you would use your air force to protect vital assrtsm Iran didn't, because for 30 years now it has no assets in the air excepts missiles and drones

      Delete
    3. Its not rocket science that the IAF was operating outside of Israel. You have to do it while Iran MRBM are getting through. You cant risk your airforce on your ABM system.

      Delete
    4. Wow, you're a really bad (and biased) researcher. Mosad cobbled Iran's AD. Then no aircraft could be launched from their underground bases safely. Please do some other reading before attempting to come here and flame-troll. You got nothing:

      https://www.twz.com/news-features/spike-missiles-that-destroyed-air-defenses-from-inside-iran-were-remotely-operated

      Delete
    5. All types of censorship occurring out of Israel. I ignore their assertions. 60 interception rate is the right number. If you disagree - then show everyone an academic study that says otherwise. That what the 1991 data showed. We never said Iranian Air Force was a threat to Israel - but only to US Navy surface ships operating in the Persian Gulf. After Iran AD was cobbled - aircraft launch from underground bases was too risky while Israeli drones roaming about. No need to launch them when ballistic missiles could attack US airbases. And yes some warheads did indeed get through.

      Delete
  19. "As of June 15, the Israeli Air Force cannot return to their bases in Israel, as this puts them at risk from Iranian missile fire, so they are operating from Cyprus." - This is untrue. Cyprus does not have the infrastructure to support Israeli planes. There are not enough airbases in Cyprus to support all of Israel's planes. The planes were clearly seen by Israel's as returning to Israel. Can you provide a shred of evidence for this statement?

    ReplyDelete
  20. Replies
    1. It is the only option when MRMB all cannont be stopped. see link: https://x.com/angeloinchina/status/1934089281062224324

      Delete

Post a Comment