
What weapons does Iran have and how long can it attack Israel?
The vast and limitless potential of Iran's capacity to strike Israel would soon become clear. Any previous attacks on the old enemy had merely been 'minor demonstrations' before Tehran's war machine swung into full gear.
That, at least, is what Hossein Salami, the architect of Iran's missile programme, would have had us believe before the tumultuous events of the past five days.
Yet the regime's response to Israel's operation, Rising Lion, has underscored the limitations of Tehran's missile programme. Many of its missile sites were destroyed before Iran even fired a shot in response.
What was left has so far been used with devastating effect, levelling apartment blocks and killing at least 24 people over three days in a series of strikes that have pierced Israel's much-vaunted protective shield, the Iron Dome defence system. Iran, however, cannot maintain the intensity of these attacks which, in turn, have little to no impact on Israel's ability to strike back at will.
Israel estimates Tehran has launched about 300 missiles so far, while an undisclosed but probably significant number were destroyed in air strikes and sabotage operations during the first few hours of the war. Tehran has been left with little way to defend its missile sites from airstrikes and the production of new weapons will be difficult as the stockpile dwindles by the day.
Western intelligence had estimated before the war that Iran possessed about 2,000 to 3,000 missiles capable of reaching Israel. Tzachi Hanegbi, Israel's national security adviser, said Iran still had 'thousands' more missiles at its disposal, suggesting previous estimates might have been an underestimation.
The arsenal that we know about includes the hypersonic Fattah 1 and 2, which Iran claims are manoeuvrable in flight and can carry a warhead of up to 450kg. The larger Emad, which has an advertised range of just over 1000 miles, can carry a warhead of almost 800kg.
The regime can also field its satellite-navigated Kheibar Shekan and possibly its recently announced Qassem Bassir, a missile purportedly equipped with defence-evasion capabilities. Days before the war, Iran had unveiled a two-tonne warhead it said could be fitted on to its existing missiles.
Even if Iran's arsenal is larger and more sophisticated than previously thought, the regime knows it has entered an unsustainable war of attrition against a superior enemy. And, even if President Trump is reluctant for the US to take a greater role and provide 'bunker-buster' bombs to destroy Tehran's nuclear sites, there is little chance of Israel running out of weapons thanks to its stockpiles. Indeed, one western diplomat suggested that the intensity of Iran's attacks had already 'peaked'.
That will remain to be seen. The response so far, however, is likely to have appeased regime hardliners who have for months clamoured for massive strikes against Israel. The humiliation of watching high-profile targets destroyed across Iran, and the deaths of senior figures within the regime, is likely to mean that the missiles will keep being fired, even if the present pace of the onslaught is not sustainable.
Iran has already learnt it cannot overwhelm Israeli defences — the Iron Dome is still intercepting almost all the projectiles fired — despite Iran's claims that it has discovered a strategy to pierce the defences. 'The problem is the level of retaliation expected,' said Farzan Sabet, managing researcher at the Global Governance Centre. 'If Iran conducts a strike, it's not able to destroy [Israel's] retaliatory capability, but its enemy is capable of destroying its retaliatory capability.' He said this takes the Middle East down a 'path of a conflict which inevitably draws in the US'.
Tehran's only hope is to strike Israel as hard as it can in an attempt to increase pressure on Israel to end the conflict before it draws in the entire region, including Iran's proxies in Iraq and Yemen. 'Iran's strategy, because it has a limited supply of missiles, is to inflict as much damage [as possible] to raise alarm in the international community and wear Israel down,' said Sanam Vakil, director of the Middle East and North Africa Programme at Chatham House. 'Iran will certainly be looking for a climbdown but has conditioned it on Israel also drawing back its military operations.'
For now, there seems to be little appetite in Israel for any kind of slowing down. The deaths in the past 24 hours will only increase the public clamour for action. The Israel Defence Forces said on Monday it would continue to 'push east' to target Iran's missile and nuclear programmes. 'More than 50 fighter jets and aircraft carried out strikes and destroyed over 120 surface-to-surface missile launchers,' said Brigadier General Effie Defrin, the military spokesman. 'This amounts to one third of the surface-to-surface missile launchers possessed by the Iranian regime.'
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


Telegraph
11 minutes ago
- Telegraph
There should be no equivocation over Israel's right to neutralise Iran
SIR – Israel is dealing with an existential threat from a country controlled by a dictatorship of extreme religious leaders who are intent on bringing about the destruction of the Jewish state and its people (Letters, June 16). Iran has been developing a nuclear capability obviously designed to achieve this ambition. At the same time, it runs and supports a number of terrorist organisations that have been causing death and destruction in the Middle East. Yet despite all this, our Prime Minister and Foreign Secretary have appeared reluctant to take sides in this matter. What is wrong with them? Colonel Mark Rayner (retd) Eastbourne, East Sussex SIR – Those who have been condemning Israel's actions need to ask themselves a simple question ('Protesters march through London waving Iranian flags', report, June 15). Would they prefer Iran to be able to produce nuclear weapons – and then have to deal with the results? Tim Pope Weybridge, Surrey SIR – Israel's strikes and covert activities against the country responsible for so much evil around the globe have demonstrated its military superiority. The free world owes the Israelis a debt of gratitude. Hannah Hunt Woodhall Spa, Lincolnshire SIR – Israel is the only true democracy in the Middle East, surrounded by hostile actors and countries that want to wipe it off the map. Western nations should applaud its fight, and its efforts to restrict Iran's nuclear capabilities. Many of Iran's suppressed citizens would also like a change in their country's leadership, so they can live freer and better lives. The world is reaching a pivotal moment in the Middle East (as well as in Ukraine). This is no time for Europe, or any Western nation, to sit on the fence. Christopher Hunt Swanley, Kent SIR – Iranians living in Britain – along with many in Iran – are praying for the downfall of Ayatollah Ali Khamenei. In 1979, many Iranians were praying for the downfall of the repressive Mohammad Reza Pahlavi, the last Shah of Iran. But what good did it do them when he was kicked out? Sadly, taking out a repressive regime does not ensure good government in the future. Gerald Heath Box, Wiltshire SIR – I have been following the coverage of the Iranian attacks on Tel Aviv. My mind then turned to Britain. We have no iron dome, no bomb shelters and not enough fighter jets. When will our Government wake up? Angela Miller Wolverhampton


Reuters
13 minutes ago
- Reuters
Japan PM Ishiba, Trump did not reach tariff agreement, Fuji TV reports
TOKYO, June 17 (Reuters) - Japanese Prime Minister Shigeru Ishiba and U.S. President Donald Trump did not reach a tariff agreement, Fuji TV reported on Tuesday.


BBC News
21 minutes ago
- BBC News
North Korea: What its warship failure teaches us about Kim Jong Un's regime
When North Korea's new warship capsized into the sea during its launch last month, it made international headlines. News organisations followed every development, from its successful refloating to its relaunch last why such interest, given there were no casualties, and the damage to the hull appeared relatively minor?The intrigue has less to do with the failure itself and more with how Kim Jong Un immediately denounced the failure as "a criminal act" that "could not be tolerated", saying it had damaged the country's "dignity". He ordered that the ship be restored immediately, and those responsible be punished. Four party officials were subsequently furious outburst, followed by the ship's swift repair, teaches us a lot about the North Korean regime, whose moves are often so difficult to it reveals how serious North Korea is about building a nuclear-armed having a nuclear arsenal, which is growing in size and sophistication, and an enormous standing army, North Korea's navy is considered greatly inferior to those of its enemies - South Korea, Japan and the United States - who have some of the most powerful naval fleets in the world."Kim Jong Un believes nuclear weapons are the only way he can protect his country, and yet all it has at sea is an old submarine and some small support ships," said Choi Il, a retired South Korean navy almost since the start of his reign, Kim has prioritised building a modern and powerful navy, equipped with nuclear warship is a key first step towards this goal. It is one of two destroyers North Korea has built over the past year, the first of which launched successfully in April. Weighing 5,000 tonnes, they are by far the biggest warships North Korea has, and are capable, in theory, of firing nuclear short-range missiles. According to Mr Choi, who now heads South Korea's Submarine Research Institute, it is extremely rare for a destroyer of this class to capsize during its construction and launch, given the advanced technology required to build one. This would therefore have been "a very embarrassing incident" for Kim Jong Un, he said, as it "highlights the limitations of North Korea's shipbuilding".Worse still, this flagship project failed in front of his eyes. Kim was attending the ship's launch ceremony, along with his daughter and a crowd of spectators."North Korea is obsessed with showing off. I imagine they were planning a whole series of performances, so of course Kim couldn't help but be furious", Mr Choi experts in North Korea propaganda believe there is far more to Kim Jong Un's outburst than raw anger and humiliation. Choosing to publicise the capsizing in the way he did was a deliberate political strategy, they say, and shows Kim is shifting away from the regime's tendency to conceal unpleasant Minyoung Lee from the Washington-based Stimson Centre, who has analysed North Korean propaganda for decades, explained how this has become a core pillar of Kim's propaganda Kim came to power, and even in the early years of his rule, the regime would hide anything negative as a way to control the narrative. But as information has started to spread more freely in North Korea, it has become harder to cover up such major incidents."The leadership decided it was almost silly to try and hide what people already knew, and much more effective to show people they were dealing with problems," Ms Lee said."Now, when there's a problem, you publicise it, you call out those responsible, and demonstrate to people that if you don't do your job, you will be held accountable. And in doing so, you let everyone know that the government and the leadership are doing their jobs well".In the case of the warship, this strategy appears to have worked remarkably effectively. The repairs were completed ahead of schedule, in just over three weeks, defying the expectations of naval experts."The rapid relaunch shows how even a failure can be turned into a political success," said Kim Dong-yup, an assistant professor at the University of North Korean Studies in Seoul. But he and others say Kim has used this incident not just to project success but to strengthen people's loyalty to the regime and its ideology – another consistent feature of his ship capsized as it was launched sideways from the dock into the sea – a complicated maritime manoeuvre – and part of the bow got stuck on the launching ramp. But rather than present this as a technical failure, Kim Jong Un claimed the incident was caused by "absolute carelessness and irresponsibility."In contrast, he praised a worker who died during the ship's construction, for "putting his blood and sweat" into the project."They turned his death into a symbol of devotion, to strengthen people's loyalty," said Professor Kim Dong-yup. Rather than present Kim Jong Un as an infallible god as was the case for his father and grandfather, they elevated the loyal worker, he said. "This is a big shift in North Korea's governing technique and shows Kim Jong Un's astonishing ability to adapt and control the narrative".The biggest takeaway for Ms Lee, the propaganda expert, is that "the North Koreans achieve whatever they set out to do.""They set this goal of having a nuclear armed navy, and now they're demonstrating they're on their way to achieving that". No-one thought they could build the destroyers in just over a year, or repair this damage in less than a month, but they have, Ms Lee added, much like they did with their nuclear and missile programme despite the world's initial retired navy captain Mr Choi agreed. "People may look at this episode and laugh, and think 'oh, North Korea is so far behind', but they're making significant progress", he concerning, say he and others, is that Kim Jong Un is intent on transforming his navy from one that is limited to patrolling its own seas into one that will be able to sail the world's oceans and launch pre-emptive nuclear strikes. "We must be vigilant and prepare accordingly," he said.