logo
Israel is scoring heavily in the skies, but is that enough against Iran?

Israel is scoring heavily in the skies, but is that enough against Iran?

India Today16-06-2025
Will Israel attack Iran? When will it happen? Will the US support Israel in its misadventure? What will be the pretext? All these questions were answered when Israel launched a unilateral, preemptive strike deep into Iran on Friday the 13th.Alleging that Iran had developed enough fissile material in the past few months to build up to nine nuclear bombs, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu called its Operation Rising Lion a necessary move to ensure Israel's survival. He added that waiting was no longer an option.advertisementIsrael's strikes in the first few days have been precise and punitive, striking at critical assets in Tehran. In meticulously planned intelligence operations, it eliminated the entire top military leadership of Iran, including Major General Mohammad Bagheri, the chief of Iran's Armed Forces, and Major General Hossein Salami, the Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps chief. It also struck key nuclear sites in Natanz and Fordow, oil depots in Shahran, key military installations, air defence assets, and the Iranian Military HQ in Tehran.
Iran was quick to retaliate and struck many parts of Tel Aviv, including a direct strike on Israel's Military HQ building Kirya, which is often called Israel's Pentagon. Iranian missiles also struck the critical port of Haifa in Israel on June 15, which reportedly caused significant damage not only to the port infrastructure but also to the oil refinery in its close vicinity.advertisementWith both nations unwilling to back down, the conflict looks set to escalate. What is interesting from a military perspective is the vastly different military capabilities of these two mighty regional powers and how each is leveraging its strengths. The degree to which they are matched up is evident from the Global Firepower Index, which ranked the militaries of Iran and Israel 16th and 15th this year. Geography also plays a crucial role. Separated by around 1,700 kilometres, a match-up of ground forces becomes more or less irrelevant. The match-up is therefore limited to stand-off weapon systems.The Military Match-upAir force: Israel has overwhelming superiority here, possessing the most modern fighter aircraft, such as the F-35 and the F-16. Its might and reach are almost unmatched by Iran's old and ageing air force. Coupled with the capabilities of air-to-air refuelling, courtesy of the US, Israel completely dominates Iran in the skies.Air defence: Israel has overwhelming superiority in air defence, with its Patriot and Arrow systems. The former is a well-tested American system that was used during the First Gulf War in 1991 to intercept Iraq's Scud missiles, and recently, to intercept long-range missiles launched by the Houthi from Yemen. The latter is a modern anti-missile defence system developed by the US to intercept long-range missiles.advertisementThe Iron Dome and Iron Shield systems, with an interception success of over 90 per cent for short-range rockets and missiles, add to the arsenal. And the Terminal High Altitude Area Defence system of the US, capable of intercepting missiles at longer ranges of 200 km and beyond Earth's atmosphere, completes the umbrella.In comparison, Iran has an old S-300 air defence system coupled with other older Russian anti-aircraft missiles. It developed the Bawar 373, which is touted to be almost as good as the Russian S-400 system. But it is yet to prove its worth. No wonder Israel declared 'air superiority' just three days into the conflict.Missile systems: It is in its missile systems that Iran holds an edge over Israel. Iran's array of missiles is the largest and most modern in the region. Many Iranian missiles are capable of carrying nuclear payloads, which has long been an international concern, leading to the UN Security Council Resolution 2231, which called upon Iran 'not to undertake any activity related to ballistic missiles designed to be capable of delivering nuclear weapons'. In its medium- and long-range categories are the Khorramshahr-1, 2, and 3 — medium-range ballistic missiles (MRBM) with ranges of 2,000–3,000 km — the Fatah-1 with ranges of 1,400–1,700 km, and many others like the Sejjil (2,000 km) and the Paveh (1,650 km). Iran has also developed hypersonic missiles that fly at Mach 5 speeds and above and are beyond the interception capability of most anti-missile systems.advertisementIsrael, on the other hand, has more short-range missiles with ranges up to 500 km that cannot target Iran directly. However, it has Jericho-2, an MRBM with ranges of 1,500 to 3,000 km, and Jericho-3, an intermediate-range ballistic missile (IRBM) with a range of 4,800–6,500 km.Drones: In drones, both are evenly matched, although Iran may hold an edge given the number of drones it has and their Kamikaze character.Iran possesses a variety of drones and has mastered developing low-cost ones. It exported its drones to Russia, which effectively used them against Ukraine. Prominent among them is the Shahed category of drones, which are suicide or Kamikaze drones meant to explode on targets. These include the Shahed-101 and Shahed-131.Iran has also developed the longer-range Shahed-136 drones (over 2,500 km) that can carry 20–40 kg of explosives, around double that of Shahed-131, enough to cause significant damage in a non-hardened structure. The Shahed-238 drones also have jet propulsion, making them faster and capable of carrying more payload. There are also the Samad-1, 2, and 3 categories of drones, which have an effective range of 1,800 km and can carry sufficient payload to inflict damage.advertisementIn comparison, the Israeli drones are superior in technology and costlier. The major ones include the famous Heron and Hermes 900 armed drones that have a range of over 1,000 km.Nuclear weapons: Israel's arsenal of nuclear weapons is an open secret. Most analysts estimate it has 90–140 nuclear warheads. Iran, on the other hand, has no nuclear weapons yet, giving an edge to Israel.Satellite and intelligence: With its advanced satellite systems and detailed coordination with the West, Israel is way ahead of Iran in terms of satellite coverage and real-time data links. Even in terms of intelligence, Israelis have proved more than once how effective it is in penetrating enemy lines and carrying out targeted strikes. The elimination of the Hezbollah leadership in September last year, Hamas Chief Ismail Haniyeh in Tehran in April last year, and the top Iranian military leadership recently are cases in point.advertisementProxies: Iran has traditionally leveraged the 3H (Hamas, Hezbollah, Houthis) to good effect in the region in the past. However, with Israel decimating Hezbollah and Hamas, Iran's proxies are not as effective against Israel as before. Israel is not known to have any proxy groups, relying mostly on its intelligence services to do the job.External support: Israel scores over Iran, with the 'iron-clad' support from the US, the UK and many other Western powers. Iran, on the other hand, is left to fight the battle largely on its own, despite strategic partnerships with Russia and China, which have not shown any direct military support yet. Also, Arab countries in the region are rather ambivalent and have chosen to watch from the sidelines.The match-up between Israel and Iran is, therefore, relatively equal. Iran has a greater capacity to absorb strikes due to its vast territory and extensive infrastructure. It is also likely to gain the upper hand if the conflict turns into a war of attrition, given the size of its economy and its military-industrial base.For Israel, the best option would be to either end the war soon or somehow get the US actively involved. In a prolonged conflict, Iran will likely prevail. Another lesson from recent conflicts, which Israel would do well to remember, is that stand-off weapon systems rarely win wars. If Gaza is still standing after three years of unprecedented punishment, Iran is a much bigger challenge for Israel and the US.(Col Rajeev Agarwal is a Foreign Policy Expert and a Senior Research Consultant at Chintan Research Foundation, New Delhi)(Views expressed in this opinion piece are those of the author)Tune InMust Watch
Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

Israeli military to relocate residents to 'safe' zones in southern Gaza
Israeli military to relocate residents to 'safe' zones in southern Gaza

India Today

timean hour ago

  • India Today

Israeli military to relocate residents to 'safe' zones in southern Gaza

The Israeli military announced on Saturday that Gaza residents will begin receiving tents and other shelter supplies starting Sunday as part of plans to move civilians from combat zones to "safe zones" in southern move follows Israel's announcement of a planned offensive to capture northern Gaza City, the enclave's largest urban centre, raising international concern over the fate of the area, home to roughly 2.2 million Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said the evacuation of civilians to designated safe areas will precede the military operation. He described Gaza City as "Hamas' last stronghold" and emphasised that measures would be taken to move residents out of harm's TRANSFER TO SOUTHERN GAZA The military stated that shelter equipment will be delivered through the Kerem Shalom crossing in southern Gaza, with the United Nations and other international relief organisations overseeing the transfer after inspections by defence ministry asked whether the supplies were intended for Gaza City's approximately one million residents and whether they would be relocated to the Rafah area near the Egyptian border, the military declined to Defence Minister Israel Katz noted that plans for the northern Gaza offensive are still being finalised, though Israeli forces have intensified operations around Gaza City over the past week. Residents in neighbourhoods such as Zeitorun and Shejaia reported heavy aerial and tank fire that destroyed numerous OPERATIONS IN ZEITUNOn Friday, the Israeli military said it had launched a new operation in Zeitun, aimed at locating explosives, destroying tunnels, and targeting militants in the ongoing conflict stems from Hamas' attack on southern Israel on October 7, 2023, which killed 1,200 people and left 251 hostages, according to Israeli authorities. Of the remaining 50 hostages still in Gaza, 20 are reportedly retaliatory military campaign has killed over 61,000 Palestinians, according to Gaza's health ministry, and has triggered a severe hunger crisis. Most of Gaza's population has been displaced, and much of the enclave lies in calling for hostage releases and an end to the war were expected across Israel on Sunday. Numerous businesses and universities announced strikes to mark the to secure a US-backed 60-day ceasefire and hostage release collapsed last month.- EndsWith inputs from ReutersMust Watch

'Plan to kill, humiliate Muslims...: Netanyahu's 'Greater Israel' plan sparks Arab outrage, Houthi leader issues chilling warning, says...
'Plan to kill, humiliate Muslims...: Netanyahu's 'Greater Israel' plan sparks Arab outrage, Houthi leader issues chilling warning, says...

India.com

time5 hours ago

  • India.com

'Plan to kill, humiliate Muslims...: Netanyahu's 'Greater Israel' plan sparks Arab outrage, Houthi leader issues chilling warning, says...

Houthi leader Abdul Malik Houthi warned of 'bad consequence' for Israel. (File) Israel-Hamas war: Amid the outpouring of anger from the Arab world over Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's remarks on 'Greater Israel', the Jewish state has now drawn the ire of one of its oldest foes, the Yemeni Houthis, who have condemned Israeli PM's statement, calling it a plan to 'kill and humiliate Muslims'. What did the Houthi leader say? In a televised address on a Houthi-run TV channel, Abdul-Malik al-Houthi, the leader of Yemen's Ansar Allah, warned of 'bad consequences' for Israel if Benjamin Netanyahu moves forward with his contentious 'Greater Israel' plan. The Houthi leader said Netanyahu's plan, backed by the United States, was a clear attempt to ' divide and humiliate the Islamic Ummah'. 'Israel ultimate goal is to kill Muslims in the Arab world, or force them to migrate in large numbers, to establish its dominance over the Muslim Ummah. After bombing Palestine, Lebanon, Iran and other Muslim nations, Netanyahu is now openly talking about a Greater Israel, making it clear the Israel and US plan to subjugate Arab Muslims,' he alleged. Why Abdul-Malik slammed Arab world? Abdul-Malik also lashed out at the Arab world for not strongly opposing Netanyahu's comments, calling the alleged inaction of the Arab Muslim nations as 'worrying'. The Houthi leader, one of key figures in the Yemeni civil war, also condemned Israel's brutal military campaign in the Gaza Strip, accusing the Israel Defense Forces (IDF) of killing journalists to prevent the truth about the atrocities in Gaza from reaching the world. 'What is happening in Gaza is more horrific than any crimes committed in any other part of the world, but the world continues to watch silently as Israel massacres innocent Palestinians, including women and children.' Why 'Greater Israel' is controversial? Greater Israel is an idea popular among Israel's extreme right-wing, which proposes the contentious plan of absorbing neighboring Arab countries, including Jordan, Lebanon, Syria, Egypt, Iraq and a large part of Saudi Arabia, into a greater Jewish state. The idea proposes the use of military might to occupy Israel's Arab neighbors and absorbing their territory to expand the state of Israel. Meanwhile, the backlash over Benjamin Netanyahu's comments over Greater Israel comes days after Israel Defense Forces (IDF) chief Eyal Zamir opposed the Israeli Prime Minister's plan to occupy parts of the Gaza Strip which are not already under the control of Israel.

Explainer: The Trump–Putin Summit and its Immediate Consequences For New Delhi
Explainer: The Trump–Putin Summit and its Immediate Consequences For New Delhi

The Wire

time6 hours ago

  • The Wire

Explainer: The Trump–Putin Summit and its Immediate Consequences For New Delhi

New Delhi: For India, the Trump–Putin summit in Anchorage was more than a geopolitical spectacle in the frozen north. Rather, it carried immediate consequences for New Delhi's economic future. With the US having slapped punitive tariffs on Indian goods for Russian oil purchases, New Delhi watched the meeting closely, weighing whether Trump's diplomacy might ease the pressure or deepen its bind. Here is The Wire's explainer on what unfolded in Alaska on Saturday (August 16), and what it could mean for India. What exactly happened at the Trump–Putin summit in Anchorage? The day began with a carefully staged welcome at Joint Base Elmendorf-Richardson in Anchorage. US President Donald Trump's plane landed shortly after 10:20 a.m., and Russian President Vladimir Putin followed about half an hour later. Just after 11 a.m., the two leaders walked out onto a red-carpeted platform marked 'Alaska 2025,' framed by four F-22 fighter jets and a flyover that included a B-2 stealth bomber. After the handshake and photo op, Trump invited Putin into his presidential limousine. The pair spoke privately for a few minutes on the short ride to the venue, a break from protocol that underscored Trump's preference for unscripted encounters. Formal talks began around 11:30 a.m. in a 'three-on-three' format. Trump sat with Secretary of State Marco Rubio and envoy Steve Witkoff, while Putin was flanked by Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov and adviser Yuri Ushakov. The discussions ran for nearly three hours before concluding in the mid-afternoon. At about 3 p.m., the two leaders appeared before the press to deliver short statements, but they took no questions and announced no breakthrough. Putin departed soon afterwards, while Trump left Anchorage in the early evening for his return flight to Washington. In total, Putin's first visit to US in ten years, lasted less than six hours. Did Trump manage to secure a ceasefire, or did the talks end without progress? While flying to Anchorage, Trump told a Fox News anchor on Air Force One that he 'won't be happy' if he did not get a ceasefire deal at the summit. That set expectations for the meeting, which ran for nearly three hours behind closed doors. Yet when the two leaders appeared before the press, it was clear no such agreement had been reached. Trump nonetheless struck an upbeat note. 'We really made some great progress today,' he said, stressing that negotiations were ongoing and that more meetings would follow. He did not provide details of what that progress involved. 'There were many, many points that we agreed on, most of them, I would say, a couple of big ones that we haven't quite gotten there, but we've made some headway. So there's no deal until there is a deal,' he said. Later in an interview with Sean Hannity of Fox News, he said that the onus was now on Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky to get a cease-fire deal. Putin also kept up the optimistic narrative. 'We held our talks in a constructive and mutually respectful atmosphere, and they have proved substantive and productive.' The Russian President flattered Trump by stating that the Ukraine war would not have started if Trump had been president. He also restated Moscow's demands for a 'long-term and lasting' settlement on Ukraine war – addressing the 'root causes' of the conflict, ensuring 'all of Russia's legitimate concerns' are met, and restoring a 'fair security balance in Europe and the rest of the world.' He signalled, standing next to the US President, that the roadblock lay across the Atlantic. 'We hope that Kiev and the European capitals will take the current developments constructively and will neither try to put up obstacles nor attempt to disrupt the emerging progress with provocative acts or behind-the-scenes plots.' Does the outcome make Putin the real winner of the meeting? For Vladimir Putin, the Alaska summit represented a clear diplomatic victory, one achieved without compromise. Back in Moscow, the tone was jubilant. 'The very fact of the meeting in Alaska, its tone, and its outcome represent a significant and joint success for both presidents, each of whom made a tremendous personal contribution to achieving the best possible result at this time," Konstantin Kosachyov, a chair of the foreign affairs committee of Russia's upper house of parliament, wrote on Telegram, according to Reuters. Others were more blunt. As one senior Russian policymaker told The Guardian, 'Putin gave Trump nothing, but still got everything he wanted.' The absence of new sanctions, Trump's tacit recognition of Moscow's red lines, and the symbolism of being treated as an equal to the US president all fed into the narrative of triumph. Deputy Chairman of the Russian Security Council Dmitry Medvedev also singled out Trump's refusal to escalate pressure on Moscow over Ukraine as one of the most important outcomes. He described the summit as a restoration of top-level dialogue that was 'peaceful, free of ultimatums or threats,' and noted that Putin had 'presented our conditions for ending the conflict in Ukraine … in person and in detail.' In the United States, however, the verdict was also clear that Putin had scored a PR goal. The Washington Post called the summit ' not a disaster, but it was a US defeat.' The New York Times argued that Putin had effectively achieved a major war goal. ' He has gotten out of the box of sanctioned autocrat, and was greeted by the president of the United States as a peacemaker. He has bought time. He has defused all that talk of sanctions on his oil sector. And he gave up nothing'. How did Europe and Ukraine react to the summit? European leaders, led by Germany, France, the UK, Italy and the EU, issued a joint statement reaffirming their unwavering support for Ukraine's sovereignty and insisting that Russia could not dictate Kyiv's future ties with NATO or the EU. They pledged to tighten sanctions and maintain economic pressure on Moscow until what they described as a just and lasting peace is achieved. While leaders such as UK Prime Minister Keir Starmer and French President Emmanuel Macron praised Donald Trump's initiative in meeting Vladimir Putin, they stressed that any talks must be coupled with strong security guarantees for Ukraine. Kyiv's response was more guardedly optimistic. President Volodymyr Zelenskiy welcomed Trump's proposal for a trilateral format with Ukraine included, but said European participation was essential to ensure binding guarantees. He confirmed he would travel to Washington on Monday after a 'long and substantive' phone call with Trump, noting 'positive signals' about the United States taking part in future security arrangements. Trump's post-summit remarks on Fox News, however, fuelled unease in Kyiv and in several European capitals. In an interview with Sean Hannity, he contrasted Russia's status with Ukraine's, saying: 'Russia is a very big power, and they're not' and added that Zelenskiy 'gotta make a deal.' For many European officials, this reinforced fears that Trump might pressure Kyiv into concessions without securing reciprocal guarantees from Moscow. How did New Delhi react, and what drives that stance? India welcomed the Alaska summit between US President Donald Trump and Russian President Vladimir Putin, framing it as a positive step toward dialogue. 'India welcomes the Summit meeting in Alaska between President Trump and President Putin,' Ministry of External Affairs spokesperson Randhir Jaiswal said, adding that New Delhi 'consistently advocates dialogue and diplomacy as the way forward in resolving the Ukraine conflict.' He noted that India 'appreciates the progress made in the Summit'. 'India welcomes the Summit meeting in Alaska between President Trump and President Putin,' Ministry of External Affairs spokesperson Randhir Jaiswal said, adding that New Delhi 'consistently advocates dialogue and diplomacy as the way forward in resolving the Ukraine conflict.' He also noted that India 'appreciates the progress made in the Summit.' New Delhi's response can be read as relief that the focus on dialogue creates a potential opening for India, which has been squeezed between its strategic partnership with Washington and its heavy reliance on Russian energy. That pressure intensified earlier this month when the US raised tariffs on Indian goods to 50 percent, following secondary sanctions of 25 percent on Russian oil purchases. India, the second-largest buyer of Russian crude after China, was singled out by the measures. While Trump told Fox News' Sean Hannity that he would hold off on penalising China for now, the uncertainty over whether India will face continued tariffs remains. Could India gain some relief on US tariffs as a side-effect of Trump's diplomacy? Donald Trump's latest push to nudge Moscow towards a Ukraine deal has raised questions in New Delhi over whether India might see relief from the steep US tariffs imposed on Russian oil imports. The additional 25 percent duty, announced in late August, coincided with signs of Trump's growing frustration with Russian President Vladimir Putin. Indian officials viewed the sanctions partly as an extension of that irritation. En route to Alaska, Trump told Fox News that India had been forced to stop buying Russian oil because of the tariffs. Former Indian ambassador to Pakistan Ajay Bisaria described the Alaska meeting as 'reassuring' for India. 'The first good news is that the meeting took place,' he told The Wire, noting there were 'no shock outcomes of trouble' and no sign of 'a complete breakdown in that relationship.' He said Trump appeared to hint at flexibility. 'There was an indication he will either give more time to India for the 25 percent sanctions… or he will reverse them, or he will give that a bigger timeline,' Bisaria said. While there was brewing backlash in Washington that Putin may have gained an upper hand, Trump may still continue to believe that he is on the right path. 'He may be hearing other voices in his ear,' he said, pointing out that while some in Trump's circle are Russia hawks, 'the MAGA base supports him ending the wars. So, there won't be an issue with them.' Bisaria, however, added that conditions in Ukraine could yet derail any opening. 'If there's a major escalation in battlefield violence, that is a danger to the process, because right now it's the most fragile,' he said. In his view, both Trump and Putin are interested in a deal, with Ukraine and Europe seeking at least the optics of being consulted.

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into a world of global content with local flavor? Download Daily8 app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store