|
I am by no means an expert on Iran, but it's to common sense to state that Israel's military capabilities far outrange Iran's.
Apart from nuclear weapons, Israel has a far more sophisticated military industry, superior weaponry (Iran's military technology are not only outdistanced by Israel's, but also Saudi Arabia's and the UAE's,) greater combat experience, more training time, and, if history is anything to go by, better leadership, doctrines and troops. The Merkava is commonly recognized as one of the best MBTs in the world. The Jericho missile system are far in advance of what Iran has accomplished or may potentially accomplish with her missile programme. Israel's satellite programme is generations ahead of Iran's. Her airforce is fully armed with 4th gen fighters with approximately the same capabilities as the world's other modern airforces. There is a reason why Israel is threatening to bomb Iran, and not vice versa, and Iran's purchase of Russian SAMs are controversial.
The only advantage of the Iranian military is the size of her manpower.
|
On March 06 2009 05:12 MoltkeWarding wrote:
I am by no means an expert on Iran, but it's to common sense to state that Israel's military capabilities far outrange Iran's.
Apart from nuclear weapons, Israel has a far more sophisticated military industry, superior weaponry (Iran's military technology are not only outdistanced by Israel's, but also Saudi Arabia's and the UAE's,) greater combat experience, more training time, and, if history is anything to go by, better leadership, doctrines and troops. The Merkava is commonly recognized as one of the best MBTs in the world. The Jericho missile system are far in advance of what Iran has accomplished or may potentially accomplish with her missile programme. Israel's satellite programme is generations ahead of Iran's. Her airforce is fully armed with 4th gen fighters with approximately the same capabilities as the world's other modern airforces. There is a reason why Israel is threatening to bomb Iran, and not vice versa, and Iran's purchase of Russian SAMs are controversial.
The only advantage of the Iranian military is the size of her manpower.
UAE, Saudi Arabia and other GCC states are relying HEAVILY on US aid. It's not entirely correct to say these states have better militaries. It really isn't common sense any longer to state that Israel's military capabilities outrange Iran's. Maybe a decade ago this was true, but you don't seem to understand how much Iran has grown in the past four or five years. When I was doing my research, I found that even literature as recent as 2001 and 2002 were inadequate because Iran has changed so drastically since then. Iran has the strongest navy in the region, they don't have the best air force that's for sure, but they have the largest military and the technology gap between Iran and Israel is fading quickly.
Today there isn't as large of a disparity, in fact it's quite small, so who do you think would win in a conflict between the two? The only real significant advantage Israel has (also will be gone soon) is having a nuclear weapon. But nobody in their right mind would think Israel would actually use it.
The reason Israel is threatening to bomb Iran is because they're scared shitless of Iran's growing power. If you read my thesis I dedicate almost an entire chapter to this very idea. Copeland suggests that declining powers are more likely to act irrationally and start wars because it is less costly to do so and possibly preserve status than suffer slow decline and possibly death. If you look at Israel's recent actions, increased threats against Iran, and invasion of the Gaza strip for example you can see that this fear of decline is evident.
|
UAE, Saudi Arabia and other GCC states are relying HEAVILY on US aid.
Most modern militaries are dependent on imports of military hardware from the major exporters: US, UK, France, Germany and Russia. Iran, Israel, Saudi Arabia, and UAE are no different. Whereas Israel has generally acquired the best possible hardware from France and America, the flow of US/Soviet hardware dried up after 1979 and the Cold War respectively. The Iranian Air Force's present inventory reflects this- essentially frozen in the 70s. Any potential defense of Iranian airspace in the future will depend on imported Russian SAMs and radars.
The balance of power in the air is the only relevant factor here. Isarel and Iran share no common land frontier and have never fought a war with one another. The only possible mode of conflict between the two nations are through air and missile strikes. The only disadvantage suffered by Israel in this regard is her geographical handicap- as she is destined to come off worse than Iran in any nuclear exchange due to the size of the country.
As for Israel's failures in Gaza and Lebanon recently, we have to remember that these were not wars in the traditional sense, but what some think-tanks call fourth-generation warfare, which is generally asymmetrical and encompassing limited political objectives, the fulfillment of which define defeat or victory. This does not reflect Israel's military capacity in a traditional sense.
Furthermore, Israel's fate has always seemed to be precarious and insecure. She is probably as secure today as she has ever been since 1948- with peace treaties with Egypt and Jordan, and the Americans in Iraq. Nixon during the 70s privately indicated that Israel might not survive in the long-run. We're obviously come a long way from those times.
I'm not convinced that Iran is a regional, or any other sort of "power." As I understand it, power is the ability of a state to project influence unto other states, and I see Iran's "power" in this sense as being unexceptional even on a regional level. However I'll see what I have to say when after I've read your paper.
P.S. I assume you are an Iranian-born American with English a your second language?
|
I'm not talking about Israel's failures against Hezbollah and in Gaza as being reflective of its military capabilities, what I'm pointing to is that especially the Gaza invasion and its recent rhetoric seem to stem from a fear of decline. Take a look at Dale Copeland's The Origins of Major War, and other neo-realist theory. The general consensus in this literature is that wars are likely to be started by a strong but declining power.
Especially in the Middle East, when you have several states that are much stronger than the rest of the region (Israel, Turkey, Iran, Saudi). The benefits of war far outweigh the costs of doing nothing, so states in this position see war as a good option.
A great example to think about is Austria-Hungary. Its power was quickly declining and essentially its hand was forced. Either initiate a war, maybe win and survive, or wait to get overtaken by Russia and/or France, Germany, etc. Israel is in a similar position, although its close alliances with the Western world make it to a lesser degree (I.E even if Israel continues to decline US aid will help prop it up).
You are correct - power is largely measured by the ability of a state to project influence onto other states. Think about this: Iran is the principle supporter of Hezbollah (has strong influence here), they also have influence of Hamas. Iran is in sort of a protectorate role with Syria, its closest ally. And today, Iran's influence in Iraq is continuing to grow, especially with its new Shi'a controlled government. Not only that, but the decline of Arab nationalism and Iran's anti-Western/anti-Israeli rhetoric have made it much more popular in the Arab world. If you look at public opinion polls you will see that most of the Arab world isn't even afraid of Iran acquiring nuclear weapons - they think it will increase the stability of the region in fact.
It is the governments of these countries, and Israel, that are becoming increasingly afraid of Iran's growing power. You can see it in the frantic military buildup by GCC states and in Israel's rhetoric. The evidence I would argue, is hard to ignore.
I am half Iranian and half Turkish.
|
United States22883 Posts
On March 06 2009 08:43 Xeris wrote:Show nested quote +On March 06 2009 05:12 MoltkeWarding wrote:
I am by no means an expert on Iran, but it's to common sense to state that Israel's military capabilities far outrange Iran's.
Apart from nuclear weapons, Israel has a far more sophisticated military industry, superior weaponry (Iran's military technology are not only outdistanced by Israel's, but also Saudi Arabia's and the UAE's,) greater combat experience, more training time, and, if history is anything to go by, better leadership, doctrines and troops. The Merkava is commonly recognized as one of the best MBTs in the world. The Jericho missile system are far in advance of what Iran has accomplished or may potentially accomplish with her missile programme. Israel's satellite programme is generations ahead of Iran's. Her airforce is fully armed with 4th gen fighters with approximately the same capabilities as the world's other modern airforces. There is a reason why Israel is threatening to bomb Iran, and not vice versa, and Iran's purchase of Russian SAMs are controversial.
The only advantage of the Iranian military is the size of her manpower. UAE, Saudi Arabia and other GCC states are relying HEAVILY on US aid. It's not entirely correct to say these states have better militaries. It really isn't common sense any longer to state that Israel's military capabilities outrange Iran's. Maybe a decade ago this was true, but you don't seem to understand how much Iran has grown in the past four or five years. When I was doing my research, I found that even literature as recent as 2001 and 2002 were inadequate because Iran has changed so drastically since then. Iran has the strongest navy in the region, they don't have the best air force that's for sure, but they have the largest military and the technology gap between Iran and Israel is fading quickly. Today there isn't as large of a disparity, in fact it's quite small, so who do you think would win in a conflict between the two? The only real significant advantage Israel has (also will be gone soon) is having a nuclear weapon. But nobody in their right mind would think Israel would actually use it. The reason Israel is threatening to bomb Iran is because they're scared shitless of Iran's growing power.
I think it's a mistake to characterize Israeli aggression in these terms. They're pulling the same move they did to Iraq in the 80s. You're right that the gap has gotten smaller, even though Israeli technology outpaces everyone, including the US (which is why we want to buy their main research group) in many areas. Israel has relied on Lanchester strategy for a very long time but their ratio has decreased as the dividends they gain from each new wave are lessened.
We've actually seen this in play. If Israel had the air force capability to reliably conduct a fast, thorough strike on Iran's development programs, they would have. Iran's anti-aircraft defense aren't going to stop those F15/F16s, but Israel doesn't have enough of them to get the job done and hold off retaliation. That's why the US has been able to stop them from doing it, because really they want our air force to do it.
I don't know much about Iran's navy or how far their ICBMs have developed, but Israel's modified Patriot shield is probably better than what the US has, but even that's limited in what it can accomplish.
IDF has the finest guns in service in the world, but how much of a difference is there really between a Tavor and an AK-47? Not enough to make up the huge disparity in troop numbers. That's why Israel needs the airforce, but it's not big enough to handle the roles of support and attack bombing. There's a question as to how well trained Iran's army is, but that's difficult to measure. Certainly India's army has good enough numbers, but I don't think anyone expects them to hold a candle to forces of the US or Britain.
Even though I just did it for four paragraphs, I think it's a mistake to talk about military conflict in Jominian terms. Moltke, I'm sure you can appreciate the value of Clausewitz in this discussion, so one would really need to consider the factors outside of raw numbers, such as motivation, organizational strength, resources, overall strategy, etc.
The link between Iran and Hezbollah is an incredibly important one. I think Hezbollah is now the greatest concern for Israel, moreso than Hamas, and they've grown in recent years.
|
United States22883 Posts
BTW Xeris, not that there's anyway for you to know this, but does it tend to seem as if Iran's nuclear development is for the purpose of relieving their armed forces? They have a quickly growing economy and an educated populace, so it would make sense that they'd want to inject more people into the workforce, as well as cut back on spending (nukes are way cheaper than standing armies.)
|
It's possible... but I think their nuclear program is to act more as a deterrent and army relief would be a side benefit. Although unemployment in Iran is really high (about 12% or so), it is deceptive because their labor force is growing at about 3% per year, so even though unemployment is high the labor force keeps getting bigger.
I think their nuclear program serves several purposes (I didn't go into as much detail in my thesis because this wasn't my focus):
(1) Developing nuclear energy, obviously it's more efficient and cheaper and produces a lot more energy, and will help them rely less on fossil fuels.
(2) A sense of nationalist pride. Joining the "nuclear club" would be a huge ego boost to Iran, and allow it to really claim an elite status in the world.
(3) Deterrence ... the United States of late has been breathing down their backs, as has Israel. A nuclear weapon would deter any sorts of attacks (probably..)
(4) It would also allow Iran to increase and assume a more aggressive stance in the politics of the region. Right now it acts as a leader in many respects, but having a nuclear weapon would allow it to take that role to another level.
One thing I DID include in my thesis is something you mentioned, about Israel or the US damaging Iran's nuclear production capabilities. I watched some video conference with some top scholars and one of the guys (Ashton Carter) gave a talk about Iran's nuclear program, and he said that Iran's program was as such that EVEN IF Israel or the United States bombed their facilities, it would only delay Iran for approximately 1 year, because they have all the materials needed to create other facilities and such.
------
Another point:
"would really need to consider the factors outside of raw numbers, such as motivation, organizational strength, resources, overall strategy, etc."
These two things are really what I was trying to highlight. The problem many people in the West have is that they do not give Iran ANY credit in this respect. They think Iran's leaders are irrational and backward, this is not the case. They are rational and pursuing clear strategies. Also, Iranians themselves are highly motivated, and have some of the strongest nationalist sentiments in the entire region (comparable to that of Israel's).
I would argue though that Israel IS acting out of fear. If you look at what they did with regards to Iraq in the 1980's you can use the same argument. In the 1980's Iraq was at the height of its power, and was even more anti-Israeli than Iran is. They were threatening Iran even, and think about how insanely powerful Iraq would have been had it defeated Iran in the 80's. That factor and Iraq's strength at the time meant Israel saw itself as being in a position to decline.
Hezbollah is gaining a lot more strength recently, but it needs to be understood that Hezbollah is not quite a "proxy" of Iran (although much of the literature calls it that), but that it does rely heavily on Iran for funding and training, and Iran wields quite a bit of influence.
|
United States22883 Posts
It would be interesting to do an institutional approach to Iran's politics. Like you said, I've never got the impression that they've acted irrationally, they act as any Western government would act.
Another thought is that once they do get a nuclear weapon, there is zero chance of another Western-led coup and even though there will be sanctions, it'll be in the best interest of everyone to keep Iran's government stable. Deterrence only works if you've got a real state in charge and having another version of Pakistan could be catastrophic for the entire world.
|
Iran's government is very stable.
|
very interesting read indeed, thanks Xeris!
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
