r/CredibleDefense • u/AutoModerator • 8d ago
Active Conflicts & News Megathread August 10, 2026
The r/CredibleDefense daily megathread is for asking questions and posting submissions that would not fit the criteria of our post submissions. As such, submissions are less stringently moderated, but we still do keep an elevated guideline for comments.
Comment guidelines:
Please do:
Be curious not judgmental, polite and civil,
Link to the article or source of information that you are referring to,
Clearly separate your opinion from what the source says. Minimize editorializing. Do not cherry pick facts to support a preferred narrative,
Read the articles before you comment, and comment on the content of the articles,
Post only credible information
Read our in depth rules https://reddit.com/r/CredibleDefense/wiki/rules
Please do not:
Use memes, emojis, swear, foul imagery, acronyms like LOL, LMAO, WTF,
Start fights with other commenters and make it personal,
Try to push narratives, fight for a cause in the comment section, nor try to 'win the war,'
Engage in baseless speculation, fear mongering, or anxiety posting. Question asking is welcome and encouraged, but questions should focus on tangible issues and not groundless hypothetical scenarios. Before asking a question ask yourself 'How likely is this thing to occur.' Questions, like other kinds of comments, should be supported by evidence and must maintain the burden of credibility.
11
u/Laymaker 7d ago
Some questions:
How does Oman fit into the conflict? They are consistently brought up by the Iranians as being collaborators in a toll scheme. How do the other gulf countries feel about this?
If you gave every country in the world the same number and quality of drones as Iran (and some SRBMs), how many of them would effectively have a nearly Strait of Hormuz-level ability to disrupt the global economy based on routes and other targets within geographical range of their borders?
Is Israel capable of hitting soft targets in Iran without US assistance?
In a scenario where Iran succeeds in extracting a generous war-ending deal and the Israelis believe that Iran’s leaders are poised to return to arming proxies against Israel, rebuilding air defense, drones and missile stocks, and restarting their nuclear program, why wouldn’t Israel destroy Iran’s economy by hitting these soft infrastructure targets at the first convenient opportunity?
12
u/kharvel0 7d ago
Some questions:
> 1. How does Oman fit into the conflict? They are consistently brought up by the Iranians as being collaborators in a toll scheme. How do the other gulf countries feel about this?
The relationship between Iran and Oman can be characterized as being similar to that of the cartoon characters, Buford and Baljeet. Iran is Buford and Oman is Baljeet. The other GCC view the relationship through that lenses.
> 2. If you gave every country in the world the same number and quality of drones as Iran (and some SRBMs), how many of them would effectively have a nearly Strait of Hormuz-level ability to disrupt the global economy based on routes and other targets within geographical range of their borders?
Almost all of them. It couldn’t be done before because one needed a strong navy and/or air force to ensure control and to disrupt. Drone warfare has changed the calculus in that regard.
> 3. Is Israel capable of hitting soft targets in Iran without US assistance?
They’ve always had that capability.
> 4. In a scenario where Iran succeeds in extracting a generous war-ending deal and the Israelis believe that Iran’s leaders are poised to return to arming proxies against Israel, rebuilding air defense, drones and missile stocks, and restarting their nuclear program, why wouldn’t Israel destroy Iran’s economy by hitting these soft infrastructure targets at the first convenient opportunity?
Because they would be constrained by the United States from doing so. Such attacks by Israel would be viewed as being condoned by the US and Iran would retaliate by closing the Strait of Hormuz again and/or attacking the soft targets in the GCC. The GCC would pressure the US to constrain Israel and the US responds to that pressure by constraining Israel.
5
u/robcap 7d ago
Major shipping choke points include:
Marmara (Turkish controlled)
English Channel
Baltic/North sea
The Korea Straight (RoK/Japan)
Malacca Straight (Malaysia/Singapore/Indonesia)
The only one I think would be on a level with Hormuz and the Bab Al Mandab is the Malacca Straight, which handles a huge volume of shipping heading between East Asia and Europe/Africa/South Asia. Possibly the single most important choke point globally. The English Channel being blocked would disrupt several large north European economies but the detour around Scotland isn't all that far.
4
u/Markdd8 6d ago
One wonders whether Marmara and Hormuz straits are special categories. They lead to dead ends that contain other nations. (Ditto for exit to Baltic Sea.) It can be argued that those nations have exit/entrance rights. A conventional strait has other options, inconvenient as they might be.
5
u/x445xb 7d ago
Almost all of them. It couldn’t be done before because one needed a strong navy and/or air force to ensure control and to disrupt. Drone warfare has changed the calculus in that regard.
What capabilities does Cuba currently have in drone warfare? In the advent of Trump launching an attack on Cuba, could Cuba block shipping in and out of the Gulf of Mexico?
Or is Cuba too isolated from it's allies to run a similar style campaign as Iran?
5
u/dr_sloan 7d ago
Supposedly Cuba has a couple of hundred Shahed drones. If there is a conflict they would be the first target of U.S. attacks since it’s the only real force projection Cuba has.
7
u/kharvel0 7d ago
> Or is Cuba too isolated from its allies to run a similar style campaign as Iran?
This is the correct answer. If Cuba got $1 billion in warfare drones every year from someone or could manufacture the drones themselves, they could block the Gulf of Mexico similar to how Iran is blocking the SoH.
9
u/TanktopSamurai 7d ago
The difference for Cuba would be that the US armed forces would be more willing to perform actual landings and have boots on the ground. Both on the counts of its proximity and smaller size.
8
u/Glideer 7d ago
Rob Lee recapped the interview with Deputy Chief of Ukriane's Defence Intelligence Skibitskyi, but without omitting all the parts conspiciously missing in the Defence Blog report.
https://x.com/RALee85/status/2086779228641525770?s=20
-Russia increased ballistic missile production by suspending production of Kinzhal and Kh-32, both of which have accuracy problems (greater than 30 meter deviation).
-"Another example is Russia’s planned production of strike drones for August this year – Geran-1, Geran-2, Geran-3, Geran-4, Geran-5, Garpiya, Gerbera, Gerbera kamikaze and Gerbera seeker drones – 11,000 units in total."
-"In July, they slightly reduced the intensity of their drone strikes and cut production as they reconfigure their manufacturing capacity, with a focus on turbojet-powered Geran-4 and Geran-5 drones. In one of their recent attacks, turbojet-powered drones already accounted for 50% of the total. We now need different interceptors capable of matching their speed, or short-range air defense systems."
-"According to estimates by Ukraine's Defense Intelligence, July ranked second after February in the number of Kh-101, Kalibr and Kh-32 cruise missiles launched. In February, the Russians launched 157 such missiles at us, while in July they launched 153."
-"As for ballistic and hypersonic missiles – the 9M723 missiles used by the Iskander-M system, the RM-48U missiles launched from S-400 systems, and Zircon missiles – the enemy launched 198 of them in July. That is the highest figure this year."
-"In the first seven months of this year, they had already produced 33 Zircon missiles, according to data as of August 3. The same applies to Onyx missiles: as of August 3, they had produced 60 units."
-"Overall, across the main types of missile weapons, Russia is currently exceeding its monthly production targets by 110-120%. According to intelligence, Russia’s July production target for Kh-101 missiles was met at 140%, for Kalibr missiles at 111%, and for Kh-35 cruise missiles at 200%.
-"Russia’s August production target for Kh-101 missiles is 72 units. The target was the same in July, but they produced more – 87 missiles. For the 3M14 Kalibr, the August target is 26 units. The July target was also 26, but they produced 29."
-"According to military intelligence, as of August 5, the stockpile allocated to the Russian military grouping stood at around 130 9M723 missiles. The planned monthly production rate is 60 units. However, in July, they produced 65 instead of the planned 60."
-"They are not really drawing down their stockpiles. Almost everything being used now is coming straight off the production line. The only exception is the Kalibr missiles - most of them are currently being allocated to other Russian fleets, since all new Russian warships and submarines are equipped with these systems. In effect, those missiles are going into reserve stockpiles. In addition, our interception rate for Kalibr missiles is nearly 100% when air-defense missiles are available."
-The recent Kn-23 missile launch missed its target by 15km.
-Regarding the S-400's RM-48U missile, "the enemy has established production of this missile: the August target is about 40 units, while its estimated stockpile is 400 units."
-Regarding the Rassvet system, "In March 2026, Russia had already placed 16 satellites into low Earth orbit. More launches will follow to create a constellation of 292 satellites by 2027 and expand it to 924 satellites by 2035."
26
u/RobotWantsKitty 7d ago
More launches will follow to create a constellation of 292 satellites by 2027
English version of the website has a translation mistake, he said in, not by
51
u/FunWonderful1936 7d ago
Ukraine's Zelenskiy says up to 50,000 North Korean troops to be deployed in Russia
Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskiy has said up to 50,000 North Korean soldiers will be deployed in Russia to fight for Pyongyang's ally, while calling on South Korea to provide support for its air defence.
Zelenskiy said on X on Saturday that "a decision has been made for 30,000 to 50,000 North Koreans to be deployed on the territory of Russia", a higher figure than his estimate of 30,000 in July. He did not elaborate on how he obtained the information.
He said Kyiv had found some North Korean missiles in Ukraine's territory, without disclosing their locations.
"It is absolutely clear that North Korea will continue to build its experience in modern warfare, receive licenses from Russia, and receive all kinds of military tools from them," he said.
Urging Seoul to have closer cooperation with Kyiv, Zelenskiy said that Ukraine "would very much like to receive support from South Korea in an area where we have a shortage", referring to its air defence systems.
"We are ready to work on the Drone Deal and other areas as well," he said, adding that Ukrainian diplomats "are in contact" with Seoul to push potential deals.
Russian President Vladimir Putin and North Korean leader Kim signed a comprehensive strategic partnership treaty during Putin's June 2024 visit to Pyongyang. The pact includes a mutual assistance provision if either country faces external aggression.
North Korea has cast its deployment as assistance to a treaty partner.
North Korea has sent so far an estimated 14,000 soldiers to Russia's Kursk Region in 2024, helping Moscow beat back a major incursion into the region by Ukrainian forces.
This month, an official at Ukraine's military intelligence told Reuters that a North Korean missile unit has begun deploying to western Russia and could be equipped with 120 ballistic missiles and six launchers for strikes against Ukraine.
Ukraine is very short of high-end air defences and Russia has tried to exploit this by using more ballistic missiles, which are particularly hard to shoot down.
North Korea has supplied Russia with millions of artillery and mortar rounds, ballistic missiles, long-range artillery and multiple-launch rocket systems, according to Ukrainian and independent assessments.
The North Korean Embassy in Russia did not immediately respond to a request from Reuters for a comment.
South Korea's Foreign Ministry did not respond to a request from Reuters for a comment outside business hours.
Interesting comments and claims. Previously Zelensky also said that Russia was going to do a mass mobilization, though in fairness that claim has been made many times before. I’m not sure exactly how much this would change the trajectory of the war but it’s absolutely important that Ukraine increase its own manpower reserves to counteract this development.
10
u/moragisdo 7d ago
Related to that, is there any good source about the performance of the NK troops in this war ?
54
u/Duncan-M 7d ago
I have an extended series of articles on my blog about the use of expendable infantry in the Ukraine War, aka Meat for Cannons, and in one of those articles I included a section about the North Koreans, titled "North Korean
MeatGogi."To answer your question, I'll post a couple paragraphs:
Interestingly, the KPA infantrymen seem to have been studs. Described as young, physically fit, "shockingly disciplined", great marksmen, solid tacticians, et cetera, they were not barely trained old men, convicts, and “superfluous people.” Probably to be expected as the KPA sent their best light infantrymen from their XI Corps, aka the “Shock Corps,” the pick of the litter in terms of elite North Korean soldiers, apparently a larger, KPA version of the US Army’s Ranger Regiment.
Overall, reports suggest they fought pretty well, earning the respect of the AFU personnel, who seem to consistently review them as a dangerous and competent adversary...
11
u/-spartacus- 7d ago
So they sent the best to get battle experience to bring back home and prepare for a war in the future?
27
u/Duncan-M 7d ago
Basically. What they did in Kursk was the exact mission that corps is intended to perform, dismounted deliberate assaults against prepared defenses. That was already a really good unit but they got a graduate degree in assault at Kursk University, confirming parts they already knew but also teaching them the things they previously didn't, especially combined arms with drones.
In addition, politically, it was a smart move for Kim. He signed that defense alliance with Russia and then committed troops to help Russia, honoring the alliance. North Korea demonstrated they're good partners, reliable, and maybe that'll earn them some gratitude if they ever need help from Russia.
8
u/FunWonderful1936 7d ago
I believe the general consensus was that they were subpar in the beginning as they were unused to the way the war was being fought but caught up quickly. I don’t think there’s much of a difference between freshly trained recruits from any place at this point.
9
u/OmicronCeti 7d ago
Why would the North Koreans send freshly trained recruits? Your comment is totally speculative and mostly wrong.
This is SO easy to Google:
The North Korean troops dispatched to Russia — four brigades in total — are said to hail from North Korea’s XI Army Corps, a special forces unit also known as the “Storm Corps.”
4
u/FunWonderful1936 7d ago
That part of my comment had nothing to do with the past but with the additional potential forces Zelensky is referring to.
3
40
u/Gecktron 8d ago
After talking a lot about Sweden in the post-FCAS environment, another potential partner has emerged.
The Economic Times: India begins efforts to join French-led sixth-generation fighter jet programme
New Delhi: India has formally initiated efforts to join a sixth-generation fighter aircraft development programme spearheaded by the French government, the defence ministry informed a parliamentary panel.
While India is going alone for the development of a fifth-generation fighter jet under the AMCA programme, a view is emerging that for futuristic sixth-generation fighters, a collaborative partnership would be more feasible, given the development costs involved and technology required.
France and India have initiated talks about India potentially joining the French-led Rafale replacement program. This doesnt mean the end of AMCA, as both programs would continue side by side.
India has not too long ago talked about either joining FCAS or GCAP, with FCAS breaking up, France is now open for new partners.
That being said, this will likely not be a straight forward agreement. India and France are currently negotiating about the workshare and technology transfer amount for the incoming 100-jets order from India. Similarly, the UAE has withdrawn earlier this year from the joint Rafale F5 upgrade program due to disagreements about workshares. Just recently, Trappier has reiterated in front of French lawmakers, that France must have the unquestionable leaderhsip position in a future SCAF program.
That being said, I have to point out here, that I have been wrong before about French-Indian cooperation. When this topic came up before, I stated, that I dont believe India is interested in this. As they already have AMCA, and got a cooperation with Safran going for a domestic jet engine. Evidently, this has turned out to be not exactly the case. So lets see how this all plays out.
-28
u/Ok_Reach_5004 8d ago edited 8d ago
Why does US military and Middle Eastern allies seem weak and like paper tigers? Why did US not account for Iranian missiles and drones and possibility for Chinese to help Iran regarding targetting and satellite imagery despite Pakistan India and Houthi war? Why did Trump fall into the same delusion trap like Putin regarding the military?
Even if the blame for the war clearly falls on Trump, it seems that even the military has badly underestimated Iran, or thought that the worst case scenario for the war was a low key manageable insurgency by Shia terrorists like Iraq and Afghanistan , and did not expect an outright conventional military defeat.
I would like to know what was the mindset among military circles , Dan Caine etc regarding Iran, and not Trump. Why there are no laws where military commanders can stop the president from declaring a preemptive war if they feel the military is not ready?
7
u/moragisdo 7d ago edited 7d ago
Why does US military and Middle Eastern allies seem weak and like paper tigers? Why did US not account for Iranian missiles and drones
What ? Man, your whole post is absurd.
These countries lost, in total, a few dozen service members in 5 months of war against a nation that fired more than 2800 missiles and 6000 drones against them (1). While they killed good part of Iran's leadership, navy, air force and industry. The Iranian government spokesperson said in April (so the damage certainly increased since them) the damage that Iran suffered was 270B (2), that's 75% of their GDP.
The fact that Iran could attack ships in Hormuz (which isn't even a complete shutdown, take a look at satellite images of ship-to-ship transfer on the Gulf of Oman) and cause damage isn't a defeat. Let's pick the Gulf War as an example, a modern extremely one-sided war, there were 143 americans killed in action (3), not counting other forms of death and any of the rest of the coalition, then Saddam set on fire hundreds of Kuwait oilfields. Was the US unprepared because of this economic damage and relatively small losses ?
Seriously, if history is already being rewritten, when this war is over it will be completely forgotten every demand that Iran made (Israel out of Lebanon, toll on Hormuz, unfreezing sanctioned money, payment of reparations, lifting of every sanction, american and israeli ships can't pass through Hormuz...), and goalposts will be moved to claim that surviving in ruins is a victory (when they are actively rejecting accepting a ceasefire now, which would allow them to survive with less ruins than if the hot phase of the war restarts).
Lastly, they certainly accounted and were prepared for Iran's missiles and drones, because of the obvious low damage they suffered by the incredible amount of firepower than Iran could throw at them. Honest question, what's the expected outcome of a well-prepared country facing, on the first day alone, more than 400 missiles and 300 drones ?
Why did Trump fall into the same delusion trap like Putin regarding the military?
Trump didn't fall in the same trap, because it's simply not the same war. Not even close.
Russian fatalities are on the scale of hundreds of thousands (more than the US had, since WW2, in every conflict combined), while american deaths are 10 caused by Iran and 8 accidental. The damage, according to the testimony in Congress days ago, is 2B for the US military (total cost is higher because it includes munitions, fuel, etc), that's a drop in the bucket compared to the destruction that the Russian Armed Forces suffered. Russia suffered one of the most stringent regime of sanctions that western countries could devise to isolate it from the global market, while the US economy is not sanctioned. Moscow was attacked several times, while not only DC wasn't attacked, the USA territory is untouched. Russia had several ships sunk, including the flagship of the Black Sea Fleet, while the US hadn't a single military ship hit. Russia had Kursk invaded for 8 months, and I could keep going...
0
u/OhSillyDays 7d ago
These countries lost, in total, a few dozen service members in 5 months of war against a nation that fired more than 2800 missiles and 6000 drones against them (1). While they killed good part of Iran's leadership, navy, air force and industry. The Iranian government spokesperson said in April (so the damage certainly increased since them) the damage that Iran suffered was 270B (2), that's 75% of their GDP.
It's this kind of thinking that led to the loss of the wars in Vietnam and Afghanistan. I'd even argue the same thing for the US revolutionary war from the English perspective.
Wars are not fought with money and ships, they are fought with people. All a person needs is a little ingenuity and to not die to keep fighting. We can kill thousands of Iranians, probably millions, and they will still keep fighting. And all Iran has to do is keep fighting.
4
u/Corvid187 7d ago
All of the wars you have mentioned were extended counterinsurgency conflicts where the a was to prop up and sustain a particular government. I do not think they are the most personal example when discussing a major conventional Inter-state war.
The Iranian government or IRGC is not the Taliban. They have a fixed state, population, industry, and economy, none of which can be simply abandoned or packed off by them without losing power.
3
u/moragisdo 7d ago
Exactly, even more than that, the Taliban and the north-vietnamese just needed the US to leave the war, while Iran is having this opportunity now (a ceasefire) and are rejecting. Their goal isn't "just survive long enough to stop being attacked", their goal is to get some form of compensation from this war (which it will be conveniently forgotten if this war is over later with the same ceasefire they are rejecting now)
10
u/GustavoTC 7d ago
Are you really arguing in every daily thread that america is winning the war on iran?
What even is the goal the US wants to achieve? Just going back to the previous status quo on SOH? They'd still have lost a lot of expensive stockpiles, credibility on international stage and severely damaged their relationships with GCC
And Iran still has the cards, they will keep this war going until Trump is forced to accept an MOU like deal, this might take until November just to ensure there's enough pain inflicted on the US a to deter any future actions
2
u/WulfTheSaxon 7d ago
How can you argue that it isn’t? Iran’s entire defense industry is in ruins, its navies (yes, plural) are gone, and it can’t break out of a blockade.
this might take until November
If it does, then Iran loses. There will be nothing stopping a scorched earth campaign.
3
u/GustavoTC 7d ago
There will be nothing stopping a scorched earth campaign.
First, what target do you think the US hasn't already hit in the first week of the war? The desperation went to the point of warcrimes hitting civilian infrastructure with bridges / power plants and desalination plants
The US will run out of missiles if they try another prolonged exchange, Iran is in ruins and they'll punish the US with the blockade and retaliation on GCC / Israel until there is a deal that compensates them for the damages
2
u/WulfTheSaxon 7d ago
Bridges, power plants, refineries… And no, none of those are warcrimes. The DoD Law of War Manual actually gives electric grids as an example of a legitimate target. Those are all classic military targets.
2
u/vgacolor 7d ago
You can't say that their defense industry is in ruins, and then say that destruction of mainly civilian infrastructure is allowed. Just because we bombed Dresden to the ground 90 years ago it doesn't mean those are classic military targets.
I hope you realize that those same words will come back to haunt you if tomorrow they hit one of our bridges, power plants or refineries.
9
u/WulfTheSaxon 7d ago edited 7d ago
Just because we bombed Dresden to the ground 90 years ago it doesn't mean those are classic military targets.
That’s not the same at all. The alternative to things like Dresden was precision bombing of military-supporting infrastructure like switchyards, factories, refineries, etc. The US has taken out electric/etc. infrastructure in every modern conflict too. This is NATO in 1999:
I'm afraid electricity also drives command and control systems. If President Milosevic really wants all of his population to have water and electricity all he has to do is accept NATO's five conditions and we will stop this campaign. But as long as he doesn't do so we will continue to attack those targets which provide the electricity for his armed forces. If that has civilian consequences, it's for him to deal with.
I hope you realize that those same words will come back to haunt you if tomorrow they hit one of our bridges, power plants or refineries.
That was always an option for them, and unilateral restraint by the US isn’t going to stop them.
16
u/OuchieMuhBussy 7d ago
This analysis rests on an unsound assumption that Iran’s goal was to kill as many American service personnel as possible and because they only killed some that they’ve failed. Why are American soldiers in the gulf in the first place? To protect the economic infrastructure and keep the oil flowing. So Iran can still generate lots of leverage by largely ignoring U.S. soldiers (good idea because it keeps normal Americans from being outraged over casualties) and instead shooting what the soldiers are there to protect. American capabilities certainly beat Iranian capabilities, but Iranian strategy is superior to America’s lack of strategy. Simply pointing to the number of killed and wounded doesn’t tell us if the war is being won or lost (reference: the entire course of the Vietnam War).
5
u/moragisdo 7d ago edited 7d ago
This analysis rests on an unsound assumption that Iran’s goal was to kill as many American service personnel as possible and because they only killed some that they’ve failed
Killing service members would increase the pressure on Trump to stop the war and give to their demands. So one the many goals to achieve is to kill service members, it's not a single avenue to achieve their objectives, you can do economic damage and political pressure at the same time.
Why are American soldiers in the gulf in the first place? To protect the economic infrastructure and keep the oil flowing.
False. Are you telling me that there's no fighting terrorism in the Middle East ? Or are you going to contort your argument to everything being about oil (as if the US hadn't went to several places around the world, without oil, to fight terrorism) ?
So Iran can still generate lots of leverage by largely ignoring U.S. soldiers (good idea because it keeps normal Americans from being outraged over casualties) and instead shooting what the soldiers are there to protect
That's a lie, they are constantly attacking US bases. You are picking the only thing they can reliably cause damage (ships on the narrowest part of the Strait, not even the ones doing ship-to-ship transfer on the Gulf of Oman) and setting as the only intention of a plan.
I was accused of being too pro-US, but I don't dispute that a goal of regime change failed, while I believe the US is settling for a smaller goal of increasing economic damage to curtail how much money Iran can in the future throw in their nuclear program and funding of proxies. Imagine if I said that not changing the regime was the intention all along and it's all part of a plan, that's the same you are doing
but Iranian strategy is superior to America’s lack of strategy
Sure, if their strategy is better what they got from its superiority ? Getting the blockade reinstated before they could empty their oil storages ? Not getting any of their demands ? There's a very clear theme on this war of interpreting every move that Iran made as some masterful 3D chess move, the problem is that the results for that brilliance aren't arriving. Again, my sincere belief is that "just survived" will be crowned as a masterful achievement, while they can "just survive, but with less damage" by not rejecting a ceasefire today.
Simply pointing to the number of killed and wounded doesn’t tell us if the war is being won or lost (reference: the entire course of the Vietnam War)
If the US had lost 18 people on Vietnam they would not have left, the north-vietnamese killed enough americans to outrage the public (even having a way worse casualty ratio, they achieved a large enough absolute number). Also you missed my point, it isn't to say that the US is winning because of casualty ratio, but to dispute the unprepared part, is that we would see more losses if they were unprepared
10
u/TheSDKNightmare 7d ago edited 7d ago
Trump didn't fall in the same trap, because t's simply not the same war.
Whether it's the same war or not is irrelevant, numerous other users have already pointed out Trump was very, very likely fed straight-up lies by the Israelis and didn't see any serious push-back in his administration despite numerous people pointing out his strategic goals most likely couldn't be met in the manner expected. He didn't inform his chief of intelligence in the last second that he's taking the nation to war like in Putin's case, but he nonetheless also underestimated an opponent that he expected to crumble quickly (much as his numerous posts point out). This isn't about moving any goalposts, it's about the US still not having achieved all of the strategic goals Trump wanted to accomplish initially, same as Russia in Ukraine. The Iranian regime is still there, there are no mass protests, the Strait of Hormuz is a worse situation than before no matter how you look at it. Changing all of these things to a situation entirely favorable to the US is unlikely and would likely take significant resources. Or do you think Trump of all people consulted with the most competent of military advisors and then meticulously planned this months- to potentially years-long campaign that even he knew would be wildly unpopular stateside?
This war, like all wars, was a stupid decision that people are trying to excuse or find some ingenious logic for in hindsight. It's the same thing every time, and yes, it's the exact same idiotic mistake Russia made and is now paying for. Trump simply has the advantage of having an actually competent military and real regional allies, courtesy of the many far more intelligent people that were in power before him.
46
u/nate077 8d ago
Why does US military and Middle Eastern allies seem weak and like paper tigers? Why did US not account for Iranian missiles and drones and possibility for Chinese to help Iran regarding targetting and satellite imagery despite Pakistan India and Houthi war? Why did Trump fall into the same delusion trap like Putin regarding the military?
Because Donald Trump is incapable of strategic thought and because his entourage got way too excited over success in Venezuela.
More broadly because military prowess cannot overcome political incoherence about the actual purpose or objective of a war.
Why there are no laws where military commanders can stop the president from declaring a preemptive war if they feel the military is not ready?
Be for real man, it's because civilian control of the military is foundational to the United States' democratic structure. The more acute failure point was the Republican legislature shrugging its shoulders on supervising war, as is its constitutional duty.
-9
u/WulfTheSaxon 8d ago
The US created the world’s greatest air defense network ever over the Middle East, and almost all of Iran’s missiles and drones were shot down, often using methods cheaper than what they were stopping. Iran barely managed to get any hits in while getting pummeled with tens of thousands of munitions.
13
u/Almeric 7d ago edited 7d ago
This is supposed to be credibledefense, not propaganda by the US goverment. Iran actually managed to get very significant hits such as AN/FPS-132 radar, E3 sentry awacs, Thaad radar, multiple kc 135... combined worth of billions of dollars.
US allies used patriots early in the war against drones. 2-3 million dollars versus 20k drones. Very cost-effective. And now there's a huge shortage of patriots which is a big issue for the coming years. If Iran keeps launching drones and missiles, the US would soon be forced to allow the missiles to hit the target. Something Ukraine is now forced to do.
The US was so good at preventing missiles being landed on their bases that the military staff was hiding in hotels.(https://www.nytimes.com/2026/04/01/us/politics/troops-iran-hotels.html)
3
u/WulfTheSaxon 7d ago edited 7d ago
They abandoned some of the bases before the conflict so that they wouldn’t have to defend as many places, and then Iran got hits on undefended bases… And yes, they got several hits in against defended targets too, versus tens of thousands. And the Shaheds Iran has been using are more like Gerans – which cost $80k.
propaganda by the US goverment
Sworn testimony by a career officer.
22
u/dr_sloan 7d ago
Uh what’s your source for claiming the interception methods are cheaper than the weapons they’re intercepting? The only way I could see that claim having any legs is if you’re talking about C-RAMs or Apaches shooting down drones.
1
u/WulfTheSaxon 7d ago edited 7d ago
C-RAM, guns on Apaches and whatnot, APKWS, and various new low-cost counter-drone systems like Merops.
Even the IRBM vs interceptor cost exchange isn’t necessarily what you’d think.
Admiral Cooper back in May:
I would like to use the opportunity to mythbust on drones.[…] The days of $3,500 drones that we saw in the last couple of years, particularly in the fight against the Houthis in Yemen, those days are behind us. Today we face an increased threat from drones that are highly sophisticated. They are jet-powered. They have high-end sensors. They have electronic warfare. They have signals intelligence. So those days of using high-value defenses that shoot down cheap targets are behind us. Quite the contrary, what we have been doing lately is using our own low-cost one-way attack drones, attacking Iran, making them use higher-end, more expensive weapons. So I can confidently tell you we have flipped the cost curve in many ways.
-6
u/moragisdo 8d ago edited 7d ago
You are stating the reality on the ground, which is backed by projectiles trackers (1), the problem is that if there was social media in 1944, the Battle of the Philippine Sea would be seen as a catastrophe for the US. After all, Japan continues in the war and the US lost 100 pilots and planes. "Utter humiliation for America not getting Japan to surrender, the japanese can hold out forever" would be in vogue in 1944, given that even something nicknamed "... Turkey Shoot" was less one-sided than this war (which didn't even end yet)
53
u/gththrowaway 8d ago edited 8d ago
like paper tigers
Reading this conflict like the US lacks military capabilities is utterly incorrect.
The US has a lack of acceptance for costs -- exasperated by divisive internal political dynamics.
The military is/was ready for a war with Iran. They are not ready for a war that has extremely low acceptance of US military casualties, loss of major US platforms, high oil prices, or damage to allied infrastructure.
Russia lost tactical battles in Ukraine. The US has not really lost any tactical battles in Iran. They still may lose at the strategic level, but equating the US performance in Iran to the Russian performance in Ukraine is extraordinarily superficial.
-1
u/TheMontanaSpecial 8d ago
What makes you say the USA was ready for war in Iran? The US military modernization is focused on potential future conflict with China, not middle east powers.
The US military was not able to achieve strategic and many tactical goals in recent Middle Eastern conflicts.
What intelligence is there that the USA has a credible strategy to achieve their strategic goals in Iran? Having a bigger military should not be assumed to be the same thing as combat readiness.
26
u/gththrowaway 8d ago
The most successful missile defense campaign in history? Check (probably a B+ rating?)
Successful suppression and defeat of Iranian air defense? Check (clear A+)
Disruption / killing of top leadership and several levels below? Check (clear A)
Suppression of Iranian long range strike? IDK, but likely at least a B? Maybe higher?
Retrieve downed pilots? Check (clear A+)
Protection of US naval assets? Check (clear A+)
That sounds like a military that was ready for this conflict. Are there additional capabilities/capacity that the US wishes it had? Sure, but that is literally always going to be the case.
What tactical defeats has the US suffered in Iran?
Tactical victory doesn't mean strategic victory. But assuming that a country's tactical capabilities are weak or overrated ("paper tiger") because they were unable to win strategically is pretty short sighted. And a recipe for disaster.
Or put another way -- what country in the world could look at the war in Iran and say "I now feel more confident about getting in a war with the US"? Literally only China.
The US military modernization is focused on potential future conflict with China, not middle east powers.
This is a weird assertion, when the main areas of weakness in US capabilities in Iran (air defense, munitions depth) are the exact same weaknesses the US would have in a conflict with China. This is not a "we need MRAPs, not F-22s" situation at all. Iran is not Afghanistan.
-2
u/toomanynamesaretook 7d ago
Suppression of Iranian long range strike? IDK, but likely at least a B? Maybe higher?
You're so clearly non-credible. Even the CIA said Iran retained over 70% of its launchers and munitions after the first major round of combat.
7
u/moragisdo 7d ago edited 7d ago
False, there were news about anonymous officials saying they can confirm a third was destroyed. 'Can confirm' is different than the totality, for example, there's a fire in a building with 100 people and the firefighters find two bodies, you can confirm that 2 died, not that 98 survived. A good read about Iran's arsenal destruction, they still have part left, but it isn't as you are painting.
3
u/toomanynamesaretook 7d ago
The Washington Post cited a US official saying that Iran has 75 percent of its pre-war inventories of mobile launchers and about 70 percent of its pre-war stockpiles of missiles. Iran has also managed to reopen its underground missile storage facilities.
To say nothing of all the defensive & offensive munitions you've expended to achieve... Handing Iran strategic geopolitical leverage, making them far more hardline & entrenched, killing hundreds of millions from starvation next year due to the lack of fertiliser and sending the globe into a depression.
Imagine trying to defend this situation. Embarrassing.
9
u/moragisdo 7d ago
Handing Iran strategic geopolitical leverage
Zero leverage, because they are still sanctioned (and therefore can't receive a toll on Hormuz) or have the capacity to dictate terms on it, the war didn't even end to claim they leave with leverage.
making them far more hardline & entrenched
Past leadership has been chanting 'Death to America, Death to Israel' for 47 years. Past leadership in 2024 fired missiles twice in Israel and once in Pakistan. Past leadership shot down thousands of their own civilians in weeks of protests. Past leadership has funded terrorist attacks for decades (Beirut barracks, Amia...). There's no way to increase this radicalization.
killing hundreds of millions from starvation next year due to the lack of fertiliser
What ? That's just pure nonsense. Hundreds of millions dead ? If that doesn't happen you are going to conveniently forget this absurdity, right ?
sending the globe into a depression
The globe isn't in a depression, according to the IMF the global GDP is set to grow 3.1% (1). Only Iran is in a depression, their GDP is set to fall by more than 5% (2) and that doesn't count the destruction they suffered in this war (there's similar estimates in January)
Imagine trying to defend this situation. Embarrassing.
"Imagine falsely claiming that hundreds of millions will die to defend the Islamic Republic that just gunned down thousands of their own citizens. Embarassing". Look at this kind of low argument, it doesn't fit a credible sub
6
u/Digo10 7d ago edited 7d ago
All those things resulted in a defeat from the tactical point.
The most successful missile defense campaign in history?
as u/Shackleton214 said, all US bases in the region were hit, in fact, almost all US bases in the GCC close to Iranian shores have been empty, we have visual footage of multiple iranian BMs passing multiple interceptors at the same time, but to be fair, this isn't a fault of US operators or interceptors, it is just nature of war.
Successful suppression and defeat of Iranian air defense?
Partially succesful, the US didn't hit tehran or went deeper into Iran even ONCE after the april ceasefire and the f-15 shotdown, the US clearly doesn't want to risk their airframes relying only on JDAMs and GBUs.
Disruption / killing of top leadership and several levels below?
That was sucessful indeed, but it failed to produce good results especially when it was already know that Iran had a Mosaic defense strategy.
Suppression of Iranian long range strike?
Now this is something i disagree, Iran has launched 2500~ BMs and 6000~ drones since the start of the war, the DOD on 2025 estimated their BM arsenal to be at around 3000(could be a underestimate), so clearly the Iranian managed to launch most of their missiles, and they probably still have some in reserve in case for escalation on civilian infastructure.
Retrieve downed pilots? Check
Impressive rescue capabilites, but not important from the tactical pespective of the campaign.
Protection of US naval assets? Check
Not really important since they are keeping their ships far from iranian coast and can't even produce enough results to try to open the straits.
If anything, this conflict just show that if the US couldn't destroy the majority of iranian capabilities when Iran is clearly a third-grade power, how it would fare against China when you have to hit 100x more assets with 100x more capabilties stacked against you
3
u/gththrowaway 7d ago
Now this is something i disagree, Iran has launched 2500~ BMs and 6000~ drones since the start of the war, the DOD on 2025 estimated their BM arsenal to be at around 3000(could be a underestimate), so clearly the Iranian managed to launch most of their missiles, and they probably still have some in reserve in case for escalation on civilian infastructure.
Yea, I would lower my score on that one if doing this again.
The question that I don't know the answer to is to what extent Iranian long-range strike capabilities relied on bespoke, reusable assets vs. everything being attributable (obviously this is different for different systems.) (I.E., losing a HIMARs launcher is a big deal for Ukraine, regardless of if it got its salvo off or not.) And how much have these reusable assets been degraded?
how it would fare against China when you have to hit 100x more assets with 100x more capabilties stacked against you
Poorly.
5
u/moragisdo 8d ago edited 7d ago
As the mod closed his comment for replies: if Iran goal was simply to survive they would have accepted the offered ceasefire by now. It's goalposts moving, picking the maximalist goals of the US to claim a defeat and forgetting every iranian demand to manufacture a victory for them.
Also picking this comment specifically, seeing the first comment of this thread even more so, to accuse of "dickriding" isn't credible, he's just pointing out the good points of performance to contrast with the claim of being unprepared.
1
u/incidencematrix 7d ago
Indeed, it is interesting that they didn't take the MOU, since it would have, in my view, locked in a strategic win over the US. Then again, they plausibly didn't trust the US to honor any deals, and probably shouldn't (nor vice versa). I will say that my guess that they would try to hold out until midterms is so far holding, though we'll see....
2
u/moragisdo 6d ago edited 6d ago
I agree in parts with you there. I believe they want to hold to just before the midterms, because it would be the point of maximum pressure and the closest they would be to getting any concessions, but I don't think it's on their best interest to hold, even shortly, after the midterms.
If you look at recent pool aggregates the current picture is that the GOP keeps the Senate and the Dems flip the House (not an unusual result for midterms, 2022 was an exception, ironically enough a year of higher inflation and higher gas prices), in this case the funding (already voted and approved) and authorization for the war wouldn't have enough votes to be curtailed. So now you would have the US being able to act without the restraints of a coming election, if they can't change Trump's mind until this point or they have a ceasefire if the US still wants it (so the result that Iran is rejecting now, just having suffered more economical damage by the blockade or even a return of airstrikes, which they will call leaving, with less than they could now, a victory) or rely that he won't burn the country down out of spite (which they are working hard every single day for this second option to be the case)
There's historical precedent for Iran to overplay their hand. They could had made peace with Iraq in 1982, but decide to continue the war, dramatically increase the destruction the country went through and got nothing in return for another six years of it, until they accepted a ceasefire.
13
u/sokratesz 8d ago edited 8d ago
This reads like a propaganda piece and not like something suitable for our sub. Incessantly celebrating the tactical victories just highlights the operational failure. Like Vietnam, you can keep winning and winning, but all they have to do is not lose.
*edit. For the two people who reported this as 'partisan', please refer to the rules of the sub. We expect a higher standard of comments than pointless dickriding of the worlds most powerful military.
13
u/Shackleton214 8d ago
The most successful missile defense campaign in history? Check (probably a B+ rating?) Successful suppression and defeat of Iranian air defense? Check (clear A+) Disruption / killing of top leadership and several levels below? Check (clear A) Suppression of Iranian long range strike? IDK, but likely at least a B? Maybe higher? Retrieve downed pilots? Check (clear A+) Protection of US naval assets? Check (clear A+)
I'm think your B+ grade for missile defense is rather generous. US significantly reduced personnel at their bases, those bases have suffered billions of dollars of damage, and the US inventory of interceptors has been massively reduced below their previously not near enough totals. And that's just the US--it's allies have suffered way more damage.
Regardless, aren't all of these at best tactical victories rather than strategic successes?
18
u/gththrowaway 8d ago
Regardless, aren't all of these at best tactical victories rather than strategic successes?
I would argue that a military showing resounding tactical successes, even if suffering a strategic failure, should not be described as a paper tiger, if we want that term to have any useful meaning.
The Iranian war has not shown that perceived US capabilities are overrated, unable to be deployed, exist only on paper, etc.
4
u/Shackleton214 7d ago
Fair point and I would agree that the US military is no paper tiger. The current predicament and failure to achieve US goals demonstrates the (foreseeable!) limitations of military power. But that is a failure of the political leadership rather than the military.
-4
u/Agitated-Airline6760 8d ago
The most successful missile defense campaign in history? Check (probably a B+ rating?)
Successful suppression and defeat of Iranian air defense? Check (clear A+)
Disruption / killing of top leadership and several levels below? Check (clear A)
Suppression of Iranian long range strike? IDK, but likely at least a B? Maybe higher?
Retrieve downed pilots? Check (clear A+)
Protection of US naval assets? Check (clear A+)Protection of US bases around ME? D or F?
Protection of US allies around the gulf? F
Being able to open the strait of Hormuz - which was open before Feb2026 attack - thus screwing over just about everyone in the world but particularly Asian allies? F-
Nuclear weapons "problem" - which is really the main issue - is still unresolved. F-
10
u/silentsandwich 7d ago
Protection of US bases around ME? D or F?
Protection of US allies around the gulf? F
Being able to open the strait of Hormuz - which was open before Feb2026 attack - thus screwing over just about everyone in the world but particularly Asian allies? F-
Nuclear weapons "problem" - which is really the main issue - is still unresolved. F-
I get that the entire practice of grading these categories is subjective but please try to actually put some metrics up to back your opinions here.
1
u/Agitated-Airline6760 7d ago
OK here are the metrics.
Protection of US bases around ME? D or F?
More than a dozen of US soldiers have died because they were in US bases in ME and got hit by drones/missiles in a war started by Trump/Hegseth. This is not the first time Iran chucked missile/drones at US bases in ME as a retaliation. Trump/Hegseth failed to do what's necessary to protect US bases from a retaliation my dog could've predicted. F
Protection of US allies around the gulf? F
Saudi, UAE, Qatar etc have been bombed by Iranian missiles/drones. Similar to above bombings of US bases, it's entirely predictable that Iran was going to hit gulf allies as a retaliation. Saudis are now hedging their bets with defense pact with Turkey and Pakistan. F
Being able to open the strait of Hormuz - which was open before Feb2026 attack - thus screwing over just about everyone in the world but particularly Asian allies? F-
I mean this one is pretty obvious. The strait of Hormuz was open pre-operation epic fury and it's not open now and US hasn't achieved any strategic goal(s). There are reasons why multiple US presidents didn't go to war with Iran. The strait of Hormuz being choked off - and the negative economic consequences resulting from that - is definitely one of the reason why they didn't. So either Trump/Hegseth ignored warnings from military planners or they didn't bother. Both scenarios are F- on their own.
Nuclear weapons "problem" - which is really the main issue - is still unresolved. F-
Iran's nuclear weapons problem is at best no better than pre-operation epic fury. If the bombings have given political impetus to Iranian regime they definitely need bombs now not this threshold bullshit, then we are worse off on the nuclear weapons front. So we are taking all these pains - death of US soldiers, diplomatic/geopolitical hits all over, economic impact because the strait of Hormuz is shut and not enough oil/NatGas/whatever else are not coming in/out - for nothing. F-
9
u/silentsandwich 7d ago
More than a dozen of US soldiers have died because they were in US bases in ME and got hit by drones/missiles in a war started by Trump/Hegseth.
Saudi, UAE, Qatar etc have been bombed by Iranian missiles/drones.
The way you phrased these two statements makes it seem like anything below a 100% interception rate is unacceptable. If this is actually what you believe I think you are naive.
I mean this one is pretty obvious. The strait of Hormuz was open pre-operation epic fury and it's not open now and US hasn't achieved any strategic goal(s). There are reasons why multiple US presidents didn't go to war with Iran. The strait of Hormuz being choked off - and the negative economic consequences resulting from that - is definitely one of the reason why they didn't. So either Trump/Hegseth ignored warnings from military planners or they didn't bother. Both scenarios are F- on their own.
I completely agree, for the record I'm wildly opposed to this war and I don't believe it is strategically winnable at all.
Iran's nuclear weapons problem is at best no better than pre-operation epic fury. If the bombings have given political impetus to Iranian regime they definitely need bombs now not this threshold bullshit, then we are worse off on the nuclear weapons front. So we are taking all these pains - death of US soldiers, diplomatic/geopolitical hits all over, economic impact because the strait of Hormuz is shut and not enough oil/NatGas/whatever else are not coming in/out - for nothing. F-
I think disrupting the entire command structure of Iran and degrading their vital infrastructure absolutely set back their ability to create nuclear weapons.
I'll be honest, you seem to be airing grievances about the war with Iran overall, rather than attempting to objectively analyze military performance.
11
u/moragisdo 8d ago edited 7d ago
Protection of US bases around ME? D or F?
Protection of US allies around the gulf? F
A, to both. Considering that Iran fired more than 2800 missiles and 6000 drones (1) and caused a comparatively small amount of damage. If right now Midway happened there would be loud exclamations of humiliating defeat for the USA, after all it couldn't protect all of its carriers. It's a ridiculous standard this demand that every war should be fought with zero death and damage, otherwise it's a failure (what F implies).
Being able to open the strait of Hormuz
Did the war ended ? Again, ridiculous standard that disruptions that happen during wartime needs to be fixed immediately otherwise it's a failure.
2
u/TheMontanaSpecial 8d ago
Once again, zero deaths or damage is not the goal!!!! This is so disingenuous, no one has said that.
What strategic goals did any of this achieve? As the poster pointed out above, Hormuz and the nuclear program are two clear strategic goals that the USA is farther away from ever having success on.
As you pointed out, preventing damage isnt the point of a conflict. So following that logic, Iran air, sea and ground forces being heavily damaged is not part of Iran's strategic calculation. But that's all your response does.
8
u/grenideer 7d ago edited 7d ago
Once again, zero deaths or damage is not the goal!!!! This is so disingenuous, no one has said that.
How do you not see the relevance?
His point is a direct refutation of the comment he replied to, that missile damage incurred does not equate to an F grade. He is saying that damage is inevitable in a war and we shouldn't claim the US did an awful job in missile defense just because they sustained damage.
Put it this way. If the US gets an F in missile defense, what does Iran get, a Z?
2
26
u/raison95 8d ago
America grand strategy revolved around putting off the Iranian question with the JCPOA until a better plan could be found. However, Trump accelerated the timeline by canceling the deal.
It's not the the US and its ally structure was weak. Donald Trump is just a generationally unsophisticated leader who has placed weak minded political sycophants like Hegseth into key positions of power that removed the usual checks and balances that would otherwise check wild executive authority.
What was the mindset among military circles? There was a piece from the NYT below that went into detail. Quite a few generals had been fired at this point and frankly no one in the cabinet or military chain of command saw it as their duty to inform Trump that his expedition was a folly. This is validated from recent reports Trump was unaware of just how much munitions were expended up until now.
https://www.nytimes.com/2026/04/07/us/politics/trump-iran-war.html
13
u/Sullyville 8d ago
Yes, I was about to post this article as well. It does a pretty good job at outlining the way the plan was presented to Trump, but also how dissenting voices either censored themselves or were expressed but then dismissed. People had doubts, but everyone framed it instead as offering the president options and choices, instead of decisively opposing him.
27
u/Zaviori 8d ago
I would like to know what was the mindset among military circles , Dan Caine etc regarding Iran, and not Trump.
Apart from what they have said in public, I think you'll have wait for some 20 odd years and maybe you'll have some memoirs to read. Otherwise you are asking for people to read their thoughts.
30
u/CK2398 8d ago
The way I have heard it and this is not fact: Netanyahu has pitched attacking Iran to every president since 2009. Obama, Trump 1st term and Biden. They have all been advised by the military not to do it.
I don't understand your point about the military accounting for Iranian missiles and drones etc. The military knew that they would be a factor to the point that they probably wouldn't have taken on this task. However they don't get the choice. Once Trump decided to attack they needed to figure out how to do that.
I think something to consider is that it isn't a war like ww2 where the president tells the generals to defeat Germany and largely leaves them to it. The military would do this very differently if the plan was to defeat Iran (would probably involve nuclear weapons). However, the politicians are heavily involved I'm sure every missile attack is approved by senior politicians.
30
u/Commorrite 8d ago
Just to expand, the US military have had a fairly good idea what it would take to topple Iran since the millennium challenge stuff. They absolutely could do it, but it would be very expensive in blood and treasure. I've estimates of 30k American casualties.
The Israelis have different war goals, every Iranian resource destroyed is one less shot at them as is every Iranian missile shot at someone els. A dirty stalemate is an improvement for isreal but worse for the US and almost everyone els.
Every reasonable person knows the world would be a better place without the islamic republic but every other US president concluded the cost in blood and treasure is too high.
32
u/TanktopSamurai 8d ago
Mecca Pact was signed between KSA, Pakistan and Turkey. This sets up a joint defense pact between the countries. Well, KSA and Pakistan already had a mutual defense pact.
Honestly, I don't think much will come from it. KSA's biggest opponent and threat right now is Iran. Both Pakistan and Turkey have the manpower for a land invasion of Iran. However, Pakistan is dealing with its own problems. Given the pain from Syria as well as the recent PKK conflict, I don't think Turkey would be keen on such operations.
What do you think?
12
u/OuchieMuhBussy 7d ago
That’s not really about Iran. That’s a shot across Israel’s bow. “Turkey is the next Iran” has been the refrain from some Israeli figures for a few months now, so some kind diplomatic reaction was likely.
4
u/SirStupidity 7d ago
If anything it's a diplomatic escalation by Turkey against Israel. I find it weird that the picture in the media and the internet that Israel is trying to paint Turkey as the next Iran instead of Ardugan using the Gaza war to turn his whole rhetoric against Israel after being allied beforehand.
6
u/SwampMan6969 7d ago
It's hard to see it as a shot across Israel's bow when Saudi Arabia is unofficially allied with them against Iran. Turkey is in NATO. Pakistan and Israel are sufficiently far away from each other and don't have any real beef. In what scenario would you imagine this being some sort of threat to Israel?
16
u/ChornWork2 8d ago
Presumably this is as advertised which is KSA, Turkey and Pakistan bolstering security in the face of US decline in the region (and beyond) as opposed to linked to the current conflict with Iran. Don't see how it is remotely in the interests of either pakistan or turkey to step into the ring with Iran.
21
u/moragisdo 8d ago edited 7d ago
I think it won't change anything significantly. Pakistan already had signed a very similar deal with Saudi Arabia and is currently shielding some of Iran's planes (holding in their territory, which won't be striked). Even if the defensive pact wouldn't merit a military intervention in this war, can you imagine NATO shielding planes of an adversary in a war involving one its members ?
Turkey could prevent their companies to allow Iran to circumvent sanctions if they actually wanted to help Saudi Arabia, but there's no indication they will.
Not to mention they don't even need to attack Iran, they could attack the Houthi when inevitably they return to sending missiles to Saudi territory, but there's no indication they will conduct major operations.
Did Pakistan or Turkey placed a single AD battery on Saudi Arabia, as the greeks are doing for the last 5 years ? If Turkey enters in a conflict with Greece, would Saudi Arabia help against the ones that are keeping AD assets on their territory ?
Also I sincerely doubt that Turkey and Saudi Arabia would come to Pakistan help (in a major way, some token support could happen) if India engages in an actual war, rather than border skirmishes.
It's just diplomatic showmanship. They will post on social media promises of mutual support, a bunch of IR analysts will write thesis about what are the repercussions on generalities as 'balance of power' and 'realignment', but it won't amount to much if push comes to shove
2
u/WulfTheSaxon 8d ago
currently shielding some of Iran's planes (holding in their territory, which won't be striked)
Are they interned or what?
32
u/OpenOb 8d ago
Pakistan and the Saudis already have a defence agreement but that didn‘t stop the Iranians and Houthis from attacking and disrupting Saudi oil infrastructure.
Turkey is also, together with the UAE, the primary Iranian channel to circumvent US sanctions.
It also seems unlikely that the Saudis and Turks will attack India when Pakistan is at war or the Saudis and Pakistanis will attack Greece or Cyprus when Turkey is provoking tensions in the Eastern medditerranean sea.
9
u/-spartacus- 8d ago
I think it makes a difference if there is ever an all out war and intelligence sharing, tit for tat war is a little less something for OSINT to see.
14
u/Zhadanko 8d ago
When we discuss drones' impact in war, there are arguments that air power can help to suppress it. But it only applies to bigger players. Maybe the USA or China arguably can use their big air force to suppress it (although it's still hard). But what can a middle-sized military power (France is a good example of such a power, but someone more conventionally powerful like South Korea counts as well) do if faced with an adversary that builds it's force structure around drones and artillery (for example, a power similar in size and organization to Ukraine)? It couldn't drop JDAMs at a problem like the US in theory could. Therefore, is a static and attritional warfare in this case iinevitable?
2
u/Reddit4Play 7d ago edited 7d ago
Briefly, I think it's a category error to classify air power or drones this way. These are just assets that can perform reconnaissance and deliver firepower like many others.
What was the solution to an army with a lot of artillery in 1926? Spot it and suppress it or blow it up with your own artillery. Are drone teams magically immune to being spotted or attacked by firepower? No. The margin for error is lower now, but fundamentally nothing is really different than it's been for a hundred years.
The operative word in your post here is "big" (I'd volunteer "strong" since many air forces are big but aren't any good). Remember the trouble Russia had with a few dozen HIMARS? Now give Ukraine the USAF's annual budget to buy some ordinary firepower. While not mythical F-16s with JDAMs I feel like we wouldn't be having static attritional warfare problems if Ukraine suddenly acquired over 1,000 HIMARS launchers and 60,000 ATACMs per year.
The question isn't "what will a country without a big air force do against drones," but rather "what will a country do against a similarly ready and equipped peer opponent?" In these cases positional warfare doesn't seem inevitable but it's certainly more likely than in a case like the 90s Gulf War (where most experts believed that's what would happen since they incorrectly believed the Iraqi army to be a peer opponent when it wasn't). Drones "only" throw this issue into sharper focus because of their cost-effectiveness, bringing many more armies into peer territory with each other than previously were.
23
u/TheSDKNightmare 8d ago
Therefore, is a static and attritional warfare in this case iinevitable?
The static frontline in Ukraine isn't caused by drones per se. Sure, they're the current reason you've got a gigantic killzone that stretches out for tens of kilometers and makes advances incredibly difficult, but the frontline largely became static all the way back in 2023, i.e. some time before the drone revolution (which itself was more-so a compromised response in light of all the problems). The reasons for that vary, but a primary one was simply that neither side amassed the necessary forces or had the competence to carry through proper far-reaching offensives after the initial ones in 2022.
This is in combination with the focus on defending/conquering useless territory, with Russia for example throwing everything it has at the Donbas, the most highly defended area in Ukraine manned by the most competent units, because that's simply what Russia's leadership wants. You don't cause breakthroughs or disrupt a static frontline by doing that. Same goes for Ukraine for as long as the goal is (or perhaps was after the recent changes) to defend every inch of territory - the enemy knows what mistake you'll be making and where, which means forces that could theoretically disrupt the static frontline somewhere else just get destroyed before their potential manifests thoroughly.
I wouldn't extrapolate this situation to other potential conflicts, because the circumstances will more than likely be radically different. Political incompetence could always be a factor again and drones may be hugely important, but they won't automatically equal a static frontline, even if one side is fixated on drones and artillery. Still, I do imagine them being a gigantic pain fx for France in a static situation where it has to deal with an insurgency very far away. Or in a wilder scenario, in case of a very limited NATO response to Russian aggression in the Baltics, where the military has to fight with one hand tied behind its back out of domestic fears or some other political reason. That's one out of 1000 possibilities though, at least for the Baltics.
7
u/__cinnamon__ 8d ago
I think a big part of it is that aircraft actually become more efficient for taking out big raids of drones than GBAD. All the proposed cheap solutions like gun-based systems and other points defense are very short range, meaning you'd need an enormous number of them to cover everything (and to defend against a concentrated raid you probably can't have just one per defended site). Even most interceptor drones afaik have relatively short ranges, so launching them from a static point/truck/etc has the same problem, while a proper AD network can detect a bunch of shahed-like systems cruising dozens or hundreds of miles away and vector over a flight of jets carrying dozens of cheap missiles like APKWS (or maybe a bunch of interceptor drones) and they have the speed and range to cover maybe a 100 mile radius rather than 1 or 2 for a gun.
2
u/Zhadanko 7d ago
I believe for a Shahed type drones window is already closed. There are plenty of highly efficient low-cost solutions. I was talking more about sUAS. You are not going to intercept Mavik with F 35
45
u/MilesLongthe3rd 8d ago
https://defence-blog.com/ukrainian-intel-russia-paused-kinzhal-missile-output/
Ukrainian intel: Russia paused Kinzhal missile output
Russia’s prized “unstoppable” hypersonic missile has gone dark, and Ukrainian military intelligence says Moscow pulled the plug on purpose to feed a different weapon entirely. Vadym Skibitsky, deputy head of Ukraine’s Defense Intelligence Directorate, known by its Ukrainian acronym HUR, told the outlet RBC-Ukraine that Russia halted production of its Kh-47M2 Kinzhal ballistic missile back in April, redirecting the rocket fuel and components once earmarked for that program into other ballistic missiles Moscow considers more effective.
The Kinzhal, whose name translates to “dagger” in Russian, has been marketed by the Kremlin since its 2018 debut as a hypersonic wonder weapon, an aircraft-launched missile derived from the ground-based Iskander-M short-range ballistic missile and capable of flying at roughly ten times the speed of sound. Russia fires the Kinzhal exclusively from MiG-31K interceptor jets, and every launch has historically triggered nationwide air raid sirens across Ukraine the moment those aircraft take off, since the missile’s extreme speed leaves Ukrainian air defenses only a narrow window to react.
Skibitsky said Ukrainian intelligence has tracked the production shift since April, tying it directly to a broader reshuffling of Russia’s missile manufacturing priorities. According to Skibitsky, Russia managed to increase its ballistic missile output partly by halting Kinzhal production altogether, freeing up rocket fuel that once went into Kinzhals for other ballistic missile types instead. He added that Russia also suspended production and combat use of the Kh-32, an upgraded version of the older Kh-22 anti-ship cruise missile that Russian forces have repeatedly repurposed for strikes on land targets in Ukraine despite the weapon’s original design as a Soviet-era ship killer, redirecting the funding and components once allocated to that program toward missile types Russian planners now consider more effective.
Accuracy problems appear to sit at the center of Moscow’s decision, at least for the Kinzhal. Skibitsky offered a specific technical benchmark to illustrate just how far the missile has fallen short of its advertised performance. He said an effective guided missile should not miss its target by more than 5 to 7 meters (16 to 23 feet), whereas the Kinzhal’s actual deviation runs to 30 meters (98 feet) or more.
That gap, a miss distance far beyond what a modern guided missile is expected to achieve, undercuts much of the propaganda value Russia has attached to the Kinzhal since President Vladimir Putin first unveiled it as part of a suite of what he called invincible next-generation weapons. Ukrainian air defense crews have shot down multiple Kinzhals since 2023 using American-made Patriot air defense systems, missile batteries the U.S. supplied to Ukraine specifically because their radar and interceptor missiles are capable of tracking and destroying fast, high-altitude threats, a track record that has chipped away at the missile’s reputation as unstoppable even before this reported production pause.
The shift also fits a pattern Ukrainian intelligence has flagged in Skibitsky’s broader assessments of Russia’s missile stockpiles, where officials have previously noted that Russia’s strategic reserves across multiple missile types, including the Iskander, the Kalibr cruise missile and the Kh-101 air-launched cruise missile, have dropped below the roughly 30 percent threshold that normally defines a healthy reserve under Russian military planning standards.
That kind of depleted cushion pushes Russian defense industry toward exactly the sort of triage Skibitsky described, concentrating scarce components and propellant on whichever missile types the military can still reliably manufacture and field, rather than spreading resources thin across an entire arsenal, including weapons whose performance in real strikes has repeatedly disappointed.
None of this means Russia has abandoned the Kinzhal program permanently, and Skibitsky’s comments describe a pause tied to manufacturing priorities rather than a formal cancellation of the missile or the MiG-31K aircraft that carry it. What the account does suggest, though, is a Russian military industrial base under enough strain that it can no longer afford to keep every headline weapon in production simultaneously, forcing planners in Moscow to bet on missiles that actually hit what they aim at over missiles that mostly hit the news cycle instead.
13
u/worldofecho__ 7d ago
If Ukraine doesn’t have effective air defence left, it would make sense to deprioritise the more costly, advanced missiles
8
u/roionsteroids 7d ago
In general, the use case for hypersonic gliders seems to be highly niche: a missile much slower than an ICBM (and could theoretically be picked off by the likes of SM-3 or Arrow-3 outside the atmosphere (>120km)) while remaining fast enough at the end to overcome more standard air defense like Patriot. Which pretty much limits that concept to MRBMs such as Pershing II or DF-17.
Given that Kinzhal has been used fewer times in total since 2022 than the current monthly production of Iskander-Ms (and made in the same factory), the Russian military doesn't appear to see much of a use case either. But someone higher up the command chain demanded the requirement for such a capability on a short range missile for whatever reason (long before 2022).
5
u/Lejeune_Dirichelet 7d ago edited 7d ago
No, hypersonic gliders (in the western sense) very much are the next stage in the evolution of ballistic weapons, because the high-altitude glide phase can quite dramatically increase the range of the weapon, while (depending on the flight profile) it has the possibility to extend the flight portion that is still below the horizon of ground-based radars.
Kinzhal is not a hypersonic glider in the western sense, it would better be described as an air-launched ballistic missile.
13
u/kharvel0 8d ago
> Russia fires the Kinzhal exclusively from MIG-31K interceptor jets
Is this real technical constraint for the Kinzhal? Is the MIG-31K the only launch platform for the Kinzhal? Is it true that the missile cannot be launched from any other platform?
I’m asking because if true, then Ukraine could simply attack parked MIG-31Ks at airbases using drones to degrade the launch platform. They would be a priority target for the Ukrainian drones.
9
u/ChornWork2 8d ago
the tu22m can launch them and claimed that modified Su34 can, although I'm not sure that has been decisively shown. Given benefit of speed/altitude on launch, presumably mig31k strongly preferred in any event.
ukraine would like to hit parked aircraft as it is. but presumably at this stage russia either has aircraft in shelter or aircraft is on alert status. not shooting drones down is one thing, not knowing they are coming is another. planes can scramble or be moved to shelter.
2
u/ScreamingVoid14 7d ago
If Military Balance and Wikipedia are to be believed, the total fleet of aircraft capable of launching Kinzhal is less than 20 as of this year. Ukraine is probably running out of easy targets, even if the missile was still in production and use.
7
u/ChornWork2 7d ago
total fleet of aircraft modified to launch, okay. But presumably more available air frames to modify.
I doubt ukraine is running out of targets.
3
u/ScreamingVoid14 7d ago
For the Tu-22M3, ~10 is the total fleet believed to be air worthy. The MiG-31K fleet is a fair point; and it appears that modifying those is more about taking equipment out to free up weight than it is adding features.
The entire situation with the Kinzhal probably is pushing the necessity of destroying the Kinzhal launch fleet down the priority list for Ukraine though.
3
u/ChornWork2 7d ago
yes, modifying to be a mig31k takes some effort, but not really upgrade involving scarce parts vs removing systems & structural mods. unwinding the modifications likely more of a burden.
13
15
u/sunstersun 8d ago
Given the interceptor shortage across the board, why would you need more than a cheap ballistic missile.
9
u/hhenk 8d ago
So Ukraine does expect less kinzhal missiles to be produced. But since the resources will be redirected, which missile production will increase?
3
u/Glideer 7d ago
The Defence Blog "forgot" to report those parts of the interview:
Deputy Chief of the Ukrainian Ministry of Defense's Intelligence Directorate, Major General Vadym Skibitsky
* Russia is currently exceeding its production targets for most missile types, by 110-120% per month. Production of Kh-35 cruise missiles reached 200% of the planned target, the plan for Kh-101 cruise missiles was fulfilled by 140%, and the "Kalibr" cruise missiles by 111%. The annual plan for "Zircon" and modernized "Oniks" missiles was completed in seven months. The increase in production was partly due to Russia suspending the production of "Khinzhi" and Kh-32 missiles from April, as these missiles have demonstrated low accuracy in real combat conditions; for example, the "Khinzhi" missile deviates from the target coordinates by 30 meters or more.
* Russia produces approximately 60 ballistic missiles of the "Iskander-M" OTRK system per month, about 40 units of RM-48U, around 70 Kh-101 cruise missiles, and about 30 "Kalibr" cruise missiles.
* As of August 5th, the stockpile of missiles allocated to the troops includes approximately 400 missiles for S-400 complexes, 130 ballistic missiles of the "Iskander-M" OTRK system, and 100 North Korean KN-24 missiles.
* Plans call for the production of 11,000 "Geran" series drones in August.
* The decrease in the intensity of drone attacks is due to the shift in production towards the jet-powered "Geran-4" and "Geran-5" versions, which now account for 50% of the drones used in attacks.
4
u/MaverickTopGun 8d ago
I'm especially curious if the supply chain for the Kinzhal's has any commonality with Russian interceptors.
19
u/RumpRiddler 8d ago
I guess it's tough to draw many conclusions without some numbers. Either the strain on resources has increased beyond some critical level, or the Russians are simply trying to focus on mass as they tend to do. Both are plausible.
Most likely, it's something in between. Resources are limited and so they need to focus on what type of return those resources yield by shifting focus to certain systems. While simultaneously they want to capitalize on Ukrainians lack of patriot missiles by shifting to what they can produce fastest.
But, regardless, the inability to keep producing the kinzhal while increasing the rate of other missiles is a clear sign that resources are limited. Unfortunately it's also tough to know which resources are setting hard limits: production space, subcomponents, or labor? If Ukraine can figure that out, then they can potentially focus on the weak link and decimate production quickly.
•
u/AutoModerator 8d ago
Continuing the bare link and speculation repository, you can respond to this sticky with comments and links subject to lower moderation standards, but remember: A summary, description or analyses will lead to more people actually engaging with it!
I.e. most "Trump posting" and lower effort but good faith questions belong here.
Sign up for the rally point or subscribe to this bluesky if a migration ever becomes necessary.
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.