In light of the escalation of the military confrontation between Israel and Iran, unprecedented Iranian tactics emerged in the management of missile attacks and enlightenings against Israel, which led to the confusion of air defenses and the change of the patterns of fighting between the two parties.
In statements to Al -Jazeera Net, two military experts said that this confrontation raises deep questions about the final goals of the Iranian response system, and its reflection on Israeli home front Even on the scales of regional powers.
The current confrontation was marked by the largest in terms of reaching sensitive Iranian targets, as it included nuclear facilities, missile bases and the assassination of leadership figures, leaving hundreds of dead and wounded in Iran.
Iran immediately replied by launching Palceolic missiles And aircraft running towards the Israeli depth, which resulted in deaths, wounded and clear material damage, partial paralysis of the air field, and panic in The home front Israeli, and calling on the American direct and British intervention in support of Israel.
Missile deception
The military and strategic expert, Elias Hanna, notes that Iran -in its latest response called “The sincere promise 2 ″- A joint fighting tactic was followed between various precise weapons.
In the details of what is meant by this method of fighting, Hanna explains that Iran deliberately releases slow enlightenings to explore, confuse, and deplete Israeli air defenses, and then come from waves from Cruise missiles Winning missiles, then ballistic missiles.
He added that Cruise missiles have characteristics that make their discovery difficult at an early stage, and the enlightenings are able to maneuver and dodge, although they may be monitored from air defenses. As for the ballistic missiles, although their path is relatively predictable, their danger lies in how they are launched so that the defenses can be dispersed and the penetration, according to Elias Hanna’s interpretation.
From the point of view of the researcher on the Iranian defensive and military affairs, Hussein Hakkien, the complex attacks that mix suicide bombers, cruise missiles and ballistic missiles give Iran a complex operational advantage; It is not only satisfied with the occupation of Israeli defense systems, but also the Israeli Air Force itself to participate and dispersal, because the best way to intercept such attacks is through war fighters.
Haqyan pointed out that with the preoccupation of the Air Force, the freedom of the Iranian “missile cities” is increasing in launching new waves of attacks, and thus this Iranian pattern of attacks turns into a way to deplete the interception missiles in Israel, and that they have to rely on the support of its allies.
Air control
Both parties aim to achieve the maximum air control in the depths of the other party’s lands, or at least to nullify the strategy of preference, which may be a threat to the plans of both Iran and Israel.
Elias Hanna believes that the deepest geopolitical target of Israel is evident in air hegemony by paralyzing Iranian air defense systems, and the destruction of missile platforms and stores before launch. Stressing that this prompted Israel to declare its targeting about 30-40% of Iranian launch platforms, considering that hitting the platform (not the missile) is the lowest and most effective goal in the medium term.
As for Iran, it depends on a huge stock of missiles (Israel estimated by 3,000 missiles, including two thousand ballistic missiles), and betting that the distribution of geographical targets over the vast country area gives it the ability to withstand, despite the difficulty of comprehensive air defense, according to the analysis of the military and strategic expert.
Hanna links the tactic of the employment of missiles with the major strategy of both parties, explaining that the Israeli goal is not limited to disrupting the Iranian nuclear project based on an American desire, but rather expands to include hitting all the vital structures, and turning Iran into a “failed state”, in preparation for changing the system and switching the balance of regional powers.
As for Iran, Raqien believes that the depletion of Israeli defenses is the entrance to a new equation; Every Iranian missile succeeds in penetrating the defense system will be a direct blow against strategic assets in Israel, and it is closer to the goal of weakening confidence in the Israeli political and military leadership.
Panic
The complex confrontation between Israel and Iran is clearly reflected on the internal front, and during the battles it is not possible to predict with conclusive ends, but at the present time it is evident that can be called “the fog of war” and it is difficult to decide.
The mutual attacks cause a sharp rise in the feelings of insecurity among citizens in both countries, especially with the fall of rockets in the crowded civilian and military infrastructure together, according to what the researcher said in the Iranian defensive and military affairs.
Two facts note that, despite its accusation of the Islamic Resistance Movement (agitationUsing civilians as human shields, they spread their air defense platforms among the densely populated cities, and this increases the risks against Israeli civilians themselves.
With the increasing ferocity of the attacks, the two analysts warn of the rushing of a radical change in the balance of military forces, as the final results remain hostage to war fate and unexpected repercussions.
They also concluded that the current field and political data indicate that the war – even if it stops today – has left a qualitative shift in the regional deterrence equation, and that geography, area and distance plays a double role in this war; It facilitates defense in Israel because of the small space and intensifying targets, but it makes every goal more dangerous, while Iran gives the ability to maneuver and hide, yet it is difficult for it to protect every inch of its lands.
The battle of missiles and enlightenings between Iran and Israel reveals an unprecedented development in offensive and defensive tactics in the Middle East, and establishes a new round of competition for weather domination, and it seems that both parties realize that the war will not be resolved quickly, and that the internal front in each country will remain the most fragile equation in these confrontations.