Has the tide turned against the Empire and its Jewish partner-in-crime?
IN less than a week, the US and Israel’s war against Iran may have turned the tide — with the
two most warlike states in the world now on the defensive, and facing what could be their most
humiliating defeat, which could even lead to America’s eclipse as the world’s dominant imperial
power.
When the United States and Israel launched their massive strike against Iran, they were sure
they were seizing the strategic initiative. The operation was intended to cripple Iran’s nuclear
infrastructure, destroy its missile forces and demonstrate overwhelming Western military
superiority. For a brief moment, the attack seemed to achieve precisely that objective.
Key facilities were struck, about 40 Iranian leaders were killed, including its Supreme Leader Ali
Khamenei, and officials in Washington and Tel Aviv boasted of having fundamentally altered the
strategic balance in the Middle East.
Yet wars are rarely decided by the opening strike. Their outcome depends on how the
opponent responds and whether the offensive changes the deeper structure of the conflict. In
this case, Iran’s response suggests that the attack may have produced the opposite strategic
effect. Instead of decisively weakening Tehran, the assault has triggered a form of warfare that
favors Iran’s strengths while exposing vulnerabilities in the American-Israeli military posture.
The result is that the side that began the war on the offensive may now find itself increasingly
forced into a defensive stance.
The initial assault on Iran was unquestionably impressive in purely military terms. Hundreds of
aircraft, missiles and drones struck Iranian targets across its cities, destroying installations and
degrading Iran’s military infrastructure. Israel and the United States demonstrated once again
their unmatched, technology-given ability to deliver precision strikes at long distances. But
strategic outcomes are measured not by the damage inflicted in the first days of war. What has
emerged so far, however, is not a quick collapse of Iranian capability but the beginning of a
widening regional conflict driven by Iran’s asymmetric strengths.
Tehran has responded not by attempting to match the United States and Israel aircraft for
aircraft or bomb for bomb. Instead, it has unleashed what military analysts increasingly
describe as a “salvo competition,” a massive exchange of missiles, drones and air-defense
interceptors in which the decisive factor may ultimately be which side exhausts its weapons
first. This type of conflict favors the side that can sustain pressure at the lowest cost, and that
advantage was Iran’s.
The most striking development in the conflict has been the scale of Iran’s drone and missile
barrages. Waves of Iranian drones and missiles have been launched toward Israel and toward
American-aligned states across the Gulf that host US military facilities. Many of these
projectiles have been intercepted successfully, but the significance of the attacks lies not
merely in their destructive potential, but in economics.
Drone
Iran’s drone strategy is built on the production of extremely cheap weapons that can be
deployed in large numbers. The Iranian drones used are believed to cost as little as $20,000,
many of their motors built by the low-cost Chinese factories which exploited the principle of
economies of scale. By contrast, the interceptor missiles used by Western air-defense systems
cost hundreds of thousands or even several million dollars each. This creates a staggering
imbalance. Western militaries are forced to fire extraordinarily expensive interceptors simply to
destroy relatively cheap drones.
Military analysts have described the situation bluntly. Defending against swarms of inexpensive
drones is like firing “golden bullets at plastic targets.” What matters in such a contest is not
technological sophistication but the ratio between the cost of offense and the cost of defense. If
the attacker can launch weapons that are far cheaper than the missiles required to intercept
them, the defender faces a steadily worsening economic and logistical dilemma.
That dilemma is now becoming visible across the Middle East. Patriot, Terminal High Altitude
Area Defense and other interceptor systems rely on expensive munitions that take time to
manufacture and replenish, unlike drones that can be assembled quickly and cheaply, and
brought to the theater of war.
Analysts increasingly warn that the conflict could hinge on which side runs out of weapons first.
The US military is now worrying that their interceptor stockpiles are running out, since much
has been given to Ukraine to stop the swarms of Russian drones and missiles. Gulf states
have had to intercept large numbers of drones and missiles during Iranian barrages, and it
seems likely now that their defensive systems could be strained if the attacks continue for an
extended period. Israel faces similar challenges. Its layered air-defense system is
technologically advanced, but maintaining it requires a constant supply of expensive
interceptors. Its much-vaunted Iron Dome anti-missile defense system has turned out to be an
expensive Golden Dome that can’t be sustained.
Iran’s is a deliberate strategy of weapon-exhaustion warfare. Even when most incoming
projectiles are destroyed, the cost of doing so has steadily drained the defender’s resources. If
the imbalance continues long enough, the defensive systems would collapse, making Israel,
US military bases in the Middle East, and even their much-vaunted warships, sitting ducks.
Attrition
Unexpected by the Americans and the Israelis, it has become a war of attrition. In such wars,
victory does not necessarily belong to the side with the most powerful weapons but to the side
that can sustain pressure the longest. Iran appears to understand this well. Instead of relying
solely on its conventional military forces, Tehran has developed a layered strategy built around
missiles, drones and regional allies, forcing the United States and its allies to spend enormous
resources simply to maintain their defenses. That has placed the strategic burden of the war on
Washington and its regional partners rather than on Tehran.
Another consequence of the attack on Iran is the widening of the battlefield. The conflict is no
longer confined to Iranian territory. Iranian missiles and drones have struck targets across the
Gulf region, including countries that host American bases and energy infrastructure. These
attacks threaten some of the most strategically sensitive assets in the global economy,
including oil production facilities, shipping routes and transport hubs. Even when intercepted,
the sheer scale of the attacks creates instability across the region.
American forces stationed throughout the Gulf are responsible for protecting military bases,
energy infrastructure and allied governments. Each of these sites represents a potential target
for Iranian retaliation. The more widely the battlefield expands, the more resources Washington
must devote to defense. In strategic terms, that is the definition of a defensive posture. Never
before has the US told its citizens in the Middle East to evacuate ASAP, telling them, however, that it cannot help them do so.
Supporters of the attack often point to Israel’s reported control of Iranian airspace as proof of
strategic success. Air superiority, however, does not guarantee victory in modern warfare. Iran’s
response demonstrates that a country can continue to wage war effectively even when its air
force is weaker than its opponent’s. Missiles, drones and proxy forces provide alternative
means of exerting pressure that are far more difficult to eliminate through conventional
bombing campaigns.
Mobile missile launchers can be hidden, dispersed and redeployed. Drone production facilities
can be small and widely distributed. Even if many targets are destroyed, new ones can emerge
quickly. These characteristics make Iran’s military strategy resilient against the kind of precision
airpower that has traditionally given the United States and Israel their greatest advantage.
The political dimension of the conflict further complicates the situation. War is never purely
military; it is also diplomatic and economic. The attack on Iran has triggered criticism from
many countries outside the Western alliance. Governments across the Global South have
expressed concern that the strikes have destabilized the Middle East and undermined
international norms. This diplomatic reaction matters because legitimacy shapes the
sustainability of military campaigns. A war perceived as aggressive or destabilizing can become
politically costly for the states that wage it.
The deeper irony of the attack on Iran lies in a familiar historical pattern. Powerful states launch
military operations intended to eliminate threats, only to create larger ones. The United States
experienced this in Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan and Libya. Initial military victories were followed
by prolonged conflicts that proved far more complex and costly than expected. Something
similar is unfolding in the present crisis. Trump has never been a student of history.
Justice for all
A certain “Grace” — not her real name — has emerged as a complainant for several counts of
the serious crimes of rape, child abuse and serious illegal detention against Julie Patidongan,
aka “Dondon,” the whistleblower and now state witness in the “Missing Sabungeros” murder
cases against businessman Atong Ang and others.
Grace alleges the repeated sexual abuses were committed against her by Dondon between
2021 and 2022 while she was only 16 years of age in a secluded farm in Laguna, where she
was kept, involuntarily, for several days, guarded by many armed bodyguards of Dondon. Her
opposition and resistance to Dondon’s advances were constantly met with threats that she and
her family would be killed.
In February, Grace wrote a letter to Citizens Crime Watch seeking assistance as her
complaints were being apparently ignored by the Department of Justice, probably because of
the importance of Dondon to the case against Ang, which the government has been intensely
pursuing.
Indeed, Dondon, having been placed under the Witness Protection Program (WPP), is
reportedly being given preferential treatment over and above what is allowable under the WPP,
so much so that the investigation in Grace’s criminal complaint has been dead in the water.
Justice must be for all.
Facebook: Rigoberto Tiglao
X: @bobitiglao
Archives: www.rigobertotiglao.com
Book orders: https://ift.tt/7CYmSBK
The post Has the tide turned against the Empire and its Jewish partner-in-crime? first appeared on Rigoberto Tiglao.
Has the tide turned against the Empire and its Jewish partner-in-crime?
Source: Breaking News PH
No comments: