Drumbeats of Iran-Israel War Grow Louder and Closer

Escalating tensions between Iran and Israel have placed the region on the brink of war, sparking global concerns. Recent events, including Israeli airstrikes targeting figures such as Ismail Haniyeh and Hassan Nasrallah, followed by Iran’s missile retaliation, have heightened the sense of impending crisis. As the situation intensifies, it becomes critical to assess the military capabilities of both nations, along with those of their potential allies, in the event of a wider conflict. Furthermore, this analysis must extend beyond conventional military strength to include cyber warfare, a key component of Fifth Generation Warfare (5GW). This article aims to provide a comprehensive examination of the evolving Iran-Israel conflict, focusing on their respective military capacities and the likely nature of the warfare they may engage in.

One of Iran’s key strengths in the context of a potential conflict is its larger population and the human resources available for its armed forces. According to the Global Firepower 2024 Index, Iran has a population of 87.59 million, nearly ten times greater than Israel’s 9.04 million. This vast population disparity offers Iran a substantial advantage in terms of manpower, particularly for sustaining a prolonged conflict. A report from The New York Times highlights that Iran’s active-duty military strength comprises approximately 580,000 personnel, supplemented by around 200,000 reservists, making it one of the largest military forces in West Asia.

While population is a major element of power, Israel’s military strategy prioritises advanced technology and weaponry. With a defence budget of USD 24 billion, Israel vastly outspends Iran, whose defence budget is approximately USD 9.95 billion. This financial advantage enables Israel to invest heavily in technological superiority, particularly in air power, allowing it to maintain a more sophisticated and advanced military despite its smaller population

Currently, Israel has 612 modern fighter planes in its arsenal which are F-15, F-16 and F-35 while Iran has 551 medium-technology aircraft. However, to compensate for the difference in aircraft fleet capability, Iran has invested heavily in the development of indigenous missiles and drones. According to a 2017 report by the International Institute for Strategic Studies, Iran possesses one of the largest stockpiles of ballistic missiles in West Asia; some of which have a range of 2,000 kilometers. This capability of long-range high-speed missiles and drones has recently been shown by Iran in the last two attacks on Israel.

Iran also holds an advantage in ground and naval strength, possessing 1,996 tanks compared to Israel’s 1,370 and 19 submarines against Israel’s 5. However, experts believe that a ground or naval confrontation is unlikely in this conflict. Instead, the focus is expected to shift towards aerial and cyber warfare, where both nations have been actively building their capabilities.

In the context of cyber warfare, Israel has always been considered a cyber-superpower with Unit 8200 being the largest division of the Israel Defense Forces (IDF). This special force is credited for cyber espionage that paralysed Iran’s nuclear industry through Stuxnet attacks in 2010. Recently, in September, Israeli intelligence exploded hundreds of pagers and walkie-talkies in Lebanon through a cyber-attack which probably triggered hidden explosives implanted in the gadgets killing more than 30 and injuring more than 3500 people. Although Iran’s capability cannot be compared to that of Israel in terms of cyber domain, it is gradually building up and despite many years of sanctions, the country has been working to become self-reliant in cyber technologies. While Israel may be relatively more advanced in cyber warfare, the fast-growing and indigenous cyber capability of Iran cannot be ruled out.

Another crucial factor, beyond each nation’s own military capabilities, is the role of their allies in the event of a full-scale war. The United States is Israel’s most significant ally which may offer substantial military support to Israel. However, direct involvement by the US in an Iran-Israel theatre may create multiple issues for American troops stationed in strategically important Middle Eastern nations, in the vicinity of Iran. On the other hand, Iran also has allies; out of which Lebanon, Yemen, Syria and Palestine are already at war with Israel, and involvement of other allies can escalate the war to other countries.

Ultimately, the question on everyone’s mind is: What will be the ‘nature of war’? Imminent conflict between Iran and Israel is unpredictable. Israel’s technological edge, particularly in cyber capabilities, gives it a significant advantage over Iran. This superiority may prompt Israel to pursue a swift, targeted conflict, possibly with the support of its allies, to quickly achieve its objectives. Such a strategy would mirror the approach taken during the Gulf War of 1990, which involved rapid and decisive action to minimise prolonged engagement.

In contrast, Iran’s strength of military manpower, big inventory of missiles and drones, ability to endure prolonged warfare (like the Iran-Iraq War of eight years) and ability to withstand sanctions through self-reliance, can turn the tide of the fight in its favour by adopting the strategy of a long war.

Whatever the case, an Iran-Israel war would have devastating repercussions and have a significant impact on the world economy, especially on oil prices. Potential closure of the Strait of Hormuz, through which nearly one-fifth of the world’s oil supply is transported, would have far-reaching consequences. This disruption would not only affect countries reliant on oil imports but would also send shockwaves through global markets, leading to a spike in commodity and energy prices. The resulting increase in costs could, in turn, drive up inflation worldwide, exacerbating economic challenges for many nations. With the stakes so high, international organisations and world leaders must concentrate on de-escalation efforts to prevent such conflict.

Raza Haider is a retired Air Commodore, currently serving as Director at the Centre for Aerospace & Security Studies (CASS), Islamabad, Pakistan. The article was first published in The Gulf Observer. He can be contacted at: [email protected].


Share this article

Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn

Recent Publications

Browse through the list of recent publications.

The Cover-up: IAF Narrative of the May 2025 Air Battle

Even after one year since the India-Pakistan May war of 2025, the Indian discourse regarding Operation Sindoor remains uncertain under its pretence of restraint. The Pahalgam attack on 22 April, which killed 26 people, triggered an escalatory spiral. New Delhi quickly accused Pakistan-linked elements, while Islamabad refuted the allegation and demanded an independent investigation. On 7 May, India launched attacks deep inside Pakistan under what it later termed as Operation Sindoor. The political motive was intended to turn the crisis into coercive signalling by shifting the blame onto the enemy and projecting a sense of military superiority.
This episode, however, began to fray immediately as war seldom follows the intended script. Within minutes PAF shot down 7 IAF aircraft including 4 Rafales. On 8 May, Reuters reported that at least two Indian aircraft were shot down by a Pakistani J-10C, while the local government sources reported other aircraft crashes in Indian-occupied Jammu and Kashmir

Read More »

Why the IAF’s Post-Sindoor Spending Surge is a Sign of Panic

After Operation Sindoor, India is spending billions of dollars on new weapons. This is being taken by many people as an indication of military prowess. It is not. This rush to procure weapons is in fact an acknowledgement that the Air Force in India had failed to do what it was meant to do. The costly jets and missiles that India had purchased over the years failed to yield the promised results.

Sindoor was soon followed by India in sealing the gaps which the operation had exposed. It was reported that Indian Air Force (IAF) is looking to speed up its purchases of more than 7 billion USD. This will involve other Rafale fighter jets with India already ordering 26 more Rafales to the Navy in 2024 at an estimated cost of about 3.9 billion USD. India is also seeking long-range standoff missiles, Israeli loitering munitions and increased drone capabilities. Special financial powers of the Indian military were activated to issue emergency procurement orders. The magnitude and rate of these purchases speak volumes.

Indian media and defence analysts have over the years considered the Rafale as a game changer. When India purchased 36 Rafales aircrafts at an approximate cost of 8.7 billion USD, analysts vowed that the aircraft would provide India with air superiority over Pakistan. Operation Sindoor disproved all those allegations. Indian aircraft did not even fly in Pakistani airspace when the fighting started. India solely depended on standoff weapons that were launched at a safe distance. The air defence system of Pakistan, comprising of the HQ-9 surface-to-air missile system and its own fighters, stood its ground.

Read More »

May 2025: Mosaic Warfare and the Myth of Centralised Air Power

Visualise a modern-day Air Force commander sitting in the operations room, miles away from the combat zone, overseeing every friendly and enemy aircraft and all assets involved in the campaign. In a split second, he can task a fighter, reposition a drone, and authorise a strike. In today’s promising technological era, he does not even need an operations room; a laptop on his desktop will suffice. The situation looks promising as it offers efficiency, precision, and control. The term used for such operational control is ‘centralisation’, which has been made possible with advanced networking, integrating space, cyber, surveillance, artificial intelligence, and seamless communication, enabling a single commander to manage an entire campaign from a single node. Centralised command and control, championed by the Western air forces and then adopted by many others, has thus been seen as a pinnacle of modern military power.
The concept of centralisation, enabled by state-of-the-art networking, may seem promising, but it is nothing more than a myth.

Read More »