Strategic Analysis of the Iran-Israel War and the New Pattern of Advanced Technological Warfare – Part Two
The first part of this article discussed the execution of the Iran-Israel war and the strategic and tactical characteristics of the two countries, showcasing the full potential of long-range strikes, the peak of intelligence and espionage warfare, and mastery over pinpoint attacks and saturation attacks. The second part addresses the remaining elements of strategy and tactical features of the Iran-Israel war, displaying a new style of guerrilla operations, highlighting the role of UAVs in warfare, transforming air defense capabilities, infiltrating defenses as main focal points, and utilizing strategic maneuvers throughout the war.
Displaying a New Style of Guerrilla Warfare
This form of guerrilla warfare differed from its traditional characteristics such as high mobility, flexibility, initiative, aggression, and quick resolution. Instead, this new style manifested through the concealment of command systems, the use of advanced equipment with guerrilla methods, and the relocation of sensitive nuclear materials.
At the onset of the conflict, Israeli command systems used hospitals as cover, some civilian settlements as protective shields, and others retreated to mountainous areas and moved underground.
The Israeli army command established an underground command center beneath the Ichilov Hospital in Tel Aviv. This defensive facility is connected to main military bases through a network of tunnels and maintains command capabilities even under aerial bombardment and missile attacks. The underground military base Tel Hashomer is located beneath the Sheba Medical Center on the outskirts of Tel Aviv, and a secret naval base is hidden beneath the Rambam Medical Center in Haifa. Netanyahu directed Operation Mighty Lion from a similar underground facility. Four main factors were considered in designing these centers: the position of command levels, internal functional layout, hard protection of upper layers, and the application of electronic deception. Although Israeli sources published internal images of these centers, key information remains concealed.
The Israeli army ordered that all headquarters of forces stationed in fixed defensive positions be moved underground to ensure security. Smaller, highly mobile units were tasked with increasing the survivability and flexibility of command and control in establishing or relocating headquarters. In the environment of advanced technological warfare, the survival of headquarters and command activities increasingly took on guerrilla warfare characteristics.
It is clear that Iran’s command system suffered a heavy blow at the start of the war. Despite complex conditions including strong pro-American tendencies, the spread of defeatist views, the serious emergence of internal traitors, and doubts about the possibility of victory, the Iranian army continued to resist Israeli forces, ultimately reaching a conclusion considered a stalemate.
The Iranian army mainly relied on new generation guerrilla warfare methods. On one hand, by flexibly using missile launchers with shoot-and-move tactics, it maintained the ability to fire 40 to 50 missiles daily even under the pressure of multi-directional Israeli air attacks, making it difficult for the enemy to locate the launch sites. On the other hand, it executed the rapid transfer of critical nuclear facilities and materials, meaning that on the brink of or simultaneously with the start of enemy attacks, Iran secretly relocated uranium enrichment centrifuges with the help of related experts, hiding 408 kilograms of enriched uranium, the transfer location of which remains unknown to the outside world.
According to the United States intelligence assessment report, although three of Iran’s nuclear facilities suffered severe damage in above-ground structures, the enrichment centrifuges remained intact, and enriched uranium had been moved from the nuclear test site long before the American attack. Additionally, information indicates that the Fordow nuclear facility is hidden with multiple indistinguishable entrances and exits several hundred meters underground and has high structural integrity. Therefore, even with high-altitude reconnaissance images or complete satellite scans, real accessible information is limited.
The Prominence of UAVs in the War
One of the most striking aspects of these conflicts was that over 500 aerial attacks on key Iranian facilities and missile launch platforms were carried out by UAVs. These operations accounted for 60% of the total flight hours of the Israeli Air Force and 50% of the total offensive actions of the Israeli army.
According to Gold, head of the UAV programs department, this leap in flight capability brought Gaza to Iran.
A noteworthy point was the very high diversity of UAV models used in these operations. The Harop suicide drone, with a range of 1000 kilometers and 6 hours of continuous flight, equipped with a signal receiver in the nose that automatically detects and tracks radio waves in an area and targets mobile radar systems emitting waves, is specifically designed for anti-radar attacks. The Harpy suicide drone can be launched from simple platforms like trucks or small vessels, utilizes ground stations and satellite control, performs long-range low-altitude penetration for surprise attacks, and executes reconnaissance, target discovery, information gathering, and attack missions online.
Other models included Dominator reconnaissance UAVs, Hermes 90, Hermes 450, Hermes 900 reconnaissance and attack UAVs, Heron, Hunter, Aerostar, Searcher series, Skylark series, Lark Panther, and the small Casper 250 UAV. Depending on range and flight distance, commanders decided whether these UAVs would take off from their own territory or their parts would be smuggled into Iran, assembled by agents, and then carry out attack missions.
Iran’s use of UAVs against Israel was equally effective. During 12 days of military operations, Iran conducted over 1500 sorties of various attack and reconnaissance UAVs.
In the first wave, 350 suicide drones were employed, effectively demonstrating the initial heavy firepower. Despite possessing tens of thousands of drones, Iran chose a strategy of controlled intensity and continuous attack, deploying an average of about 180 units daily. Based on the experience of Operation True Commitment 1, Israel established a main interception corridor between southern Syria, western Iraq, northern Jordan, and its territory. However, Iran’s main UAV force broke this conventional pattern and utilized a multi-point penetration tactic extending from the Syria-Iraq-Turkey border to the Saudi Arabia-Kuwait border, covering central Syria, northern Iraq, and the Persian Gulf coasts.
Additionally, some UAVs entered Syria from northern Iraq and then penetrated the occupied Palestinian territories via Lebanese airspace, successfully passing through Israel’s main air defense zone. The most prominent feature of Iran’s use of UAVs was the coordination in controlling flight speed and altitude. Some UAVs flew at very low altitudes for a while and then ascended to high altitudes, and these multiple variables prevented Israel’s early warning radar systems from achieving precise locks. This unprecedented 24/7 continuous UAV operation, averaging several units per hour, caused severe fatigue in Israel’s round-the-clock interception operations.
Air Defense and Defense Penetration Became Main Focal Points
Air defense capability mainly includes intelligence and early warning capacity, command and control systems, interception systems, logistical support, and air defense organization. This capability typically consists of subsystems such as ground surveillance radars, radio interception systems, airborne early warning units, aerial monitoring units, and electronic information transfer equipment tasked with identifying, distinguishing, and intercepting enemy aerial attack weapons and timely, precise, and continuous target information transfer to command and control systems. The ability to bypass air defense systems is called penetration capability or advanced penetration.
At the start of operations, the Israeli Air Force prioritized disrupting Iran’s air defense capabilities. As shown in images released by Mossad, Israeli agents were hidden deep within Iranian territory near air defense positions and missile launchers, targeting Iran’s defense systems with precision-guided weapons and long-range laser-guided anti-tank missiles, clearing the path for the Israeli Air Force. Subsequent images released by Iran also showed that Iranian intelligence discovered the remains of Israeli Spike missile launchers.
Simultaneously, the Israeli army flew F15I and F16I fighters over Iraqi areas near the Iranian border and conducted precise attacks on Iranian air defense positions by launching a large number of air-launched ballistic missiles, destroying them. Additionally, stealth fighters F35I were used to penetrate Iranian airspace, completely destroying the Natanz air defense system and conducting severe attacks on nuclear facilities and missile production bases.
After the overall weakening of Iran’s air defense capabilities and the lack of sufficient stealth capability on the opposing side, more planes and UAVs from the Israeli Air Force entered Iranian skies and began broader attacks, including hunting mobile missile launchers.
To penetrate Israel’s air defense system, the Iranian army first had to overcome the missile defense barrier. Given the direct distance of over 1000 kilometers between Iran and Israel, the Iranian Air Force was unable to conduct effective air operations after Israel’s surprise attack and could only threaten Israel with long-range suicide UAVs and medium-range ballistic missiles.
In this context, from the night of June 13 until the ceasefire on June 24, Iran conducted 20 waves of UAV and ballistic missile attacks on Israeli soil. As previously mentioned, Iran initially used cheap UAVs to severely erode Israel’s interception systems and then employed low-tech old missiles as decoys. After Israel’s Arrow-23 missile defense systems and the enhanced American THAAD system expended a large portion of their ammunition intercepting Iran’s old missiles, Iran ultimately succeeded in penetrating Israel’s defensive lines with hypersonic missiles.
Reports indicate that hypersonic missiles hit designated points within Israel, and Israel’s multi-layered defense system—comprising Arrow, David’s Sling, and Iron Dome—was unable to intercept all missiles and UAVs.
It can be deduced from this that although Iran’s ballistic missiles were not at the highest level of technology, a significant number of them bypassed Israel’s missile defense system, causing serious damage to some Israeli ground facilities and shattering the myth of the invincibility of Israel’s defense system. This clearly demonstrated that Iran’s penetration capability surpassed the so-called Israeli air defense system, rendering Israel’s missile defense ineffective against saturation attacks.
Strategic Maneuvers Were Employed Throughout the War
First, Decapitation Strategy – At the start of the war, Israel launched a preemptive strike, and Mossad organized a series of pinpoint operations behind the scenes, directly targeting key figures of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps and Iranian nuclear researchers. According to a senior Israeli official, these operations killed over 20 senior Iranian security officials and nuclear scientists, including first, second, and third-tier commanders and 9 prominent nuclear scientists. This caused severe disruption in the command system and a breakdown in nuclear research technology.
Iran did not lag in attacking the enemy’s command system and researchers. The Negev nuclear research center and the Haifa missile laboratory were heavily targeted by Iranian attacks, resulting in the deaths of 11 Israeli scientists, three of whom were key personnel in the Jericho 4 intercontinental missile project. The Israeli air defense system research team also suffered heavy casualties, with all key engineers killed in an Iranian airstrike. This indicates that Israel will face serious challenges in the future for upgrading and maintaining the Iron Dome system.
Second, Deception and Diversion – On June 21, the US deployed six B2 stealth bombers to its base in Guam via aerial refueling, raising speculation about a potential attack on Iran’s nuclear facilities from the Pacific route. However, this was part of a calculated US deception operation. By publicly announcing this military movement, the US deliberately drew global attention to the Pacific route, leading Iran to believe an attack would come from the west, thereby reducing vigilance along the Atlantic to Middle East route. In reality, the actual operation involved seven B2 bombers taking off from their main base, Whiteman Air Force Base in Missouri, flying for 18 continuous hours with multiple refuelings, crossing the Atlantic from west to east, passing over Jordan and Iraq, and finally entering Iranian airspace with Israeli military support to target three Iranian nuclear bases.
In this process, American submarines, fighters, and electronic warfare units operated in multi-force coordination. An American submarine launched 24 Tomahawk cruise missiles at the Isfahan nuclear facility, destroying its infrastructure and paving the way for subsequent bombings.
Simultaneously, 125 American fighters, including F22 and F35, participated in the support operation, clearing the forward airspace and eliminating the threat of Iranian surface-to-air missiles, while also targeting Iranian air defense systems with destructive attacks or electronic warfare interference, allowing B2 bombers to safely drop massive GBU-57 MOP bunker busters, ensuring the operation’s success. This operation was known as Midnight Hammer.
Third, Prior Announcement to Show Intent to Halt the War – Following the US B2 bomber attack on three Iranian nuclear facilities, Iran announced on the night of June 23-24 that it would conduct a missile attack on the American Al Udeid Air Base in Qatar. Iran’s prior notification to the American side before the attack led to the rapid evacuation of American forces and equipment, including aircraft, and the establishment of defensive readiness. As a result, 13 of Iran’s 14 short- and medium-range missiles were intercepted, and only one missile hit the ground, causing no significant damage. This prior announcement, which seemingly appeared as a gesture of goodwill, was actually Iran’s intent to show goodwill to the US to halt the war and start negotiations. Additionally, Israel, due to serious errors revealed in its missile defense system, was inclined to end the war. On June 24, Iran and Israel signed a ceasefire agreement.