I don't understand how people can be so ignorant. It's not just about Iran's losses, if the other side is degraded just as much, that's a victory for Iran. Israel's iron dome was degraded enough that at the end they only had 65% effectiveness. This allowed Iranian missiles to strike hospitals, their cheap drones were able to penetrate. In fact, it was Iran who launched the last volley to which Israel initially said they would retaliate but then backed off. Israel isn't even reporting casualty rates anymore because the numbers are too high. Do you really think those strikes happened because Iran was using expensive hypersonic missiles that they were never known to have had?

Everyone knows on paper Iran's military is older and weaker. And still they fought their way into a ceasefire in which they got to have the last volley.

[–] avidamoeba@lemmy.ca 2 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (2 children)

I don't know if that is what forced this particular ceasefire today. Didn't uncle Donnie yell at Bibi to halt an attack that was already in flight? I don't know how long Israel could continue this and how long Iran could their response. Technically Israel has the US economy producing weapons for its strikes whereas Iran, AFAIK can only count on themselves at the moment.

[–] Joncash2@lemmy.ml 6 points 1 week ago (1 children)

I don't know what caused the ceasefire, I'm only saying they were able to and got the last volley in. Which made Israel vow revenge, but Israel still stopped. Who won? I don't know. But I am saying Iran didn't lose, which for such a weak military is a victory in and of itself.

[–] avidamoeba@lemmy.ca 2 points 1 week ago

Yeah that makes sense.

[–] gucken@lemmy.ml 5 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (1 children)

From what I understand, Israel requested a pause to the hostilities (there's not exactly an official ceasefire in geopolitical terms as there are several necessary frameworks, procedures and agreements required that was not applied in this case) because alongside depletion of its air defense missiles, it was taking significant damage to key sectors of its economy: Haifa, the pivot point for EU to counter the East West corridor, was taking significant damage including it's oil refinery, its loss of commerce via its 3 ports, 1 of which is completely closed and a displacement of a significant number of it's citizens. Essentially the economy was beginning to shut down.

The bombardment Iran was inflicting on Israel would overrun Israel's ability to defend against it -- it's widely believed that Iran has large stockpiles of missiles well beyond Israel's capacity.

So rather than provide Israel with more munitions to an air defense that was proving to already be inefficient, the US stepped in with it's attack on Iran's nuclear sites... which we all know now was mostly theater

[–] avidamoeba@lemmy.ca 1 points 1 week ago

Interesting. This does make some sense. I think Israel claimed they destroyed a significant number of Iran's missile arsenal but I don't know how true that was and how much Iran had remaining. One thing is clear though, if the air defences run out of fodder, then cheaper missiles, perhaps even drones become effective.

[–] EndlessNightmare@reddthat.com 1 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago)

Just as Israel was flying jets over Iran, Iran was flying missiles over Israel. The 2 militaries use different types of weapons to attack. The skies over both places were rather unfriendly.

[–] gucken@lemmy.ml 4 points 1 week ago

Iran incurred some losses, no doubt, however the myth that Iran has zero air defense systems is a talking point spread by the West to bolster their supposed victory.

A portion of Iran's Air defense systems were destroyed, however a significant amount were simply disabled via cyber attack for a period of about 8 hours at the start of Israel's attack, however these have been restored.

Also, Russia has air defense systems that also protects portions of Iran's airspace so it's not exactly defenseless in that regard.