by Alastair Crooke,Strategic Culture:
Although the Iran war largely has been viewed through the lens of conventional western warfare, its lessons are anything but conventional. They are in fact insurrectionary.
The post-war western approach (especially in the Cold War context) relied on the ability tooutspendany military adversary through the acquisition of high-end, over-engineered and costly manned aircraft and munitions. Dominance of airspace and heavy reliance on aerial bombardment, i.e. air-war, was the doctrinal end.
TRUTH LIVES on athttps://sgtreport.tv/
The expenditure overmatch (as well as an imputed technical innovation) was viewed as the crucial element in the confrontation with the USSR.
Similarly, the impulse in naval warfare was toward investment in ever bigger carriers and their associated tiers of naval support vessels.
In ground warfare, the weighting in the Iraq War’s ‘Desert Storm’ was on tanks ‘punching’ and thrusting through the adversaries’ defence lines – though this approach was dropped by the West in Ukraine following the turn to 21stcentury drone-led ‘trench warfare’ on the front line.
The high-end outspend-approach both favoured the U.S.’ Military Industrial Complex, and together with U.S. dollar hegemony, provided America with the unique advantage of allowing the U.S. effectively to ‘print’ those high-end overmatch supplementary expenses.
Then came the Iran war of 2026, whose asymmetric model upended conventional doctrines.
Instead of dominance of the air space, Iran pursued not aerial supremacy, but rather advancedmissile dominanceof air space.
Source: SGT Report
