Neither Israel nor Iran likely able to sustain long-drawn war, say experts

Iran's unprecedented attack on Israel has cast the spotlight on the possibility of a wider conflict in the Middle East and a larger discussion about the cost and sustainability of a potential long-drawn conflict.

Iran said its airborne attack was in retaliation against Israel's April 1 air strike against its diplomatic facility in the Syrian capital, Damascus. It killed at least seven members of Iran's Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, including two top-ranking generals.

During Iran’s revenge attack, several Western allies, including the US, France, and the UK, reportedly aided Israel.

Israel's interception of hundreds of Iranian missiles and drones is estimated to have cost Tel Aviv around $1.08-1.35B.

Iranian military technology

Security expert Akram Kharief says the Iranian military arsenal used in the attack against Israel is relatively cheap to produce.

"The (Iranian) drones are not costly, around $50,000 (and) $250,000 for each cruise missile and from $1 to 10 million for a ballistic missile, depending on the model," he says.

Despite Tehran's ability to produce these systems more cheaply than other nations, Fabian Hinz, Research Fellow in Defence and Military, underscores the heavy price Iran has to pay amid the country's economic difficulties.

"If you put these weapon systems in relation to the GDP, they're still quite expensive for the Iranians even if they are cheaper than comparable Western systems," he says.

Drawing on data from Iran, Hinz says the cost for a missile to reach Israel may be around $400,000 - still considered a low price internationally.

Citing Russian information, he says the Iranian Saegheh drones reportedly cost around $50,000 per piece.

Cost and sustainability

Nevertheless, should tensions escalate further, Hinz says the cost and sustainability could become a "tricky issue".

In recent years, reports point to significantly different levels of military investments. In 2022, Iran, home to almost 90 million citizens, is said to have invested $7 billion in its military, while Israel, with a population of around 9 million, spent over $23 billion.

Amid the current tensions in the region, some high-tech weapons, such as ballistic missiles and interceptors, typically take a long time to produce. Hinz explains that they depend on specialised components, subcontractors, and sensitive supply chains.

Tehran is said to have the largest arsenal of ballistic missiles in the region, which some US estimates place at around 3,000.

However, Hinz says whichever side holds the largest combined stockpile of weapons and the ability to replenish it over a "sustained campaign" would likely fare better.

A full-scale Iranian attack could cost Israel around $ 20 to 30 billion to defend itself, says Kharief.

Previously, the United States has funded Israel's costly development and production of defence systems with taxpayer dollars and some replenishment costs for used interceptors.

According to Kharief, "It looks unbearable even for the United States. I think that the Iranian attack means that the military solution to defend Israel is a dead end and that they should find another way to deal with their security."

Earlier this month, US President Joe Biden, a staunch ally of Israel, was reportedly mulling over a $18B arms package for Israel that would include the sale of dozens of F-15 aircraft and munitions to Tel Aviv.

Iran's unprecedented direct attack on Israel has pressured House Speaker Mike Johnson to decide regarding $14B foreign aid funding that has been stalled in the House for months.

Israel's defence

Nevertheless, in combating Iran's attack, Israel has relied on an expensive and layered defence system.

The lowest tier is the Iron Dome, designed for very short-range rockets - typically fired from Gaza and against drones and low-flying cruise missiles.

Hinz explains that the second tier is the David Sling—designed for short-range ballistic missiles like those fired from Lebanon or Syria.

Then there are the Arrow 2 and 3—conceived for larger ballistic missiles and said to cost between $2 million and $3.5 million for a single interceptor.

The Arrow 2 is comparable to the US military's Patriot. It works inside the earth's atmosphere, intercepting the missile in the terminal phase after it returns from space and shooting it down in the atmosphere.

Only a few countries have the Arrow 3, a "complicated technology" that works outside the earth's atmosphere, intercepting the missile in space. The Americans have the SM three, which is ship-based and works similarly. The real advantage is that these missiles are very fast, explains Hinz.

Kharief explains that the Arrow 3 can reach up to 2000 km per hour. It was funded by the US but made by Israel Aerospace Industries (IAI). It has specific components, including a rocket engine, a thrust vector aiding its manoeuvrability and ability to change direction and a gimballed seeker that tracks heat.

Alongside the tiered defence system, reports also point to Israel's cost of keeping fighter jets operating for prolonged periods to intercept attacks.

Regional impact

Nevertheless, after Iran’s attack and continued tensions, some analysts are now questioning what impact it could have on regional power relations.

"I think, in my assessment, this was quite a substantial strike. They (Iran) really tried to overwhelm Israeli defences. It was not just symbolic, and it is a big question of how that will change power dynamics in the region," says Hinz.

In the aftermath, both Israel and Iran have claimed successes amid competing narratives.

"On the one hand, it probably is a propaganda win for Iran because it was a spectacular attack. And they can say, you know, look at what is happening in Gaza, what are these big regional countries doing? Nothing. Look at us; we fire 300 drones and missiles at Israel. So you can spin that quite well in the propaganda war," Hinz tells TRT World.

"On the other hand, Israeli defences have proven to be exceptionally good at defending Israel from uranium ballistic missiles. The Israelis have shown that their international friends will work with them - that this is useful for cooperation," he adds.

Calls for restraint

Some observers have described the recent bombing of the Iranian consulate as "the clearest signal yet of Israel's determination to shift the conflict's rules of engagement."

However, Justin Crump, a former British Army officer operating a risk intelligence company, has claimed that Iran did not use its "most advanced systems", appearing to suggest that this could be because they are not functional or Tehran was just sending a "message.”

Amid the regional tensions, some in the Middle East are also said to have been angered by the alleged involvement of regional neighbours. It comes in the wake of Israel's onslaught in occupied Gaza that has killed 33,800 Palestinians, mainly women and children.

Despite criticising Israel's aggression in the besieged enclave, Jordan, home to a sizable Palestinian community, reportedly shot down Iranian missiles and drones launched at Israel traversing its airspace. The country has described its actions as safeguarding its citizens.

One Western official reportedly claimed that Saudi Arabia also provided intelligence on the night.

The US had reportedly moved assets to the region with around 45,000 soldiers stationed across Kuwait, Bahrain and Qatar, while the UK increased its RAF footprint in Greek-administered Cyprus' Akrotiri airbase.

Numerous officials, including United Nations Secretary-General Antonio Guterres and the European Union's High Representative for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy Josep Borrell, have urged restraint.

Hinz says it is clear that the US doesn't wish for Israel to retaliate and to "keep the situation from escalating because I think there already is a regional escalation, but they want to lower the temperature of the regional escalation."

In the long term, amid fears of a potential open war between Israel and Iran and the wider geopolitical implications, experts point to the large stock of missiles and drones but the complexity of launching a simultaneous attack.

"Whether Israel decides to hit back and in what way, there are many potential options of Israel hitting back that, in the end, is an Israeli political question more than a technical one," says Hinz.

He says Israel could decide that they have defended "quite well" and will "not escalate further" but could still choose to "ramp up the pressure to roll back. Iran's influence in the region."

"Iran's essence in the region and which way they're going to go, I think, depends on the US and the US influence and internal Israeli politics and calculations."