This guy says it's not a real economic victory. Although the direct costs were heavily in Iran's favor, the opposite is true when the costs are referred vs. defense expenditures (or even more dramatically vs. GDPs). Referring them that way (vs. just looking at direct costs) is I'd say a more complete view of the opportunity cost to the warring parties.

I have no idea how a true expert would feel about this analysis, but it makes a lot of sense to me.



context: I previously thought that Iran's attack was a legit economic victory.

It's only victory if the expense ratio is greater than the asset ratio. Otherwise, you may be draining your opponent at a faster rate than they're draining you, but you're not draining them fast enough to go broke before you do.

Plus, you must consider the cost of what could have been hit had they not been shot down even at much higher relative projectile costs. Let them come through and they hit something expensive or that basically compels escalation or another actions that result in further exchanges, the prevented costs might be higher.

I've read on…some, ahem, pro-Russian outlets/channels that Israel had to expend a multiple many times greater than what Iran did to defend herself, and as well that Iran sent mostly old stock of missiles this time to degrade the iron dome etc. inventory.

I don't buy it though. I think Israel has a real capability to replenish/support itself in the interim and I also think Iran is hurting financially/in their ability to build a lot of medium range ballistic missiles. That they are still firing off in large salvo's rockets that are distant evolutions of the V2 rockets from WW2 to me shows the depraved state of their actual tech.

I could be convinced Israel will be short of interceptors if Iran went 'all out' but that would also be a really dangerous move for the mullah's so I think it is improbable, until/unless Obama-Biden-Kerry manage to get them nukes. And even then we all know Tehran would be nuked within the hour of any nuke hitting Tel Aviv.

you have to add in how much money was lost by Iran in new sanctions passed by USA and the European Union today

you have to add in how much it will cost Iran to try to build missiles which can actually NOT be destroyed at a 99% rate by the Israel alliance

you have to add in the cost in moving their IRGC terrorists out of Syria and Lebanon today to run back to Iran

And the cost tabulation is not remotely over. How much political and military clout did Iran lose? They are a laughing stock after that abysmal military and technological clown show. It screams dont by Iranian hardware !!!.

Thats gonna cost.

Apparently there is a Defense Dept. Supplemental bill working through congress for about $1B to buy replacements for all the missiles the U.S. Navy has already used shooting down Houthi rockets/missiles while protecting ships in the Red Sea. The U.S. probably blew through at least $200M of missiles on Saturday night.

The lead time on replacing those missiles is probably at least 1-3 years. This **** is getting very expensive and if it continues then we will be really hard up for missiles when we might really need them. Like defending Taiwan for example.

Like Israel duped Iran into going 1st playing who can slap the softest game.

Any nuclear strike by Iran will illicit a disproportionate response large enough Tehran and most of the large Iranian cities/military bases would cease to exist. At this point, even a "terror group" crossing one would probably light it off