The recent escalation of conflict in the Middle East presents a fascinating contrast in how nations build and project military power. The military rivalry between Iran and the U.S.–Israel alliance is not merely about who possesses the most sophisticated weaponry, but also a profound study of how strategy, industrial resilience, and the economic logic of warfare function in modern conflict.
On one side, the alliance of Israel and the United States projects the image of a force overwhelmingly superior in military technology. The U.S. remains atop the global military hierarchy, while Israel operates one of the most modern militaries in the Middle East. On the other side, Iran has chosen a different path. It does not seek to directly match Western technology. Instead, it has focused on building quantitative strength and developing asymmetric warfare strategies to offset the disparity. This fundamental difference in approach is what makes the conflict dynamics between these two sides both intriguing and complex.
When examining air power, the superiority of the U.S.–Israel alliance is stark. The United States possesses over 13,000 military aircraft of various types, including fifth-generation stealth fighters like the F-22 and F-35. Israel itself operates hundreds of modern fighter jets, such as the F-15, F-16, and the F-35I Adir, which are modified to meet its specific operational needs. In contrast, Iran’s air force is relatively antiquated. Many of its fighter jets date back to the Cold War era, remnants of old technology from both the United States and the Soviet Union. Recognizing that achieving air dominance against Israel and the U.S. is an extremely difficult, if not impossible, goal, Iran has adopted a different strategy.
The country has instead invested heavily in developing its drone and missile capabilities. Drones like the Shahed-136 have become emblematic of Iran’s new approach to modern warfare. These cheap, mass-produced drones are designed to overwhelm enemy air defenses through sheer numbers. A similar approach is evident in Iran’s ballistic missile program. The nation now possesses one of the largest missile arsenals in the Middle East. Various missile families, such as the Shahab, Khorramshahr, and Kheibar, form the backbone of its long-range strike capabilities. Iran has even introduced the Fattah-1, a hypersonic missile it claims can reach speeds of up to Mach 13.
Israel, conversely, emphasizes precision and high technology in its weapons systems. It possesses the Jericho missile, believed to have nuclear capabilities, along with various precision missiles like the LORA and Delilah. In many military operations, Israel relies on precision strikes to quickly and effectively destroy an adversary’s strategic targets. This divergence in approach is also mirrored in air defense systems. Israel has built a highly sophisticated, multi-layered air defense network, ranging from the Iron Dome for short-range rockets, David’s Sling for medium-range threats, to the Arrow 2 and Arrow 3 systems for long-range ballistic missiles. Israel is now even developing the Iron Beam laser system to further strengthen its defenses.
The United States also deploys systems like the Patriot and THAAD in various strategic locations across the Middle East. However, these advanced defense systems share a key vulnerability, their extremely high operational costs. This is where Iran’s strategy gains relevance. By producing missiles and drones in large quantities at relatively low cost, Iran aims to create economic pressure on its adversaries’ defense systems. Each cheap missile or drone launched by Iran can force Israel or the U.S. to use interceptors that are tens of times more expensive. In the logic of modern warfare, this phenomenon is known as the cost exchange ratio. If a drone worth hundreds of thousands of dollars forces the use of an interceptor worth millions, then in the long run, this economic pressure can become a decisive factor.
Simulations by various security institutions have suggested that in an intensive 30-day conflict scenario, the air defense costs for the U.S.–Israel alliance could reach around US$17 billion. Conversely, the cost of Iran’s offensive could be roughly one-tenth of that. This suggests that such a conflict would no longer be determined solely by who has the most advanced weapons, but also by who can sustain their logistical and industrial war-fighting capacity for longer. Beyond the military and economic dimensions, this conflict carries vast geopolitical implications. Tensions could rapidly escalate into a full-blown regional war, especially if non-state actors like Hezbollah become actively involved. Disruption to global energy routes, particularly through the Strait of Hormuz, could trigger worldwide economic turmoil. In the most extreme scenario, there is always the concern that an uncontrolled conflict could push one side to contemplate the use of nuclear weapons, especially if facing the prospect of strategic defeat.
At the same time, Israel faces its own strategic dilemma. Military operations that are too aggressive against Iran risk creating political pressure on its primary ally, the United States. If the conflict is perceived as excessively draining resources and triggering global instability, international political support could begin to erode. Ultimately, the “arms race” between Iran and the U.S.–Israel alliance is not merely a contest of military technology. It is also a test of economic endurance in war, the capacity of defense industries, and logistical capabilities in facing a prolonged conflict.
Iran appears prepared to play a strategy of attrition warfare, leveraging vast numbers of cheap missiles and drones. In contrast, Israel and the U.S. rely on technological superiority and high precision to incapacitate their opponent’s capabilities as quickly as possible.
All these considerations ultimately demonstrate the fundamental importance of strategy. They show that power, technology, and resources alone are never sufficient to determine outcomes. The question then becomes not just who possesses the most sophisticated weapons, but who can endure longer in this expensive and exhausting long game.
Jakarta March 8, 2026
Chappy Hakim
Indonesia Center for Air Power Studies
