"Even a country without a conventional air force can now achieve localized air superiority thanks to drones."
This is not true. At least, there is not evidence supporting it.
Use of drones means they can more easily and more effectively contest the air space. If the goals of the two sides are different, they may even have tactical advantages. That is not the same as air superiority.
Iran has a tactical advantage in large part because they are willing to attack civilian infrastructure that the US and Israel are not. If both sides were equally willing to attack military and non-military target, there would be no comparison of abilities to control air space.
Battlefield weapons strategy vs. Iran is quickly becoming a moot issue as the number of muslim and leftwing politicians (the red-green alliance) increases at all levels of U.S. government. They are defeating us, handily, from within. They know how to manipulate our permissive social mores and government benefits and privileges far more than the average law-abiding U.S. citizen. Despite breaking laws and skirting requirements, criminal illegals, treasonous muslims, fraudulent foreign businesses, all stripes of societal enemies, never fail get a pass to continue anti U.S. guerilla warfare in plain sight. MSM hides it all, the politicians ignore their oath to serve & protect, the damage seems minor to those not studiously watching, but it's accumulating.
The US military is "captive" (no conspiracy, just assets) to the big defense contractors who are not suitable for quick transition to different, cheaper, modulr, weapon system. The Ukrainians are fre from that and it shows.
However, it is too easy to claim the superiority of large armies and heavy weapons is done. Russia might not be winning, but it is also not defeated, is it? And above all, it seems that the missing element from the analysis is the most crucial one: the willingness of the population to support the war efforts.
It is much easier to keep the war going when you are a dictator with no care in the world for your people. In some democracies (Israel, Ukraine), the will to fight comes with people's understanding they have no choice (though in Israel this resolve is waning with the messianic corrupt government). However, the US is the opposite- complete lack of resolve to be in a war even if it means US is reduced to second rate power.
I hope you are right, but I am a pessimist-realist when looking at the current state of the US military when compared to China. Not to mention what the miserably executed war in the Straights revealed on the capabilities of the US. When the President is the Commander in Chief and his ability to think strategically is tied to real estate deals, one can't truly have anything to rejoice about..
I discussed this post extensively with Fable 5, and where I landed is gratitude: glad to be in North Carolina, an ocean away from Iran and Russia. What are your plans for the weekend?
Good episode from the Free Press's School of War podcast on this topic, with some real insights, it seemed to me. Not to critique people who are sitting in the US opining on the battlefield of the future, but this guy seems to have seen it, and to have a fairly clear-eyed view of what the future will hold.
My takeaway was that China is learning a lot by having a very robust civilian drone industry and that we'd better catch up. The thing people miss is that the scale of consumer products production dwarves everything else, and that consumer-driven scale really allows you to iterate and improve much more quickly than, e.g., enterprise products or military focused products.
The subscription service sounds like a great approach to keeping systems relevant, yet, one wonders how the procurement system will handle it. The browser AI informs me that the military is working on low cost, mass produced stand off weapons, but the delivery timeline just seems too far off in the future to provide solutions that won't be behind the curve:
"The U.S. military is actively prioritizing low-cost standoff weapons to replace or supplement expensive systems like the JASSM and LRASM, which can cost between $1.5 million and $3 million per unit. This shift is driven by the need for mass-produced munitions capable of saturating enemy air defenses in high-intensity conflicts, such as a potential war in the Pacific.
Key programs and systems in this category include:
Standoff Attack Weapon (SoAW): The U.S. Air Force has revived this program to field an affordable cruise missile by 2033, targeting a unit cost of under $250,000 to provide a sustainable mass-strike capability.
Extended Range Attack Munition (ERAM): An air-launched cruise missile designed for precision strikes at standoff ranges with low cost and high manufacturability; the U.S. has approved the transfer of thousands of these to Ukraine.
Bullseye: A new precision-guided missile unveiled by General Atomics and Rafael, leveraging the Israeli Ice Breaker design to offer a lower-cost, rapidly scalable alternative to systems like the Joint Strike Missile.
JDAM and Gravity Bombs: During operations like Operation Epic Fury against Iran, U.S. forces pivoted to cheaper GPS-guided bombs (e.g., JDAM tailkits at ~$34,500) once aerial supremacy was established, demonstrating the strategic value of inexpensive "stand-in" or short-range standoff munitions.
JSOW Block II: The Joint Standoff Weapon has been updated to reduce unit costs by over 25 percent, offering a proven, low-cost glide bomb solution for the Navy and Air Force.
This strategic focus aims to create a "tiered" strike portfolio, using expensive stealthy missiles for initial suppression and low-cost mass-produced munitions for sustained attrition and target saturation."
Hopefully, this is just the tip of the iceberg and there are substantive solutions closer to reality in the black budget. And perhaps more encouragingly it appears that the new disruptive entrants into the market are delivering value:
"The defense technology sector is experiencing a significant shift toward dual-use startups and "neoprimes" that challenge legacy contractors like Lockheed Martin and Northrop Grumman. Venture capital investment in defense tech hit a record $49.9 billion globally in 2025, nearly double the previous year, driven by the need for faster, software-first solutions.
Leading the market is Anduril Industries, valued at $61 billion as of May 2026, which offers a broad portfolio of autonomous systems and software. Other major players include Shield AI ($12.7 billion valuation), focusing on autonomous flight software, and Palantir Technologies, which provides AI-driven data analytics for intelligence operations."
Yet, as tired and repetitive a proposal as it is, one might wish that there were a dozen or so mini-Skunk Works style labs in house, not under DARPA, given free reign to experiment and show what they can do. Wouldn't have to cost a lot, just an opportunity to see real time development.
“I bet that we are going to have to fight the Iranian regime again. And in order to win, I think we will need at least two capabilities.”
A third possible capability, which was not mentioned above, is knowing when to engage in military conflict vs. abstaining.
I saw no strategic U.S. interest in going after Iran just like I see no strategic interest in going after other naughty states like say North Korea or those in Africa. Sometimes focusing like a laser beam on what’s important from a strategic perspective can save heartbreak and heartburn down the road. At least, this appears to be the core lesson of our voluntary wars over the past century.
The common justification for pre-emptively fighting Iran is to eliminate their nuclear weapons, on the grounds that their leaders are batshit crazy enough to attack Israel with them. I don't believe they are; I think that is indeed batshit crazy, and I do not believe that people that crazy can rise to leadership positions. North Korean leaders want to keep from being attacked; they saw what happened to Saddam without WMD, and they saw what happened to Qaddafi after he gave up his nuclear ambitions.
The usual response is to sneer I'm naive. I have no rejoinder; the paranoia associated with thinking the worst case is inevitable cannot be countered by any rational discussion. It is the equivalent of "if it saves one child" or justifying enormous budgets for anti-asteroid nuclear weapons. As long as nuclear weapons exist, even the slightest odds of mistakes and accidents make nuclear war inevitable. But pretending it will be intentional because batshit crazy mad men have risen to power while hiding their batshit crazy suicidal urges is even more batshit crazy. Hitler could have used poison gas; Stalin too, and Mao could have wasted even more troops in the Korean War. None did, because even those crazy fools weren't suicidal on a national scale.
What you say seems applicable to N Korea. Given Iran's funding of various terrorist groups, it seems not applicable to Iran, even if they gain nukes and never use them.
How many deaths, injuries, and property damage in other countries are attributable to NKorea? And what about Iran? It doesn't see at all similar to me.
Yes, but Iran has been funding terrorism non-stop since 1979. The current war's sole goal was to prevent them acquiring nuclear weapons. Israel and (I bet) most of their neighbors would appreciate a reduction in terrorism, but that was not the stated justification.
It is not a stated justification. But it is one of the reasons that allowing Iran to have nukes would make things worse. It would be more difficult to deal with their terrorist related activities.
What isn't a stated justification? All the reports I have seen focus on Iran surrendering its nuclear weapons, not on stopping terrorism.
I believe Iran would tread more carefully if they had nuclear weapons, but of course no one has proof, and that brings us right back to preparing for the worst, no matter how improbably, and "if it saves one child" paranoia. The only evidence I can give is that Kim Jong Un has been a lot less bellicose than his father, who (a) sank a South Korean destroyer, (b) dug invasion tunnels under the DMZ, (c) kidnapped foreigners as slaves, and I don't remember how much more. It doesn't make Kim Jong Un a nice gun. It doesn't prove he'll never use nuclear weapons. But it does disprove the idea that having nuclear weapons turns dictators into crazy dictators who will use their nuclear weapons.
Just claiming something does not make it so, and all the evidence, paltry as it is, shows that nuclear weapons do not make mad man crazier.
I didn't mean to claim that increased terrorism threat was a good reason for preventing Iran from getting nukes, just that it is a reason stated by many. I tend to agree but you are free to disagree. It's still a common belief.
Another possibility is recognizing that unless your willing to press the genocide button, most sovereign nations are going to have denial of control capability within their borders and nearby areas.
Let's consider not fighting the Iranian regime again. Your unprovoked war of choice went poorly.
"Even a country without a conventional air force can now achieve localized air superiority thanks to drones."
This is not true. At least, there is not evidence supporting it.
Use of drones means they can more easily and more effectively contest the air space. If the goals of the two sides are different, they may even have tactical advantages. That is not the same as air superiority.
Iran has a tactical advantage in large part because they are willing to attack civilian infrastructure that the US and Israel are not. If both sides were equally willing to attack military and non-military target, there would be no comparison of abilities to control air space.
Battlefield weapons strategy vs. Iran is quickly becoming a moot issue as the number of muslim and leftwing politicians (the red-green alliance) increases at all levels of U.S. government. They are defeating us, handily, from within. They know how to manipulate our permissive social mores and government benefits and privileges far more than the average law-abiding U.S. citizen. Despite breaking laws and skirting requirements, criminal illegals, treasonous muslims, fraudulent foreign businesses, all stripes of societal enemies, never fail get a pass to continue anti U.S. guerilla warfare in plain sight. MSM hides it all, the politicians ignore their oath to serve & protect, the damage seems minor to those not studiously watching, but it's accumulating.
The US military is "captive" (no conspiracy, just assets) to the big defense contractors who are not suitable for quick transition to different, cheaper, modulr, weapon system. The Ukrainians are fre from that and it shows.
However, it is too easy to claim the superiority of large armies and heavy weapons is done. Russia might not be winning, but it is also not defeated, is it? And above all, it seems that the missing element from the analysis is the most crucial one: the willingness of the population to support the war efforts.
It is much easier to keep the war going when you are a dictator with no care in the world for your people. In some democracies (Israel, Ukraine), the will to fight comes with people's understanding they have no choice (though in Israel this resolve is waning with the messianic corrupt government). However, the US is the opposite- complete lack of resolve to be in a war even if it means US is reduced to second rate power.
China is rejoicing.
Any rejoicing is entirely dependent on how things continue to develop. It seems things are not going well for the US but that is not a certainty.
I hope you are right, but I am a pessimist-realist when looking at the current state of the US military when compared to China. Not to mention what the miserably executed war in the Straights revealed on the capabilities of the US. When the President is the Commander in Chief and his ability to think strategically is tied to real estate deals, one can't truly have anything to rejoice about..
I agree there is good reason to be pessimistic, not just because of Trump. My point is simply that even valid pessimism isn't an end result.
I discussed this post extensively with Fable 5, and where I landed is gratitude: glad to be in North Carolina, an ocean away from Iran and Russia. What are your plans for the weekend?
https://www.thefp.com/p/four-years-fighting-russia-ukraine-an-american
Good episode from the Free Press's School of War podcast on this topic, with some real insights, it seemed to me. Not to critique people who are sitting in the US opining on the battlefield of the future, but this guy seems to have seen it, and to have a fairly clear-eyed view of what the future will hold.
My takeaway was that China is learning a lot by having a very robust civilian drone industry and that we'd better catch up. The thing people miss is that the scale of consumer products production dwarves everything else, and that consumer-driven scale really allows you to iterate and improve much more quickly than, e.g., enterprise products or military focused products.
The subscription service sounds like a great approach to keeping systems relevant, yet, one wonders how the procurement system will handle it. The browser AI informs me that the military is working on low cost, mass produced stand off weapons, but the delivery timeline just seems too far off in the future to provide solutions that won't be behind the curve:
"The U.S. military is actively prioritizing low-cost standoff weapons to replace or supplement expensive systems like the JASSM and LRASM, which can cost between $1.5 million and $3 million per unit. This shift is driven by the need for mass-produced munitions capable of saturating enemy air defenses in high-intensity conflicts, such as a potential war in the Pacific.
Key programs and systems in this category include:
Standoff Attack Weapon (SoAW): The U.S. Air Force has revived this program to field an affordable cruise missile by 2033, targeting a unit cost of under $250,000 to provide a sustainable mass-strike capability.
Extended Range Attack Munition (ERAM): An air-launched cruise missile designed for precision strikes at standoff ranges with low cost and high manufacturability; the U.S. has approved the transfer of thousands of these to Ukraine.
Bullseye: A new precision-guided missile unveiled by General Atomics and Rafael, leveraging the Israeli Ice Breaker design to offer a lower-cost, rapidly scalable alternative to systems like the Joint Strike Missile.
JDAM and Gravity Bombs: During operations like Operation Epic Fury against Iran, U.S. forces pivoted to cheaper GPS-guided bombs (e.g., JDAM tailkits at ~$34,500) once aerial supremacy was established, demonstrating the strategic value of inexpensive "stand-in" or short-range standoff munitions.
JSOW Block II: The Joint Standoff Weapon has been updated to reduce unit costs by over 25 percent, offering a proven, low-cost glide bomb solution for the Navy and Air Force.
This strategic focus aims to create a "tiered" strike portfolio, using expensive stealthy missiles for initial suppression and low-cost mass-produced munitions for sustained attrition and target saturation."
Hopefully, this is just the tip of the iceberg and there are substantive solutions closer to reality in the black budget. And perhaps more encouragingly it appears that the new disruptive entrants into the market are delivering value:
"The defense technology sector is experiencing a significant shift toward dual-use startups and "neoprimes" that challenge legacy contractors like Lockheed Martin and Northrop Grumman. Venture capital investment in defense tech hit a record $49.9 billion globally in 2025, nearly double the previous year, driven by the need for faster, software-first solutions.
Leading the market is Anduril Industries, valued at $61 billion as of May 2026, which offers a broad portfolio of autonomous systems and software. Other major players include Shield AI ($12.7 billion valuation), focusing on autonomous flight software, and Palantir Technologies, which provides AI-driven data analytics for intelligence operations."
Yet, as tired and repetitive a proposal as it is, one might wish that there were a dozen or so mini-Skunk Works style labs in house, not under DARPA, given free reign to experiment and show what they can do. Wouldn't have to cost a lot, just an opportunity to see real time development.
This essay probably needed to end with, "Have a nice day."
Geography still matters. Easy control of a strategic choke point will still be decisive with any medium -term feasible technology, I predict.
“I bet that we are going to have to fight the Iranian regime again. And in order to win, I think we will need at least two capabilities.”
A third possible capability, which was not mentioned above, is knowing when to engage in military conflict vs. abstaining.
I saw no strategic U.S. interest in going after Iran just like I see no strategic interest in going after other naughty states like say North Korea or those in Africa. Sometimes focusing like a laser beam on what’s important from a strategic perspective can save heartbreak and heartburn down the road. At least, this appears to be the core lesson of our voluntary wars over the past century.
The common justification for pre-emptively fighting Iran is to eliminate their nuclear weapons, on the grounds that their leaders are batshit crazy enough to attack Israel with them. I don't believe they are; I think that is indeed batshit crazy, and I do not believe that people that crazy can rise to leadership positions. North Korean leaders want to keep from being attacked; they saw what happened to Saddam without WMD, and they saw what happened to Qaddafi after he gave up his nuclear ambitions.
The usual response is to sneer I'm naive. I have no rejoinder; the paranoia associated with thinking the worst case is inevitable cannot be countered by any rational discussion. It is the equivalent of "if it saves one child" or justifying enormous budgets for anti-asteroid nuclear weapons. As long as nuclear weapons exist, even the slightest odds of mistakes and accidents make nuclear war inevitable. But pretending it will be intentional because batshit crazy mad men have risen to power while hiding their batshit crazy suicidal urges is even more batshit crazy. Hitler could have used poison gas; Stalin too, and Mao could have wasted even more troops in the Korean War. None did, because even those crazy fools weren't suicidal on a national scale.
What you say seems applicable to N Korea. Given Iran's funding of various terrorist groups, it seems not applicable to Iran, even if they gain nukes and never use them.
How many deaths, injuries, and property damage in other countries are attributable to NKorea? And what about Iran? It doesn't see at all similar to me.
Yes, but Iran has been funding terrorism non-stop since 1979. The current war's sole goal was to prevent them acquiring nuclear weapons. Israel and (I bet) most of their neighbors would appreciate a reduction in terrorism, but that was not the stated justification.
It is not a stated justification. But it is one of the reasons that allowing Iran to have nukes would make things worse. It would be more difficult to deal with their terrorist related activities.
What isn't a stated justification? All the reports I have seen focus on Iran surrendering its nuclear weapons, not on stopping terrorism.
I believe Iran would tread more carefully if they had nuclear weapons, but of course no one has proof, and that brings us right back to preparing for the worst, no matter how improbably, and "if it saves one child" paranoia. The only evidence I can give is that Kim Jong Un has been a lot less bellicose than his father, who (a) sank a South Korean destroyer, (b) dug invasion tunnels under the DMZ, (c) kidnapped foreigners as slaves, and I don't remember how much more. It doesn't make Kim Jong Un a nice gun. It doesn't prove he'll never use nuclear weapons. But it does disprove the idea that having nuclear weapons turns dictators into crazy dictators who will use their nuclear weapons.
Just claiming something does not make it so, and all the evidence, paltry as it is, shows that nuclear weapons do not make mad man crazier.
Fighting terrorism is not a stated justification.
I didn't mean to claim that increased terrorism threat was a good reason for preventing Iran from getting nukes, just that it is a reason stated by many. I tend to agree but you are free to disagree. It's still a common belief.
Another possibility is recognizing that unless your willing to press the genocide button, most sovereign nations are going to have denial of control capability within their borders and nearby areas.
Let's consider not fighting the Iranian regime again. Your unprovoked war of choice went poorly.