In recent years, tensions between Israel and Iran have escalated, with both sides intensifying their confrontations in the Middle East.
Since its establishment, Israel has undergone five wars in the region, showcasing its strong military capabilities, while Iran has not backed down, frequently retaliating.
Since last year's Gaza conflict, the situation has become increasingly tense, especially in April this year when the Israeli military used F-35 jets to bomb the Iranian embassy in Syria.
Subsequently, Iran launched multiple missiles at military targets within Israel. Although the United States and its allies attempted to intercept these, they were not able to completely prevent the attacks.
The hostility between the two sides remains unchanged, and the potential risk of conflict persists.
If a direct confrontation were to occur, many might believe that Israel would have the upper hand due to its more advanced weaponry and possession of nuclear weapons.
However, Iran's retaliatory actions are not without significance; in fact, they are largely symbolic and reflect a certain level of restraint.
According to international law, embassies represent an extension of a country's territory, and Israel's bombing clearly crossed this red line. Iran's retaliation, on the other hand, has primarily targeted military objectives without direct reprisal.
From a military perspective, Iran and Israel are somewhat comparable in strength.
In the global firepower index, Iran ranks 17th, while Israel ranks 18th.
Iran's total military strength is approximately 1.02 million, with 580,000 active personnel, while Israel's total military strength is around 650,000, with about 170,000 in active service.
Although Iran seems to have the advantage in terms of personnel and the number of weapons, Israel excels in the technology and quality of its weaponry.
Israel's air force is particularly powerful, with main fighter jets including the F-15, F-16, and F-35. The Merkava main battle tank in its army is also considered to have top-notch performance globally.
In contrast, Iran's primary aircraft are mostly outdated models, such as the MiG-29 and F-14, and its army and navy equipment appears old, making the overall quality incomparable to Israel's.
Despite Iran's larger troop numbers, in modern warfare, the technological content and quality of weapons are more critical.
Israel's strategy of maintaining a smaller, highly skilled military has placed it in a leading position in weapon development and tactical application, granting it greater combat effectiveness.
Thus, theoretically, Israel has a higher chance of victory, especially considering its nuclear weapons as a trump card.
However, there is a significant disparity in national strength between the two countries. Israel's territory is only over 20,000 square kilometers, with a population of less than 10 million, while Iran's territory spans 1.6 million square kilometers, with a population nearing 88 million.
This numerical advantage allows Iran to adopt a saturation attack strategy in warfare. Despite Israel's strong air defense capabilities, it would still struggle to fully withstand a large-scale firepower assault.
Although Iran has the potential to launch a large-scale attack, its success would still be constrained by the capabilities of the Israeli air force.
Historically, Israel's air force has always been the dominant power in the Middle East, as evidenced by its numerous airstrikes against Iran. For Iran to achieve its goals, it must first destroy Israel's air force bases.
To counter the Israeli air force, Iran needs to employ two strategies: first, to destroy Israel's advanced fighter jets, and second, to demolish its air force bases.
Despite Iran's large missile arsenal, Israel's air defense system is not without vulnerabilities, and the strength of its air force means any attack could be met with retaliation.
In summary, Iran is not incapable of defeating Israel; rather, it deems this war not worth engaging in.
Currently, Iran is more focused on economic development, and Israel has capitalized on this by taking more aggressive actions.
Both sides understand that the consequences of a direct conflict would be unbearable.
It is noteworthy that the conflict between Iran and Israel is not rooted in territorial disputes, but rather in complex historical and geopolitical factors.
As early as the founding of Israel, the two countries had a close relationship, but after the Iranian Revolution in 1979, their relationship deteriorated sharply. With changes in U.S. policy towards Iran, it was seen as a geopolitical threat in the Middle East, deepening the conflicts between the two.
Today, although the conflict in the Gaza region continues, the situation in the Middle East remains complex, and the future trajectory is still full of uncertainties.
Comments