Mahmoud Ahmadinejad
سپاه پاسداران انقلاب اسلامی
Yes, we have suffered losses. Our aircraft and larger naval ships were destroyed in cowardly sneak attacks by a much better equipped enemy who thinks that playing the role of the Imperial Japanese Navy at Pearl Harbor is the key to victory.
The Iranian air force had antiquated equipment dating to the Shah era, and while the Iranian navy had some capabilities, it didn’t stand a chance against its American counterpart.
We are a poor country by Western materialistic standards.
We chose not to bankrupt our own people with heavy taxation in attempting to match a giant attacker's vast arsenal of costly weaponry.
That would have been futile and contrary to the principles of our Republic.
Missiles and drones are core elements of Iran’s military power instead.
The nation has relied on them heavily and almost exclusively in its fight against the US and Israel.
It’s understandable why many have believed that if only Iran’s opponents could force it to run out of those weapons, we would fall. That is, of course, if those opponents don’t run out first.
But this arms race argument is misleading.
This isn't merely a numbers game, but rather a contest of wills and opposing strategies.
The side whose strategy outperforms the others' is more likely to win. That has been abundantly proven in Vietnam, Afghanistan, and elsewhere.
The United States is employing a shock-and-awe strategy, seeking swift and decisive outcomes culminating in regime change.
In contrast, Iran must perforce geographically expand and prolong the conflict in order to exact a high-enough political and economic price on its adversaries and force them to discontinue military operations.
It is within this strategic and political context that one should scrutinize weapons inventories and usage on both sides.
Even though Iran has one of the largest missile and drone arsenals in the world, and an ability to produce more, the IRCG is not about to exhaust our weapons by firing in great numbers every day.
Dispersion, tempo conservation, precision, and lethality serve our aims better than wasteful overuse.
A single missile hitting an American is far more useful and politically consequential than dozens of US bombs and rockets wasted in the mountains on rocks and sand.
If you doubt that we Iranians have enough precise and hard-to-intercept missiles and drones to hit such targets, we have already.
The Iranian air force had antiquated equipment dating to the Shah era, and while the Iranian navy had some capabilities, it didn’t stand a chance against its American counterpart.
We are a poor country by Western materialistic standards.
We chose not to bankrupt our own people with heavy taxation in attempting to match a giant attacker's vast arsenal of costly weaponry.
That would have been futile and contrary to the principles of our Republic.
Missiles and drones are core elements of Iran’s military power instead.
The nation has relied on them heavily and almost exclusively in its fight against the US and Israel.
It’s understandable why many have believed that if only Iran’s opponents could force it to run out of those weapons, we would fall. That is, of course, if those opponents don’t run out first.
But this arms race argument is misleading.
This isn't merely a numbers game, but rather a contest of wills and opposing strategies.
The side whose strategy outperforms the others' is more likely to win. That has been abundantly proven in Vietnam, Afghanistan, and elsewhere.
The United States is employing a shock-and-awe strategy, seeking swift and decisive outcomes culminating in regime change.
In contrast, Iran must perforce geographically expand and prolong the conflict in order to exact a high-enough political and economic price on its adversaries and force them to discontinue military operations.
It is within this strategic and political context that one should scrutinize weapons inventories and usage on both sides.
Even though Iran has one of the largest missile and drone arsenals in the world, and an ability to produce more, the IRCG is not about to exhaust our weapons by firing in great numbers every day.
Dispersion, tempo conservation, precision, and lethality serve our aims better than wasteful overuse.
A single missile hitting an American is far more useful and politically consequential than dozens of US bombs and rockets wasted in the mountains on rocks and sand.
If you doubt that we Iranians have enough precise and hard-to-intercept missiles and drones to hit such targets, we have already.