Tag: iran

Posted on

688: INNOVATION: THE NEW AGE WEAPON IN MODERN WARS

 

My Article was published on “The Eurasian Times” website on 22 Jun 25.

 

In the rapidly evolving landscape of 21st-century conflict, innovation has emerged as the cornerstone of modern warfare. Nations and non-state actors leverage cutting-edge technology and unconventional tactics to achieve strategic objectives with unprecedented precision, stealth, and impact. Three recent examples, Israel’s drone attack in Iran, Ukraine’s drone assault on Russian military targets, and Israel’s explosive pager attack on Hezbollah, illustrate how innovation is reshaping the battlefield. Executed with remarkable ingenuity, these operations highlight the shift toward asymmetric, hybrid warfare that combines advanced technology, covert intelligence, and psychological operations. The innovative aspects of these cases must be explored to understand their strategic implications and the broader challenges they present for global security.

 

Israel’s Drone Attack in Iran: A Master Class in Covert Precision

In June 2025, Israel executed a series of drone strikes targeting Iran’s nuclear facilities, missile launchers, and military infrastructure, showcasing a new paradigm in covert warfare. Unlike traditional airstrikes, Israel reportedly activated a network of “kamikaze” drones pre-positioned inside Iran, bypassing the country’s sophisticated air defence systems. This operation, attributed to the Mossad and Israeli Air Force, underscores several innovative aspects of modern warfare.

Strategic Innovation. The attack’s success hinged on long-term infiltration. Over the years, Israel allegedly smuggled drone components into Iran, assembling a clandestine arsenal that could be remotely activated. This approach required meticulous planning, blending human intelligence with technological expertise. By launching drones from within Iran, Israel avoided detection by radar systems designed to counter external threats, such as ballistic missiles or fighter jets. The strikes targeted high-value sites, including the Natanz nuclear enrichment facility and mobile missile launchers, disrupting Iran’s nuclear ambitions and retaliatory capabilities with surgical precision.

Technological Edge. The drones were compact, stealthy, and equipped with advanced navigation systems, enabling them to evade Iran’s multi-layered defences. Reports suggest that using AI-guided drones capable of autonomous target selection represents a leap forward in unmanned warfare. This technology allowed Israel to strike multiple targets simultaneously, maximising impact while minimising exposure.

Implications and Risks. While innovative, the operation carried significant risks. Iran retaliated with missile barrages, escalating tensions and raising fears of a broader regional conflict. The covert nature of the attack also sets a precedent for deniable operations, complicating attribution and accountability.

 

Ukraine’s Drone Attack in Russia: Asymmetric Warfare Redefined

Ukraine’s June 2025 drone attack on Russian military bases, dubbed “Operation Spiderweb,” destroyed over 40 warplanes, demonstrating how resource-constrained nations can challenge superpowers through innovation. By smuggling 117 drones near Russian targets and launching them from within enemy territory, Ukraine showcased the power of asymmetric warfare.

Logistical Creativity. The operation’s success relied on covert logistics. Ukraine transported disassembled drones thousands of miles into Russia, likely using local networks or operatives to assemble and deploy them. This approach bypassed Russia’s border defences and air surveillance, catching military commanders off guard. The drones, described as low-cost and modular, were designed for scalability, allowing Ukraine to mount a large-scale attack with limited resources.

Tactical Impact. The drones targeted airbases, fuel depots, and ammunition stores, inflicting significant damage. By striking deep inside Russia, Ukraine forced Moscow to divert resources to internal defence, creating a new front in the ongoing war. The psychological impact was equally profound, as Russian citizens grappled with the vulnerability of their homeland. This operation highlighted drones as a cost-effective alternative to traditional air forces, levelling the playing field for smaller nations. While a tactical triumph, Ukraine’s strategy risks escalation. Russia may intensify its punitive strikes, targeting Ukrainian cities or infrastructure.

 

Israel’s Pager Attack on Hezbollah: Cyber-Physical Warfare

In September 2024, Israel executed an unprecedented attack on Hezbollah, using explosive-laden pagers and walkie-talkies to target operatives across Lebanon. This operation crippled Hezbollah’s command structure and marked a new frontier in cyber-physical warfare.

Supply Chain Infiltration. The attack’s brilliance lay in its exploitation of the supply chain. Israel reportedly compromised the manufacturing and distribution of communication devices, embedding micro-explosives in pagers and radios used by Hezbollah. This required years of planning, from infiltrating tech companies to ensuring the devices reached their targets. The operation’s complexity underscores the fusion of intelligence, engineering, and deception in modern warfare.

Precision and Psychological Impact. By detonating thousands of devices simultaneously, Israel disrupted Hezbollah’s operational cohesion with minimal collateral damage compared to airstrikes. The attack killed or injured key commanders, weakening Iran’s proxy network. Beyond physical damage, it sowed distrust among Hezbollah operatives, as everyday devices became potential threats. Retired Mossad agents hailed the operation as a turning point, demonstrating how consumer technology can be weaponised with devastating effect.

 

The Broader Trend: “Amazon Prime Warfare”

These cases reflect a broader trend toward what can be called “Amazon Prime Warfare,” where small, modular components are delivered covertly, assembled on-site, and used for high-impact strikes. This paradigm shift is driven by AI, robotics, and supply chain manipulation advancements, enabling actors to achieve strategic goals with minimal conventional engagement. However, it also democratises warfare, allowing non-state actors and rogue regimes to adopt similar tactics.

Innovative Elements. This approach combines several innovative elements:-

  • Cost-Effectiveness. Drones and modified consumer devices are far cheaper than traditional weapons, enabling smaller actors like Ukraine to compete with larger powers.
  • Deniability and Stealth. Covert operations, like Israel’s drone and pager attacks, allow states to strike without immediate attribution, delaying retaliation and complicating diplomacy.
  • Hybrid Tactics. Integrating cyber, physical, and intelligence operations creates unpredictable threats, forcing adversaries to rethink defence strategies.

Risks and Challenges. The rise of innovative warfare poses significant challenges for global security. Each attack prompts retaliation, as seen in Iran’s missile strikes following Israel’s drone operation. This tit-for-tat dynamic risks spiralling into broader conflicts. Traditional defence systems, designed for missiles and jets, are ill-equipped to counter combined drone-supply chain attacks. To keep pace, nations must invest in new technologies, such as anti-drone systems and supply chain auditing.

 

Conclusion

Innovation is undeniably the key to modern warfare, as demonstrated by Israel’s and Ukraine’s ground-breaking operations. Drones, compromised devices, and covert logistics enable precision, stealth, and impact, redefining how conflicts are fought. These tactics empower smaller actors to challenge superpowers, disrupt adversaries, and achieve strategic goals with minimal resources. However, they also destabilise traditional deterrence models, inviting retaliation, proliferation, and ethical controversies.

As warfare evolves, the challenge lies in balancing innovation with restraint. Nations must develop explicit norms for emerging technologies, such as drones and cyber-physical weapons, to prevent escalation and protect civilians. International cooperation is essential to curb proliferation and ensure accountability, particularly when private companies are involved. While innovation drives progress on the battlefield, its unchecked spread risks a future where conflict is ubiquitous, unpredictable, and uncontainable. The lesson is clear for policymakers, military strategists, and global citizens: innovation in warfare is a double-edged sword.

 

Please Add Value to the write-up with your views on the subject.

 

Link to the article on the website:-

Stunning Innovative Attacks! Everything & Anything Could Be A Weapon Now; Israel & Ukraine Show The Way

1878
Default rating

Please give a thumbs up if you  like The Post?

 

For regular updates, please register your email here:-

Subscribe

 

 

References and credits

To all the online sites and channels.

Pics Courtesy: Internet

Disclaimer:

Information and data included in the blog are for educational & non-commercial purposes only and have been carefully adapted, excerpted, or edited from reliable and accurate sources. All copyrighted material belongs to respective owners and is provided only for wider dissemination.

 

References:-

  1. Bergen, Peter, and Alyssa Sims. “How Drones Are Changing Warfare.” Council on Foreign Relations, 29 September 2023.
  1. Binnie, Jeremy. “Israel’s Covert Drone Operations in Iran: A New Era of Warfare.” Jane’s Intelligence Review, 15 June 2025.
  1. Borger, Julian. “Israel’s Pager Attack on Hezbollah: A Cyber-Physical Triumph.” The Guardian, 18 September 2024.
  1. Defence News, “Ukraine’s ‘Operation Spiderweb’ destroys 40+ Russian warplanes using smuggled drones. A game-changer for asymmetric warfare”, 10 June 2025.
  1. Hambling, David. “The Rise of ‘Amazon Prime Warfare’: How Drones and Supply Chains Are Reshaping Conflict.” Forbes, 5 October 2024,
  1. Human Rights Watch. “Civilian Casualties in Israel-Iran Drone Strikes: Legal and Ethical Concerns.” HRW Reports, 20 June 2025,
  1. International Institute for Strategic Studies (IISS). “The Proliferation of Drone Warfare: Implications for Global Security.” IISS Strategic Comments, Vol. 31, No. 4, April 2025.
  1. Sanger, David E., and Ronen Bergman. “How Israel Weaponised Consumer Electronics Against Hezbollah.” The New York Times, 20 September 2024.
  1. Stratcom Analyst. “Iran’s missile retaliation after Israel’s drone strikes shows the escalation risks of covert ops”, 16 June 2025.
  1. United Nations Office for Disarmament Affairs (UNODA). “Emerging Technologies in Warfare: Drones and Cyber-Physical Weapons.” UNODA Occasional Papers, No. 42, March 2025,

Posted on

683: FROM OSIRAK TO NATANZ: OPERATION RISING LION AS A CONTINUATION OF ISRAEL’S BEGIN DOCTRINE OF DENIAL

 

My Article published on “The EurasianTimes” website on 17 Jun 25. 

 

On June 13, 2025, Israel launched Operation Rising Lion, a bold and sophisticated military campaign targeting Iran’s nuclear facilities, missile bases, and key military personnel. The operation, which struck sites like Natanz, Fordow, and Arak, and killed high-ranking figures such as IRGC Commander-in-Chief Hossein Salami, was a direct application of the Begin Doctrine—Israel’s strategic policy of pre-emptively denying adversaries the ability to acquire nuclear weapons. Named after Prime Minister Menachem Begin, who authorised the 1981 strike on Iraq’s Osirak reactor, the doctrine has shaped Israel’s approach to regional threats for over four decades. This article examines Operation Rising Lion as a continuation of the Begin Doctrine, tracing its evolution from Osirak to Natanz, analysing its strategic execution, and exploring its implications for Israel’s security and regional stability.

 

The Begin Doctrine

The Begin Doctrine is a cornerstone of Israeli strategic policy, centered on the pre-emptive prevention of adversaries, particularly in the Middle East, from acquiring nuclear weapons that could pose an existential threat to Israel. Named after former Israeli Prime Minister Menachem Begin, the doctrine emerged following Israel’s airstrike on Iraq’s Osirak nuclear reactor on June 7, 1981, known as Operation Opera. It reflects Israel’s commitment to ensuring its survival in a region surrounded by hostile states, some of which have historically pursued nuclear capabilities.

Key Principles of the Begin Doctrine include the following:-

    • Pre-emptive Action. Israel reserves the right to use military force to prevent any hostile state or non-state actor from developing nuclear weapons.
    • Existential Threat Mitigation. The doctrine prioritises neutralising capabilities that could enable adversaries to produce weapons of mass destruction (WMDs), notably nuclear weapons.
    • Unilateral Action. Israel will act independently if necessary, even without international approval or coordination, to safeguard its security.
    • Deterrence and Regional Dominance. By demonstrating its willingness and ability to strike pre-emptively, Israel reinforces its military superiority and deters adversaries. Historical Context and Application.

 

Historical Precedents: Osirak and Orchard

Operation Opera (1981). On June 7, 1981, eight Israeli F-16s, escorted by F-15s, flew 1,100 kilometers to destroy Iraq’s Osirak reactor, a French-built facility suspected of producing plutonium for nuclear weapons. The strike was meticulously planned, relying on intelligence from Mossad and defectors. Despite international outrage, including a UN Security Council resolution condemning Israel, the operation delayed Iraq’s nuclear program significantly. It established the Begin Doctrine as a proactive strategy, emphasising Israel’s willingness to act alone to ensure its survival.

Operation Orchard (2007). On September 6, 2007, Israel struck Syria’s Al-Kibar nuclear reactor in Deir ez-Zor, believed to be a North Korean-designed plutonium facility. The operation, kept secret for months, involved precision airstrikes by F-16s and F-15s, supported by cyberwarfare and Mossad intelligence. Unlike Osirak, Orchard faced minimal international backlash, partly due to Syria’s secrecy and the operation’s surgical nature. It reinforced the Begin Doctrine’s adaptability, incorporating advanced technology and covert tactics to neutralise emerging threats.

Both operations demonstrated Israel’s ability to combine intelligence, air superiority, and strategic surprise, setting the stage for Operation Rising Lion’s complexity.

 

Operation Rising Lion: A Modern Application

Launched on June 13, 2025, Operation Rising Lion targeted Iran’s nuclear and military infrastructure, reflecting the Begin Doctrine’s evolution in scale, technology, and geopolitical context. Iran’s nuclear program, by 2025, posed an unprecedented challenge, with the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) reporting enough enriched uranium for up to 15 nuclear bombs. Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu framed the operation as a “12th-hour” necessity to prevent a “nuclear holocaust,” echoing Begin’s rhetoric from 1981.

Strategic Execution. Operation Rising Lion was a multi-domain assault, integrating air, cyber, and covert operations. Over 200 Israeli aircraft, including F-35s, struck key nuclear sites, the Natanz Enrichment Complex, the Fordow Fuel Enrichment Plant, the Arak Heavy Water Facility and the Isfahan Uranium Conversion Facility. Missile bases like Asfajaabad, IRGC command centers, and air defence systems were hit. Mossad-activated drones and smuggled munitions neutralised launchers and radars, ensuring air superiority. The operation killed key figures, including IRGC leaders Hossein Salami, Mohammad Bagheri, and Amir Ali Hajizadeh, and nuclear scientists like Fereydoon Abbasi and Mohammad Mehdi Tehranchi, crippling Iran’s command and expertise. Mossad’s covert operations, including a secret drone base near Tehran and disinformation about diplomatic rifts, misled Iran’s leadership into underestimating the attack.

Scale and Impact.  Operation Rising Lion was unprecedented in scope, targeting over 100 sites with 330 munitions. Iran reported 78–128 deaths, including 20 children, and over 320 injuries, particularly in Tehran’s residential areas, sparking international criticism. The IAEA confirmed no radiation leaks, indicating precise strikes. The operation delayed Iran’s nuclear program, damaged its military infrastructure, and disrupted its chain of command, reinforcing Israel’s regional dominance.

 

Iran’s Response: Operation True Promise III. Iran’s Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei vowed “severe punishment,” describing Israel’s actions as a “doomed aggression based on a grave miscalculation.”  Iran retaliated with Operation True Promise III (Persian: Va’de-ye Sādeq III), which began on the evening of June 13, 2025, approximately 18 hours after Israel’s initial strikes. The Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) led the operation, supported by Iran’s armed forces and possibly proxy groups like Hezbollah, the Houthis, and the Islamic Resistance in Iraq. Iran fired “dozens” to “hundreds” of ballistic missiles and drones, targeting Israeli military centres, airbases, and strategic sites, including the Kirya military headquarters in Tel Aviv. Specific targets included Nevatim, Hatzerim, and Tel Nof airbases, which house advanced Israeli fighter jets like F-35s and F-15s. The operation involved waves of attacks, with ballistic missiles and kamikaze drones aimed at overwhelming Israel’s multilayered air defences, including the Iron Dome and Arrow missile defence systems. While Israel’s Iron Dome and Arrow systems, aided by U.S., British, and French forces, intercepted most projectiles, some strikes caused damage in Tel Aviv, injuring 21–95 people. Iran’s Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, called the strikes a “crushing response”.

Analytical Perspectives

Continuity and Evolution of the Begin Doctrine. Operation Rising Lion reflects the Begin Doctrine’s continuity and evolution. Like Osirak and Orchard, Rising Lion was a unilateral, preemptive strike to deny an adversary nuclear capability. Israel acted without U.S. involvement, prioritising national security over international approval, and justified the operation as existential. The operation’s scale—over 200 aircraft and 100 targets—dwarfs previous strikes. It integrated advanced technologies (AI-assisted targeting, drones, cyberwarfare) and Mossad’s covert infrastructure, showcasing Israel’s technological edge. Unlike Osirak’s single-target focus or Orchard’s secrecy, Rising Lion was a broad assault on nuclear, military, and leadership targets, reflecting the complexity of Iran’s threat.

Strategic and Ethical Challenges. The Begin Doctrine’s application in Operation Rising Lion raises significant issues.

    • Strategic Success. The operation delayed Iran’s nuclear program, possibly by years, and weakened its military leadership and missile capabilities. It reinforced Israel’s deterrence, signalling to adversaries like Hezbollah and the Houthis that escalation would be costly.
    • Escalation Risks. Though limited, Iran’s Operation True Promise III underscores the potential for a broader conflict. The Houthis’ missile strike on Hebron and possible proxy involvement from Iraq and Syria highlight the regional ripple effects.
    • Ethical Concerns. Civilian casualties, including 20 children in Tehran, drew condemnation from the UN, Saudi Arabia, and Russia. Critics argue the doctrine’s preemptive nature risks disproportionate harm, complicating Israel’s international standing.
    • Limitations. Deeply buried facilities like Fordow remain resistant to conventional strikes, suggesting the doctrine’s reliance on airpower may need adaptation for future threats.

Geopolitical Impact. Operation Rising Lion has transformed the Middle East’s strategic landscape. By eliminating key Iranian leaders and damaging critical infrastructure, Israel has significantly weakened Iran’s regional influence, though its proxy groups, such as Hezbollah and the Houthis, remain active. Global oil prices have surged 8% amid fears of supply disruptions, sending ripples through international markets. The United States backed Israel’s defensive measures but called for restraint, while Russia offered to mediate and Saudi Arabia adopted a cautious approach, highlighting the region’s complex dynamics. The breakdown of scheduled U.S.-Iran nuclear talks in Oman underscores the diplomatic fallout of Israel’s Begin Doctrine.

Israel’s Strategic Blind Spot: Pakistan’s Nuclear Program.  Israel’s Begin Doctrine prioritises pre-emptive strikes against adversaries developing nuclear weapons, yet Pakistan’s nuclear program, successful by 1998, never prompted Israeli action. This stems from geopolitical and strategic factors. Unlike Iraq, Syria, or Iran, Pakistan lies outside Israel’s immediate Middle Eastern sphere of influence, reducing its perceived threat. Pakistan’s nuclear ambitions were primarily driven by rivalry with India, not hostility toward Israel. Diplomatic relations, though limited, existed indirectly, and Pakistan’s leadership, including Zulfikar Ali Bhutto and Pervez Musharraf, avoided framing Israel as a primary enemy. Israel’s intelligence, via Mossad, likely assessed Pakistan’s program as India-focused, not aimed at Tel Aviv. Additionally, U.S. influence, a mutual ally, restrained escalation, as Pakistan’s nuclear development was tacitly accepted to counter India. Thus, Israel conserved resources for proximate threats like Iran, aligning with the Begin Doctrine’s focus on existential risks.

 

Conclusion

From Osirak to Natanz, the Begin Doctrine has guided Israel’s strategy to prevent nuclear proliferation among its adversaries. With its unprecedented scale and technological sophistication, Operation Rising Lion represents the doctrine’s most ambitious application yet. By targeting Iran’s nuclear facilities, missile bases, and leadership, Israel reaffirmed its commitment to existential security, even at the cost of regional escalation and international criticism. However, the operation’s success in delaying Iran’s nuclear ambitions comes with challenges: fortified sites like Fordow, retaliatory risks, and ethical questions about civilian casualties. As of this date, the Israel-Iran conflict remains volatile, with the Begin Doctrine both a shield for Israel’s survival and a catalyst for regional tensions. The doctrine’s future will depend on Israel’s ability to adapt its pre-emptive strategy to an increasingly complex geopolitical landscape.

 

Please Add Value to the write-up with your views on the subject.

 

1878
Default rating

Please give a thumbs up if you  like The Post?

 

Link to the article on the website:-

Israel ‘Spares’ Pakistan Under Its Begin Doctrine! Why IDF Bombed Iraq, Syria & Iran’s Nuclear Facilities But Left Pakistan?

For regular updates, please register your email here:-

Subscribe

 

 

References and credits

To all the online sites and channels.

Pics Courtesy: Internet

Disclaimer:

Information and data included in the blog are for educational & non-commercial purposes only and have been carefully adapted, excerpted, or edited from reliable and accurate sources. All copyrighted material belongs to respective owners and is provided only for wider dissemination.

 

 

References:-

  1. International Atomic Energy Agency. (2025, June 12). Report on Iran’s Nuclear Program Compliance. Vienna: IAEA.
  1. United Nations. (2025, June 13). Statement by Secretary-General António Guterres on Israeli Airstrikes in Iran. New York: United Nations Press Office.
  1. Al Jazeera. (2025, June 14). “Iran Vows ‘Harsh Response’ After Israeli Strikes on Nuclear Sites.” Al Jazeera English.
  1. BBC News. (2025, June 13). “Israel Launches Operation Rising Lion: What We Know About the Strikes on Iran.” BBC World Service.
  1. Reuters. (2025, June 15). “Oil Prices Surge as Israel-Iran Tensions Escalate After Operation Rising Lion.” Reuters.
  1. The Jerusalem Post. (2025, June 13). “Netanyahu: Operation Rising Lion Prevented Nuclear Holocaust.” The Jerusalem Post.
  1. The New York Times. (2025, June 14). “Mossad’s Covert Role in Israel’s Strike on Iran Revealed.” The New York Times.
  1. Center for Strategic and International Studies. (2025, June 14). Operation Rising Lion: Assessing Israel’s Strike on Iran’s Nuclear Program. Washington, DC: CSIS.
  1. Institute for National Security Studies. (2025, June 15). The Geopolitical Fallout of Operation Rising Lion. Tel Aviv: INSS.
  1. Israel Defence Forces. (2025, June 13). Official Statement on Operation Rising Lion. Jerusalem: IDF Press Office.
  1. U.S. Department of State. (2025, June 13). Press Briefing by Secretary of State Marco Rubio on Israel-Iran Conflict. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of State.
  1. Bergman, Ronen. (2018). Rise and Kill First: The Secret History of Israel’s Targeted Assassinations. New York: Random House.
  1. Pollack, Kenneth M. (2021). The Persian Puzzle: Iran’s Strategic Challenge. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press.

Posted on

624: F-35 Stealth Vs Beast Mode

 

Israel’s recent revelation about deploying the F-35 in beast mode, carrying weapons externally during aerial strikes, prompts a deeper exploration. This strategic decision, while compromising the aircraft’s stealth, is a calculated move. The understanding of going beast mode over Gaza, with its negligible air defence, is clear. However, the prospect of employing this mode in Lebanon or Iran, with their formidable air defences, presents a complex operational challenge. This raises the question: what are the operational intricacies of using the beast mode in such scenarios?

 

The F-35, in its ‘stealth mode,’ carries weapons internally, effectively reducing its radar signature. However, when it transitions to ‘beast mode,’ carrying weapons externally, it sacrifices this stealth advantage for increased firepower. This Trade-off is a crucial consideration in military operations.

 

In “beast mode,” it carries additional munitions on external pylons. This configuration increases the aircraft’s radar cross-section (RCS), making it more detectable by enemy radar.

 

Beast mode increases the F-35’s firepower by allowing it to carry more ordnance, maximising strike efficiency against numerous ground targets.

 

However, Israel’s use of the F-35 in beast mode likely depends on the specific operational environment and objectives.

 

The Beast Mode can be used in the following operational scenarios:-

    • The enemy has no air defence capability or weapons.
    • SEAD (Suppression of Enemy Air Defences) missions have degraded the enemy’s radar and SAM capabilities.
    • One way to mitigate the risks of flying in beast mode is by staying out of the enemy’s air defence weapons range. This can be achieved through intelligence-supported operational planning and/or stand-off attacks. The role of intelligence and meticulous planning in these operations cannot be overstated.
    • Using escort and suppression support from electronic warfare platforms to mitigate the risks of flying in beast mode.

 

Low Threat Environment (Gaza Strikes). Against Hamas and other militant groups in Gaza, stealth is unnecessary since they lack sophisticated radar-guided air defences. Beast mode can be used in a risk environment to maximise firepower.

 

Lebanon (Hezbollah) Strikes. Hezbollah has comparatively more advanced air defence capabilities than Hamas, including Iranian-made radars and some older Russian SAMs. Beast mode can be used in a medium-risk environment by avoiding enemy air defences.

 

Iran Strikes—A Different Challenge. Iran operates a more sophisticated air defence network. Using beast mode over Iran would be risky because the F-35 would be much more visible on Iranian radar, and Iran’s long-range SAMs could engage the aircraft before it reaches the target. Beast mode can be used in a high-risk environment after neutralising enemy air defences.

 

Link to the article by Sakshi Tiwari :-

After 1st Combat Use Of F-35, Israel Achieves Another First By Flying Adir Stealth Fighters In “Beast Mode”

Please Do Comment.

 

1878
Default rating

Please give a thumbs up if you  like The Post?

 

For regular updates, please register your email here:-

Subscribe

 

 

References and credits

To all the online sites and channels.

Pics Courtesy: Internet

Disclaimer:

Information and data included in the blog are for educational & non-commercial purposes only and have been carefully adapted, excerpted, or edited from reliable and accurate sources. All copyrighted material belongs to respective owners and is provided only for wider dissemination.

 

English हिंदी