Why US aircraft losses were higher than Israel in Iran war? Air Marshal explains key tactical factors

The Middle East conflict has been ongoing for 43 days, with peace talks now scheduled in Pakistan. Amid this evolving situation, a key question being discussed is why reported US aircraft losses appear significantly higher compared to Israel during the course of the conflict.

Retired Air Marshal Sanjeev Kapoor has analysed the differing aircraft loss patterns between the US and Israel during the Iran conflict, attributing the variation to differences in operational environment, early air defence suppression, and misjudgements regarding Iran’s response capability.

Kapoor said Israel maintained constant operational readiness due to its proximity to conflict zones including Lebanon, Syria and Iran. He noted that during what he referred to as “Operation Rising Lion,” Israeli forces were able to significantly degrade Iranian air defence systems in western and central regions early in the conflict. He said this early neutralisation of air defences allowed Israel to shape the air campaign more effectively in subsequent phases.

Also Read: Iran used 3 planes, 2 decoys to avoid Israeli assassination before US-Iran talks in Pakistan: Watch viral video

US operations faced stronger resistance in southern sectors

In contrast, Kapoor said US forces operating in southern sectors of Iran encountered stronger defensive networks, which increased operational risks during missions. He added that early expectations in Washington reportedly assumed a rapid breakdown of Iranian resistance and possible regime change, which did not materialise as anticipated.

According to Kapoor, Iranian air defence systems recovered faster than expected after initial strikes, leading to renewed operational challenges for US forces. He suggested that this recovery changed the trajectory of the conflict and exposed gaps in early strategic assumptions about Iran’s defensive capacity.

Kapoor said early confidence in swift air dominance proved inaccurate, underscoring the importance of not underestimating adversary capabilities in modern warfare. He added that the episode highlights how initial tactical success does not always translate into sustained strategic advantage. Quoting strategist Henry Kissinger, Kapoor said that in conventional warfare failure to achieve victory amounts to defeat, while in irregular warfare a stalemate can be considered success for the resisting side. He suggested Iran’s ability to absorb early strikes and reorganise its defences reflected this principle.

Also Read: Delhi Police warns ISI spreading network in India, nabs 11 for installing CCTV cameras at sensitive military locations

‘Hydra technique’ and decentralised Iranian command structure

Kapoor also described Iran’s command system as a “hydra technique,” under which provincial commanders were given operational autonomy across multiple regions. He said this decentralised structure allowed faster decision-making and improved battlefield resilience in the absence of direct central instructions.

Kapoor said the developments offer broader lessons for modern air forces, stressing that adaptability and resilient command structures are crucial after initial setbacks in high-intensity conflicts.