ConflictClarifier

2026伊朗-海湾危机追踪
CC
Events Archive
strikeMar 14, 2026

Cheap drones that fly close to ground, Russian tactics: How Iran is standing up to US, Israel

Summary

Cheap drones that fly close to ground, Russian tactics: How Iran is standing up to US, Israel Shahed drones run on motorcycle engines and carry warheads weighing between 25 and 50kg. In some cases, they are made using materials such as styrofoam Fifteen days into the military conflict between the United States, backed by Israel, and Iran, bombing has continued across the Islamic Republic as well as West Asia. Tehran has responded by sending a swarm of low-cost Shahed drones across Israel and the Gulf states, targeting military installations and energy infrastructure in the region. These drones are easier to deploy but difficult to destroy on the ground. The United States has claimed that it is degrading Iran’s capacity to launch attacks is being weakened day by day. Even so, the barrage of drone strikes has forced the US and its allies to use protection systems designed primarily to counter more advanced weapons. Follow | Iran-US war live updates ALSO READ | Why is Kharg Island crucial to Iran's oil network? Inside ‘crown jewel’ struck by US as war escalates Seemingly, the US did not fully expect the scale of Iran’s retaliation to strikes that have killed more than 1,400 people in the country, including former supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei. Trump has been pressing Iran for “unconditional surrender”, yet Tehran has refused to give in. Instead, it has expanded the conflict into the Gulf, slowed the movement of oil and gas through the Strait of Hormuz, and pushed global energy prices sharply higher. Former US officials and military specialists told the Financial Times that Iran has managed this by using intelligence inputs, lessons taken from Russia, satellite images and its geographical closeness to target American bases. And the low-cost drones have played a big role in its retaliation so far. Iran’s Shahed drones: Backbone of retaliation Iranian forces have launched more than 3,000 missiles and drones towards US allies in the Gulf, along with hundreds directed at Israel. Earlier this week, attacks struck tankers and merchant ships, an Omani port, areas near Dubai’s airport, an oil refinery in Abu Dhabi and Kuwait’s airport. Many of these operations involve Iran’s one-way attack drones, including the Shaheds. These drones cost far less than the missiles that advanced US defence systems were built to intercept. The drones run on motorcycle engines and carry warheads weighing between 25 and 50kg. In some cases, they are made using materials such as styrofoam. They are much cheaper than missiles, easier to launch, and difficult to destroy on the ground, since launch rails can be fixed onto pickup trucks and moved quickly from one location to another. Experts told FT that these drones can strike precise targets using satellite navigation or even computer vision. Unlike ballistic missiles, these drones fly close to the ground and do not follow fixed flight trajectories. They can move just above the surface of the Gulf, reducing their radar visibility, according to the report. Yuri Lyamin, from the Moscow-based Centre for Analysis of Strategies and Technologies, told the publication that Iran’s early attacks appeared to be aimed “primarily at blinding US forces and their allies in the region by destroying various radars”. ALSO READ | US made a 'tactical error' that is costing them heavily in war against Iran Fighting US-Israel’s expensive systems The relatively low price and accurate targeting of Iranian suicide drones make it easier for Iran to deploy them in large numbers. The US and its regional partners use a network of THAAD, Patriot and other air defence systems to shoot down missiles, drones and rockets launched by Iran and its allied militias across the region. These air defence systems depend on radar to detect incoming threats. The equipment involved is often rare and extremely costly. The conflict has also used up a large number of US interceptor missiles deployed to stop incoming attacks, The Wall Street Journal reported. Let's talk numbers A Shahed-136 costs around $20,000. In comparison, a Patriot missile used by the US for defence costs about $4 million, according to the Council on Foreign Relations in the US. This means that even when an Iranian drone is shot down, the cost of interception places a heavy financial burden on the country’s enemies. This has been described as “using a bazooka to kill a fly”. One of the major strikes targeted an advanced early warning radar system at Qatar’s Al-Udeid, which hosts the largest American military base in the region. The strike damaged the AN/FPS-132 radar and affected how it operates, WSJ reported citing satellite images and a US official. Notably, the AN/FPS-132 is a wide-aperture radar that can track multiple targets simultaneously. The US has five of these fixed radar systems as part of its North American warning network, which is meant to protect the country from possible incoming missiles, according to the International Institute for Strategic Studies, a defence think tank. Each of these systems can cost up to a billion dollars. Iran is now launching fewer missiles compared to the first wave of attacks carried out after the US and Israeli offensive. However, its drone strikes have largely continued at a steady pace. During the first two days of the conflict, Iran launched more than 500 drones. After that, the UAE has continued to face over 100 drone attacks each day, according to its defence ministry. Iran is believed to be capable of producing thousands of drones. It has also exported these drones to Russia. Moscow has used Iranian drones, along with similar versions produced in Russia, in its strikes on Ukraine. Russia's experience with drones also helping Iran? Experts say Iran has learned from Russia’s wartime use of a version of the Shahed drones in Ukraine. Lyamin told FT that Iran learned to launch drones toward the same target along different paths rather than sending them in tight groups, making them harder to intercept. Some Iranian drones also appear to include Russian technology that helps them resist jamming, Fabian Hoffman, a missile warfare expert at the University of Oslo, told the publication. Experts say, and Iran has also repeatedly warned, that some of Tehran’s most advanced missiles and drones have not yet been used in the conflict. This includes the Qassem Basir, a hypersonic missile that uses optical guidance, although Iran is believed to have only a small number of them. With inputs from agencies

Actors involved

USIranIsrael

Sources

See this event through different lenses

Compare how Western, Iranian, Israeli, Global South, and Pro-Peace perspectives frame this event.

Compare Perspectives

Community Notes

Community Notes

Loading notes...

Related events

strikeUnverifiedUSIsraelIranUN
1 source

The US and its allies Britain, France and Germany are pushing other countries on the UN nuclear watchdog's board to pass a resolution next week reporting Iran to the UN Security Council for the first time in 20 years, diplomats said on Friday. If passed, the resolution would follow up on one adopted on June 12 of last year declaring Iran in breach of its non-proliferation obligations for not fully cooperating with an investigation into uranium traces found at undeclared sites.

The US launched an air war against Tehran on February 28 in which, together with Israel, it destroyed or badly damaged Iran's uranium-enrichment facilities. Iran has not let International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) inspectors return to the bombed sites since then or verify what remains of its stocks of enriched uranium, some of which was enriched to up to 60% purity, a short step from weapons grade.

Resolution would be culmination of standoff over IAEA's access to nuclear sites A resolution by the IAEA's 35-nation board reporting Iran to the Security Council would also be the culmination of a standoff over IAEA access to those sites, since the board has passed two resolutions in the past year demanding Iran declare its enriched uranium stocks and grant the IAEA full access to verify them.

A draft text for the resolution has yet to be formally submitted to the board and negotiations between countries over the exact wording are ongoing, diplomats said. A draft is usually formally submitted early in the week of a board meeting. As a party to the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), Iran has the right to develop nuclear technology, including enrichment, for peaceful purposes.

Iran says it would never produce nuclear weapons. It is, however, the only country to enrich to 60% without making a bomb. The amount it has enriched to that level is "a matter of serious concern" to the IAEA. The IAEA believes well over 200 kg of that highly enriched uranium has survived the bombardments and is held in a tunnel complex at Isfahan and at the Natanz facility.

Location: Jerusalem
strikeUnverifiedUSIranChina
1 source

The U.S. Treasury imposed sanctions on the Turkish bank Golden Global Yatirim Bankasi Anonim Sirketi, alleging it facilitated the transfer of Iranian oil revenues into cash and gold. Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent stated these measures are part of "Operation Economic Outcast," an initiative launched following more than six months of conflict to pressure Iran.

Location: Iran
strikeUnverifiedUSIsraelIranEURussiaChinaUkraineHamas
1 source

Rabobank reported that geopolitical developments, including Russian statements regarding potential peace talks in Ukraine and US-Iran hostilities, continue to dominate market sentiment, though analysts noted these claims remain unverified. The bank also cited unconfirmed reports that South Korea may deploy forces to the Strait of Hormuz and that Israel has stated regime change in Tehran is a primary objective, while noting that Ukrainian media reports of an impending northern Russian offensive lack independent verification.

Location: Tehran
strikeUnverifiedUSIsraelIranRussiaUkraine
1 source

The White House is now apparently using Russian tactics to convince the American public that the war in Iran is not, in fact, a war. When asked by reporters at the White House on Thursday whether the most intense sustained air campaign by American forces since the invasion of Iraq would be over by the midterms, Vice President JD Vance replied: “I wouldn’t call it a war.

” Vladimir Putin said much the same thing when he invaded Ukraine. Russia was not fighting a war either, the Kremlin insisted; it was merely conducting a “special military operation.” If that comparison strikes you as shocking, consider the contours of the two conflicts.

A vastly more powerful military launched a punishing offensive against a smaller, less well-equipped adversary, inflicted enormous damage without achieving a decisive resolution, and then found itself drawn into a longer, grinding conflict with no clear way out.

The motivations behind the wars may be different, and they’re playing out in different theaters, but the pattern is eerily similar. Now, so too is the attempt by those in power to control how the public understands, and even what it is allowed to call, the obvious war unfolding in front of them.

If This Isn’t a War, What Is? Let us take a moment to assess what exactly has happened since February 28, when the U.S. launched Operation Epic Fury. The opening U.S.-Israeli attack killed Iran’s supreme leader, Ali Khamenei, along with the commander of the Revolutionary Guard, the defense minister and various other senior officials.

According to the U.S. military’s own accounting, the first 38 days of major combat operations involved more than 10,200 sorties and 13,500 strikes. U.S. Central Command (CENTCOM) says those attacks damaged or destroyed more than 85 percent of Iran’s ballistic missile, drone and naval defense industrial base, while knocking out 82 percent of its air-defense missile systems.

The U.S. sent carrier strike groups and warships into the region, later imposing a military blockade on Iranian ports. Meanwhile, American and allied air defenses intercepted more than 6,000 Iranian attack drones and 1,500 ballistic missiles fired at U.

S. forces, Israel and American partners across the Middle East. More than 50,000 U.S. service members remain deployed across the region. The fighting has killed 18 U.S. service members and at least 8,000 people across Iran, Lebanon, Israel and the Gulf states.

More than 750 U.S. service members have been wounded. Last month, during a lull in the fighting, the U.S. Treasury unveiled a sanctions package likened to an “economic D-day” that is designed to make Iran an “economic outcast” and cut the adversary off from all available forms of economic support.

In the announcement, Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent openly declared that Iran had been “at war against America” for 47 years. This week, the shooting resumed; the U.S. hit targets in and around the Strait of Hormuz, and Iran blasted missiles at targets in Kuwait, Bahrain, Jordan and Iraq.

All this from an administration that almost exactly a year ago launched a rapid rebrand of the Defense Department into the “Department of War”. No boots on the ground, though, so it’s not a war, right? Tell It Kind of Like It Is Even the very best snake-oil salesman would have a hard time convincing people that the war in Iran isn’t a war.

So why is JD Vance even trying? Well, if there’s one thing politicians understand better than anyone, it’s the importance of language and rhetoric. Words have immense power; a well-written speech can unite millions of people, and a catchy slogan like Make America Great Again can come to represent an entire political philosophy.

But war is a pesky word. For one, it implies there will eventually be a winner and a loser. It also brings with it certain expectations—and some very difficult questions. What is the objective? How many people will die? When will it end? And, perhaps most dangerously of all: was it worth it?

Those are not questions the White House wants Americans to be asking. Trump built a substantial part of his political identity around ending, rather than beginning, America’s “endless wars.” When Washington and Tehran signed a memorandum of understanding in June, the White House presented it as proof that Trump’s America First approach could deliver peace without another prolonged Middle Eastern conflict.

Then the hostilities started again. Earlier this week, Trump shared a Truth Social graphic declaring that “Hormuz Oil Volumes are BACK!”, saying 18 million barrels a day were once again leaving the Strait, compared with 20 million before the war. No independent commodity tracking company or energy analyst appeared to verify Trump’s claims.

But most Americans won’t be checking tanker-tracking dashboards. What they’ll care about is the cold, hard fact that diesel hit a new record price this morning, soaring to an average of $5.85 a gallon for the first time ever. Gasoline is $4.15 a gallon on average, compared with $3.

20 at this time last year, according to AAA. The numbers on the sign at the gas station and the price on the grocery receipt aren’t affected by Trump’s tall tales, but they’ll surely affect how Americans vote at the midterms. When viewed in this light, Vance’s attempt to discourage reporters from “call[ing] it a war” begins to make sense.

A war is something that we want to end. It tends to result in a winner and a loser. And its worth is up for debate at all times. A different kind of engagement that doesn’t quite meet the threshold of war—say, a special military operation—is not exposed to the same kind of scrutiny.

Vance effectively made that case himself. “When you ask, ‘When will this end?’ You’re asking me a question like, ‘When will the Iranians stop shooting at ships?’” he said. By that logic, there is no American war—only recurring Iranian provocations that require American military responses.

That’s exactly the logic applied by Putin to Ukraine and supposed expansion of NATO. Putting the Toothpaste Back in the Tube U.S. lawmakers have repeatedly invoked the War Powers Resolution to challenge Trump’s authority to keep fighting Iran without specific congressional authorization.

The law generally gives a president 60 days after U.S. forces enter “hostilities” to secure congressional approval or bring those hostilities to an end. That makes the pauses in fighting hugely important. When the original 60-day deadline arrived in May, Trump told Congress that the temporary ceasefire reached in April meant the hostilities that began on February 28 had ended.

Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth argued that the War Powers clock could “pause, or stop” when the shooting did. That position is disputed by legal experts, but its political utility is obvious. If every new outbreak of fighting can be treated as a separate skirmish, rather than part of one continuous war, the administration can argue that a fresh 60-day clock starts each time.

Vance’s insistence that there is no continuing “war” fits neatly for an administration that has already tried to divide six months of conflict into separate periods of hostilities, interrupted by ceasefires and pauses. This brings us back to Moscow.

The Kremlin’s own linguistic trick was also about making one sprawling war sound smaller, more limited and more manageable than it really was. From the very beginning of the invasion, Putin described the war as a special military operation. Only after two years of grinding warfare did Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov openly declare Russia to be in a “state of war”—and even then, he said the transformation had occurred because the “collective West” had joined the fight against Russia.

Vance is playing a similar game, but in reverse. Only now—with soaring fuel prices, mounting casualties, concerns over the military’s munitions stockpiles, and midterm elections on the horizon—is the conflict no longer a war. You can’t put the genie back in the bottle, though, and the American people aren’t stupid.

Vance and the White House may discover in November that voters are perfectly capable of recognizing a war, even when the vice president doesn’t want to call it one.

Location: Iran