Military and strategic expert Colonel Nidhal Abu Zaid raised questions about the true party behind the reported targeting of the Diego Garcia base in the Indian Ocean, suggesting that the timing of the incident may not be coincidental.
He pointed to the coincidence between the reported strike and Britain’s approval allowing the United States to use its military bases, arguing that this alignment may indicate a calculated attempt by a third party to complicate the situation and draw London into the ongoing military operations in the region.
Abu Zaid based his assessment on technical considerations, noting that Iran’s missile capabilities, particularly the “Sejjil” missile, do not exceed a range of approximately 2,000 kilometres, while the distance between Iran and Diego Garcia is around 4,000 kilometres.
An Iranian official had also denied earlier that Tehran carried out any attack on the base.
He further explained that even if Iran attempted to extend the missile’s range by reducing the warhead weight to between 200 and 300 kilograms, this would significantly reduce its destructive effectiveness. Likewise, the use of “Shahed 136” drones, which carry only about 50 kilograms of explosives, would be militarily ineffective for such a mission.
Two Possible Scenarios
According to Abu Zaid, there are two main explanations for the Iranian denial.
The first is that Iran may have launched missiles that failed to reach their target, either being intercepted or falling into the sea before impact, leading to an official denial to conceal an operational failure.
The second, which he described as more strategically dangerous, is that a third party carried out the strike deliberately, timing it to coincide with Britain’s political position in order to expand the conflict and involve London directly.
How Iranian Missiles Strained Israeli Defences
Turning to the battlefield developments, Abu Zaid addressed the failure of Israeli air defence systems to intercept Iranian missiles that caused significant casualties and damage in Dimona and Arad.
He explained that Iran’s use of cluster style missile tactics placed heavy pressure on Israel’s layered air defence systems, including the Iron Dome, David’s Sling, Arrow systems, and the US deployed THAAD system in the Negev.
This sustained pressure exhausted these systems and created gaps, allowing a subsequent missile to penetrate defences and reach the Dimona area.
He suggested that the penetrating missile may have been of the “Nasrallah” type, derived from the Iranian “Qadr” missile, with a key difference being the use of solid fuel instead of liquid fuel.
This distinction provides a major strategic advantage. Liquid fuel missiles require between 10 and 20 minutes of preparation and involve refuelling equipment that can be detected by surveillance systems. In contrast, solid fuel missiles are ready for immediate launch without prior detectable indicators.
The missile is also capable of carrying a warhead weighing between 650 and 700 kilograms, with a range of approximately 1,500 kilometres.
The Economic Burden of Air Defence
Abu Zaid also highlighted the economic dimension of the conflict, noting that interception systems often require two defensive missiles to counter a single incoming missile.
Each interceptor costs approximately 4.1 million dollars, meaning that each interception can cost up to 8.2 million dollars.
This cost imbalance becomes more critical when compared to production capacity. The American company Lockheed Martin produces no more than 550 interceptors annually, and urgent production orders can take between 24 and 30 months to fulfil.
This creates a serious challenge in replenishing depleted stockpiles in the short term.
A War of Attrition
The expert concluded that assessing the success of Iran’s strategy depends largely on the nature and scale of Israel’s response in the coming phase.
While Israel has reportedly moved to secure large ammunition deals, likely including interceptor missiles to restore balance to its defence systems, Iran is also facing increasing depletion of its ballistic missile stockpile and launch platforms.
This dynamic reflects an intensifying war of attrition, where both sides are gradually exhausting their resources, turning the conflict into a prolonged and costly confrontation.
