Six days into the war between the United States, Israel and Iran, bombardments are intensifying – as are questions about how long the conflict can last, whether air defence systems can keep up and what a victory over Iran would mean. Retired general François Chauvancy spoke to RFI about Iran’s ability to resist and whether the US and its allies can sustain the current pace of the war.
Since the weekend, Iranian forces have fired hundreds of missiles and thousands of drones, testing interception systems across the Middle East and raising concerns about whether existing stockpiles can sustain weeks of high-intensity fighting.
Strikes again targeted Tehran on Thursday, while Israel also launched military operations against Lebanon.
The confrontation now stretches beyond the original frontlines, putting pressure on missile defence systems across the region as Israel and Gulf states attempt to intercept large numbers of incoming weapons.
Even if the US and Israel appear to hold the military advantage, analysts say Iran can still cause serious damage – through missiles, drones and other forms of hybrid warfare that are harder to stop.
Iran is a vast country, with a population of around 90 million, and a security system that's been built up over nearly five decades. Its leadership has long framed confrontation with the US and Israel as a central strategic challenge.
French general François Chauvancy, editor-in-chief of the journal Défense de l’Union-IHEDN, published by the alumni association of France’s Institute for Advanced National Defence Studies, says even a weakened Iran still has the capacity to prolong the conflict.
With oil once again a weapon in the Middle East, is clean energy the key to peace?
RFI: On the sixth day of this war, do you think Pentagon chief Pete Hegseth is right to say the Americans and Israelis have gained the advantage over Iran?
François Chauvancy: I would put it this way – the Americans and Israelis have "regained" the advantage. Winning a war is something quite different. Militarily, today, the Iranians are without doubt considerably weakened, but they still retain a strong capacity to cause harm. There will be no victory in this war unless it ultimately leads to negotiations on a defined political framework. So for now, I think it is a little presumptuous to say the war has been won by the Americans.
RFI: How do you assess Iran’s capacity to resist the United States’ firepower? Does it surprise you or was it predictable?
FC: I think it was predictable. You have a territory that is three times the size of France and a security system that's been in place for 47 years. So this is a country that has been preparing for war. Let us not forget that originally the enemy was the “great Satan” and the “little Satan” [terms used by Iran’s leaders to refer to the United States and Israel].
Today they are ready for war. The question is whether they have the equipment and the material to win. I don't think so. But they can still cause serious damage. And above all there is a determining factor – they have the will to fight, even to the point of martyrdom. That is part of their DNA. Someone willing to fight to the death without hesitation in order to reach paradise is a moral force that is extremely difficult to defeat using military means alone.
RFI: President Donald Trump says the war could last a month or more. Can the US sustain that? And will it be able to support Israel and the Gulf states at the same intensity?
FC: That is the real question. There is a lot of contradictory information, but there are points worth noting. Two or three weeks ago, the Pentagon and Trump ordered defence manufacturers to be able to produce ammunition and equipment quickly and efficiently – even if that meant refusing dividends to shareholders and saying the priority was supplying weapons.
The second point is that about two weeks ago an agreement was signed with a US defence manufacturer to produce Tomahawk missiles, up to 1,000 units. Today the United States is thought to have around 4,000.
How the war in Iran is testing Europe’s US military base network
RFI: These are interceptor missiles?
FC: Exactly – long-range interceptor missiles with a range of up to 1,600 kilometres. Today the US military machine is shifting into gear. But will it be enough? Because you do not produce Tomahawks in 10 days.
RFI: How long does it take to rebuild stocks? And how much does it cost?
FC: The United States already has a defence budget of $1 trillion, with a promise from Donald Trump to raise it to $1.5 trillion. But you are right about the delays. I don't know the exact timeframes, but when I see that in our own country it takes months and months to produce a missile, it must be roughly the same for the US.
So full effectiveness will only come in a few months. We simply have to assume that American stocks today are sufficient for a war lasting several weeks. There is also another aspect. Let's not forget the constitutional issue in the United States, which prevents Trump from waging war beyond 60 days without receiving permissionn from Congress.
RFI: Coming back to those stockpiles, the Gulf countries have been heavily targeted by Tehran over the past six days. In the United Arab Emirates, 172 of 186 Iranian ballistic missiles were intercepted, as well as 755 Iranian drones out of 812. One imagines a country like the UAE may already have used up a large part of its interceptor missile stocks.
FC: I can't answer that. What I do know is that the defence budgets of these states have been enormous. Iran’s defence budget is around $8 billion according to specialised publications. The United Arab Emirates spends about $20 billion, Saudi Arabia about $70 billion and Israel about $35 billion. When you look at those figures, you see that military capabilities have been built up over many years.
Now, facing the missile threat, it is a good question. Long-range missiles are handled by the THAAD system, one of the eight anti-missile systems currently sold by the US. But there is also the question of drones. Neither side really has good interception systems for them. It is a relatively new weapon and often easily adapted for military use, which means we don't always have the means to destroy them. So missiles and drones will certainly get through, despite all the barriers that are put in place.
What could Macron's French nuclear umbrella mean for Europe?
RFI: Would one solution for Washington be to target the missile launchers inside Iran directly?
FC: That's already happening. Estimates last year put the number of launchers between 200 and 400. Some were destroyed in June last year and several more have been destroyed recently. That much is clear. There are reports from the American side suggesting that the fear among missile crews is so great that sometimes the equipment is abandoned.
Above all, there is another important factor that may relate to what Hegseth said. Today the airspace is uncontested for the US and Israelis. There is no longer any Iranian air defence and no Iranian air force. So the skies are controlled by Israel and the US. They strike when they want, where they want, anywhere across Iranian territory.
RFI: On the Iranian side, which allied groups could it rely on?
FC: According to reports, the Kurds would rather fight against the Iranians. The Houthis, on the other hand, have not shown great offensive capacity so far, even though they have missiles and drones.
Another question concerns the stability of the Iranian population in the face of all these strikes. About 60 percent of Iranians are Persians, around 20 percent are Kurds and 10 percent are Azeris. Strikes in the Azerbaijani regions could potentially create problems, since there are more Azeris in Iran than in Azerbaijan itself.
This interview has been adapted from the original version in French and lightly edited for clarity.
