Could ballistic missiles change the balance of power in Syrian Civil War and create conditions for Assad's victory----Answer--No!
Your comment was about fighter jets being a "mortal threat"
to Saudi Arabia. As for Syria, I have already said:
A few dozen to a 100 or so new fighter jets will be needed for Iran in the near future to aid in situations like Syria where aerial bombardment helped turned the tide of the war.
However several dozens of Russian bombers changed the entire balance of power in Syrian Civil War in Assad's favor and the result is Assad's victory
Yes, but the airforce we'd need to do this is different to one you want to create a change in the balance of power vs the Persian Gulf states, Israel etc.
Ballistic missiles are an expensive single shot....
And with those "single shots" you could paralyse a nation with much relative ease compared to a fighter jet. Furthermore, how much does a missile in Iran cost? When you actually look at the costs, you'll realise you can buy 1000's of missiles for a price of even a small number of modern fighter jets. This is what Commander Hajizadeh himself said a while back.
Imagine if you have 1000 ballistic missiles----they can deliver 500 tons of payload (assuming 500kg warhead) and that is all----after you have exhausted your arsenal and delivered 500 tons of payload you are finished.
On the other hand, Fighter/bombers can deliver much more payload in multiple sorties doing much more damage to the enemy.
Like mentioned previously, ballistic missiles in Iran's inventory can deliver a serious blow and are much less vulnerable compared to a fighter jet. The problem with your assumption here is that the jets will not be shot down and will be able to keep doing sorties. When you're against adversaries that have very robust air defence and large number of advanced fighter jets, this is a not a wise assumption.
Iran launched its ballistic missiles, did some damage and quickly exhausted its arsenal of missiles
This "some damage" is clearly inaccurate. The reality is, in a major conflict, Iran will obviously target major sites such as oil facilities, electrical power plants etc, that is not "some damage". You will basically paralyse them. Not to mention if Iran ever actually targeted something more sensitive like desalination plants.
But in the end it is the Saudis who rule the sky and bomb Abadan refinery and Kharg island terminals and bomb invading Iranian army with multiple sorties doing enormous damage and probably stalling the invasion.
You're simplifying things greatly. Iran has a large air defence capability than can seriously downgrade region airforces. And if there is a conflict, the saudis airfields will be one of the first targets. Their air force can do damage, no on the scale you're trying to claim.
And now assume Iran has 100-200 Su-35s----not only Iran can protect its skies and infrastructure from enemy air force, Iran will be able to deliver close air support for its own army, thus guaranteeing its success and ultimate victory (just like in Syrian civil war).
100-200 fighter/bombers in Iranian hand changes the entire balance of power in the Persian Gulf the same way as several dozens of fighter/bombers changed the balance of power in the Syrian Civil War.
And Saudis are terrified of this.
There is a huge difference between fighter jets adding on to a threat faced by the Saudis, then your claims of "mortal threat". Iran being able to protect it's skies better with a 200 or so SU-35s is a different matter than this claim you made. In order for Iran to be able to cause a serious shift in the balance of power, it will need more than just 200 SU-35s. Furthermore, such a large number of fighter jets would take a long time to be fully delivered. Even if Iran were to order this number today, by the time it is fully done, its adversaries will be flying 5th generation fighters. Thus, going back to what I said from the start, Iran needs a few dozen new jets to help it in places like Syria, if it is to go after an airforce to create a true shift in the balance of power, then it will need an extremely large investment which clearly the Iranian planners have no indicated, because their missiles can do a very potent enough job.
Are you comparing ISIS with no infrastructure of its own with a country that actually has infrastructures to protect and worry about?
Iran didn't have a ballistic missile arsenal back then. Sure, we had purchased a few missiles from Libya and Syria, but the number didn't top 50. And missiles were used in the last 2 years of war and they created such a terror that people in both sides wanted the war to end as soon as possible.
Iran's Khorramshahr missile carries up to 1800 kilograms of multiple warheads.
Assuming that there's no air defense, yes. Fighters have pilots. If you shoot down a fighter, the country will lose pilots that it took them years to train. And shooting down a jet fighter where there's good air defense is much easier than a ballistic missile.
By the time Iran exhausts its missiles, there will be no economic or military infrastructure left in Saudi Arabia for them to respond. Their highly oil dependent economy will collapse. Jet fighters need airports. Their airports will be effectively unusable. Their jet fighters won't even get a chance to take off.
As I said, Saudi airports will be inoperable very fast. It will take us less than 10 minutes to completely make their airports inoperable. The good thing about missiles is that you can launch them from almost anywhere, but for jet fighters, you need airports. Also, we have good air defense. Saudi pilots will have a nightmare flying over our skies. We also have good radar coverage over Saudi Arabia.
Our Mig29s and F14s will defend our skies perfectly well. They will not perform well for offensive operations, but they can do very well when it comes to defense over friendly skies. We are mass producing a variety of radards and air defense systems like Khordad 3, Khordad 15 and Bavar-373 to defend our skies.
