Good point
@Iskander !
But you have also to remember that those airfields on the ground have 10 times more layered and complex air defences than any city. To overcome those defences is not a simple task. To Shayrat, the US fired 59 Tomahawk missiles. According to Russian sources 23 hit their targets.
Including UK and French missiles, there were 103 missiles’s fired at Shayrat. Some never made it to shore. But in total 71 missiles were intercepted by Syrian air defences. Even a country like Syria could defend their airbase to a certain degree. US an Israeli air bases would be much better protected.
Among The Airbases you want to destroy lie the aircraft carriers. They are the floating air bases and are even harder to hit. As well as its own AD systems, it has 3 to 4 Arleigh Burke Class destroyers and Virginia Class nuclear subs to defend it. Short of a nuclear strike, it is a bloody hard job to destroy a carrier group.
Reports say US Tomahawk missiles used to target Syria, as UK and France deploy Tornado, Mirage and Rafale jets.
www.aljazeera.com
Even with a multi-layered system, there's no such thing as an impenetrable air defense...
Many sources estimate the number of Iranian missiles at 3,000. Many believe this is a lot. In fact, it's not enough.
If the missiles aren't very accurate, then more must be produced so that quantity becomes... quality! (This is exactly what the Russians are doing, and it applies not only to their missiles.)
You may remember that here, during a discussion of Turkish missile production, when someone mentioned the figure of 400, I suggested increasing it tenfold!
Actually, I felt awkward mentioning "8,000."

Yes, I understand that it's very expensive, but there's a general understanding that nothing is more valuable than a country's security! Especially in these turbulent times, with two major wars raging around us. It's also important to consider that the Turkish Air Force is aging, air defenses are also not strong enough.
There are other methods of penetrating air defenses, such as multiple warheads. I'm not an expert on Iranian missiles or missiles in general, but in my opinion, Iranian missiles have only one warhead. Some of their heavy missiles have warheads weighing a ton or a ton and a half. But what if they were divided into 10-20 parts?! Then the enemy would have to increase the number of anti-aircraft missiles accordingly. And they're expensive.
10-20 kg is usually enough to destroy an aircraft. (A lot depends on accuracy.)
Speaking about the Iranian war, I must say I was very disappointed with the Iranians, even though I had a general idea of their weaponry.
The Iranians are brave, but in the age of technology, in the era of non-contact warfare, that, unfortunately, means little.
The Iranians have a strange understanding of modern warfare.

Israel also has vulnerabilities, for example, its land borders. The attack on Israel on October 7 was precisely such an incident. Incidentally, Iran's decade-long efforts to establish bases in Syria, right on the border with Israel, were no accident.
The ayatollahs, so to speak, were preparing for a classic war
It should be added that not all interstate problems are resolved militarily. There is also diplomacy.
Undoubtedly, today, Iranian politicians who have not yet been assassinated understand that they made a mistake at the very beginning of their so-called revolution: was it worth Iran's while to intervene in the Arab-Israeli conflict?!

Before these militant ayatollahs came to power, Iran was developing at an incredible pace and possessed the best air force in the Middle East. The ayatollahs recklessly began a feud with the United States and very quickly destroyed... their own air force.
What did the ayatollahs achieve? The unification of the Islamic world? How could they have done this, being a Shiite country? This is absurd!
Over the past 47 years, the ayatollahs have made countless mistakes, and today poor iranians is paying for them.
