I think because drones impact at the time is because it's filling an previously untapped niche with a cheap and ridiculously useful alternative. In my mind I'm

I think because drones impact at the time is because it's filling an previously untapped niche with a cheap and ridiculously useful alternative. In my mind I'm calling it "squad-level-airpower" , regular airpower started with spotters, then fighters and CAS in WW1. By WW2 it had expanded the role to achieve operation and theater levels goals, and finally with nukes also a strategic level, and still remains required to achieve goals on larger levels. However with air-defences creeping down to MANPADS, CAS became more problematic and adding then the cost of planes and pilots made it far from universally useful in a close war. Drones being man-luggable and -operatable and cheap with hardly any infrastructure more or less flooded a that useful niche, and it's not like that niche was unsurprising, just not successfully exploited previously as the US army tried with the VZ-1 and HZ-1. Like you mentioned with the Iran conflict, classic air superiority still holds the crown to achieve larger goals on strategic levels (even if drones helped out on an tactical level). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hiller_VZ-1_Pawnee https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hiller_VZ-1_Pawnee https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/De_Lackner_HZ-1_Aerocycle https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/De_Lackner_HZ-1_Aerocycle