The decision not to name the adversary nation lays bare a truth at the core of Hollywood filmmaking: big-budget action movies are business ventures, not works of art.
The Trump administration’s decision to launch a Northrop Grumman B-2 Spirit stealth bomber raid against Iran in June—its so-called “Operation Midnight Hammer”—elicited striking parallels to the climax of Top Gun: Maverick, in which Tom Cruise’s character leads a mission to infiltrate hostile airspace and destroy a uranium enrichment facility hidden in mountainous terrain. However, while the adversary in the film bears a striking resemblance to Iran, the identity of the hostile nation is left intentionally ambiguous for political reasons.
Shockingly, the Mysterious “Enemy” Nation Probably Isn’t Iran
Of course, Iran is the closest parallel to a real-world US adversary—as evident by how the film hammers the phrase “uranium enrichment facility,” echoing decades of reportage on Iran’s centrifuge complexes. However, when the film’s climactic mission begins, the Iran parallel falls apart quickly.
For one thing, the terrain represented in the film does not remotely resemble Iran, as its geography predominantly consists of desert and arid mountain ranges, rather than snowbound alpine valleys. The terrain in the film more closely resembles the Caucasus or Siberia than the Iranian plateau.
A second strike against the Iran hypothesis is the planes that Maverick and his young protege, Rooster, fight against bear no resemblance to Iran’s air force. Iranian pilots fly ancient F-4 Phantoms and F-14 Tomcats, not the fifth-generation stealth fighters depicted in the film. Iran also lacks a state-of-the-art integrated air defense network, as depicted in the film.
In short, from a technological standpoint, the adversary depicted in the film would be considerably more dangerous than Iran. This leaves several options—only one of which has the terrain, planes, and technical sophistication to match the enemy nation in the film.
Why Russia Is a Better Fit for the Film
Off the bat, Russia seems like a much better fit for the film’s adversarial identity. Its mountains near the Caucasus, SAM batteries which resemble S-400s, and Su-57 fifth-generation stealth aircraft all make Russia a far better candidate for the mysterious adversary shown in the film.
Why was Russia not openly named as the enemy, then? When Top Gun: Maverick was released in May 2022, only months after the invasion of Ukraine, tensions between the United States and Russia were at an all-time high. An overt depiction of Russian villains likely would have caused unwanted controversy, perhaps jeopardizing the film’s distribution in specific markets. Ultimately concerned with their bottom line, Paramount hedged to maximize global box office revenues.
Paramount’s decision was a balancing act. While the adversary depicted in the film feels real, the movie never explicitly states the enemy’s identity, allowing audiences to fill in the blanks with whoever they want to see as the prime adversary. Whoever the audience decides upon as the movie’s villain, Paramount can maintain plausible deniability.
The decision lays bare a truth at the core of Hollywood filmmaking: big-budget action movies are business ventures, not works of art. Hollywood enjoys global reach and hard-fought access into international markets that, in some respects, are more profitable than domestic markets. Naming the adversary risks the film facing boycotts or censorship in specific markets, restricting the film’s market access and profit. Paramount, which had delayed the release of Top Gun: Maverick for two years to ride out the COVID-19 pandemic, was unwilling to attach a name to the hostile nation represented in the film and risk what proved to be the industry’s comeback moment.
About the Author: Harrison Kass
Harrison Kass is a senior defense and national security writer at The National Interest. Kass is an attorney and former political candidate who joined the US Air Force as a pilot trainee before being medically discharged. He focuses on military strategy, aerospace, and global security affairs. He holds a JD from the University of Oregon and a master’s in Global Journalism and International Relations from NYU
Image: Wikimedia Commons.
