Featured IRANIAN NUCLEAR SCIENTIST ASSASSINATED: STATE TV NEWS

[Xerxes22]

your perspective is devoid of logic

Address me directly if you're going to poke fun at my objectively true argument, if you have something worthwhile to say then say it, don't pollute the thread with childish "jokes" no one cares about.

Your argument is precisely wat the other guy described it. totaly illogical. It makes zero sense. Here's your point:

IRANIAN conventional weapon is obsolete if they get nukes. Hence, Iran shudnt get it. This is the lamest arguement ive witnessed on the Iranian thread. This doesnt make sense because:

1. There is no logic in the idea that iran cant attack Israel with conventional missiles while in possession of nukes. You made the point that, If iran attacks Israel with conventional weapons while having no nukes then Israel wud only attack by conventional means too. Where is the guarantee in this? Infact it doesnt even sound logical.

2. Lets say Iran has nukes and It attacks Israel with conventional missiles. Why the hell wud Israel retaliate with nukes? To get nuked back right after? this is where ur arguement is illogical.

Rather the logic is that there is more probability of Iran-Israel having a conventional exchange if they both have nukes. The essence of ur arguement is that it doesnt take nukes as DETERRENT into account. Which is why u say illogical stuff like, nukes wud make conventional weapons obsolete whilst not taking into account that nukes are the only thing that makes conventional warfare more probable.

There is more chance of Iran attacking Israel with conventional weapons while having nukes and get a conventional retaliation by Israel rather than the other way around. Why shud Israel care? Your arguement is that not having nukes allows Iran to use conventional missiles? How so? This is where the error of ur arguement lies. How does it allows it ? do u know if Israel wont just nuke iran and destroy it in response? So ur wrong. Only if Iran attacks them while having nukes is there is a greater chance of Israel also using conventional weapons.

Atleast In the case of Iran and Israel this is how things are

This is also why a Hypothetical war between Russia and US wud only go as far as a limited conventional weapons exchange and thats all. They can both blow each other off the planet. But imagine if russia didnt have Nukes and only Conventional missiles. It wud get invaded tomorrow and blown to hell with nukes.


So yes, theres a reason im laughing at wat u said. No reason to call me childish or watever. Look at my comment, I said nothing personal about you. We are on the same side in the end.

 

[foxhoundbis]

Hello, I don't know to spread fake news, but just to ask you to check if this news is true :

Breaking/Exclusive: Iran Assassinates Mossad Chief in Downtown Tel Aviv (updated/videos/proof) | VT Foreign Policy

www.veteranstoday.com

In my view, Iran is largely capable to do some operations. This website is not known to speak fake news. As many of you know Iran better than me, I just ask you to confirm.

 

[Shapur Zol Aktaf]

Hello, I don't know to spread fake news, but just to ask you to check if this news is true :

Breaking/Exclusive: Iran Assassinates Mossad Chief in Downtown Tel Aviv (updated/videos/proof) | VT Foreign Policy

www.veteranstoday.com

In my view, Iran is largely capable to do some operations. This website is not known to speak fake news. As many of you know Iran better than me, I just ask you to confirm.

Probably fake news spread by fake journalist working for Tasnim news agency. Shame we've so much fake journalists writing garage, remember fake news after attack on American base (60/70 US soldiers died). I dont consider this fakery as psyops.

 

[aryobarzan]

Probably fake news spread by fake journalist working for Tasnim news agency. Shame we've so much fake journalists writing garage, remember fake news after attack on American base (60/70 US soldiers died). I dont consider this fakery as psyops.

I read something very interesting on this.
Apparently Israeli tactic after every major hit to an adversary is to give the adversary a "way out" of revenge cycle. The method they use is to fake a hit on themselves . The fake hit must be organized in a way that the adversary can take credit for it..This will reduce the public anger and pressure from the leadership of the adversary and results in NO real hit on themself. Sounds funny but it makes a lots of sense. They apparently have done this in many occasions with high profile hits on Palestinians...
Conclusion: The enemy is smart but also afraid of retaliation!..lol

 

[Blue In Green]

@Xerxes22

If what I put forward was "totally illogical" then what Iran has been doing for past 30-40 years has also been "totally illogical" since what I said is what Iran has been doing to a tee for past several decades.... You guys tend to want to think that your rationale, one that apparently isn't shared by Iranian leadership, is somehow the right rationale to have yet we see the Iranians doing something else entirely, care to explain that one?

Seems as though I'm choosing this hill to die-on... So be it.

-- "1. There is no logic in the idea that iran cant attack Israel with conventional missiles while in possession of nukes. You made the point that, If iran attacks Israel with conventional weapons while having no nukes then Israel wud only attack by conventional means too. Where is the guarantee in this? Infact it doesnt even sound logical."

Thanks for not grasping the original intent of my argument, the scenario in which Israel nukes Iran in return would be to due directly with how Iran responds to any sort of overt attack by Israeli proper. Like I said before, the issue doesn't lie necessarily with the weapons used but escalatory measures implemented by either nation respectively.

Each country (Iran, Israel) when engaged in combat will gauge their options for reciprocal actions against one another with the presumed goal of completing military objectives without resorting immediately to the last option, which would be nukes. Iran will use their conventional ballistic missiles (and drones, and cruise missiles, and proxies, and cyber-attacks etc...) in a tactical manner as to complete certain battle-field objectives as well as strategic ones without risking nuclear retaliation due the attacks themselves being gauged as to not push Israel too far, so-to-speak. You don't automatically, at the start of hostilities, push your enemy to resort to drastic options if you can help it.... I thought this point was abundantly clear when I originally made it, seems as though I didn't properly explain myself, although this assertion was more implied rather than outright stated, so my apologies there.

No nation, especially one like Israel, is going to risk not nuking Iran back if they see on their radars that several dozen, if not hundreds (or thousands) of ballistic warheads are coming their way by a newly crowned nuclear weapon capable nation (Iran) which has (according to them) wished and planned for its destruction. Again, it's completely logical to see why Israel would respond to an Iranian (now nuclear capable) conventional ballistic missile strike with a nuclear attack of their own. THE POLICY OF M.A.D. APPLIES TO IRAN THE SECOND IT ACQUIRES NUCLEAR WEAPONS. Israel doesn't know what Iran's intent is behind a ballistic missile strike and the only thing helping Iran to be not get nuked currently is the fact that Iran has no nuclear warhead arsenal reducing (not completely removing) the "existential threat" factor in any future conflict.

This idiotic thought that Israel will simply nuke Tehran or Qom back because Iran sent conventional warheads towards purely military (or adjacent) targets is preposterous. Iran is recognized by the world as not having a nuclear weapons stockpile (for now). So I highly doubt Israel would want to be the bane of the world by committing the ultimate act of atrocity through immediate use of nukes during the opening stages of a conflict against a non-nuclear armed state (Iran).

-- " 2. Lets say Iran has nukes and It attacks Israel with conventional missiles. Why the hell wud Israel retaliate with nukes? To get nuked back right after? this is where ur arguement is illogical."

Just read what you've wrote and apply some holistic knowledge to it then get you'll realize why I said what it is I said in the first place.

Israel's policy regarding Iran, especially their rhetoric and their actions that multiple various governmental officials (U.S., Israeli etc..) have hinted at, would lend credence to the idea that in the event Iran does acquire nukes, any sort of attack by Iran will have a higher chance of being met with a nuclear retaliation of some sort right off the bat. Guys like Collin Powel even stated Israel has nukes directly pointed at Iran and some time ago, Yavar had said there are nuclear cruise missile equipped Israeli submarines in somewhat close proximity to Iranian shores (idk the veracity of this statement) but the threat of nuclear retaliation is clearly present.

My entire argument, the one that Iran presumedly is operating under, hinges primarily on the increased threat level Iran would be under in the event they openly admit to having nuclear weapons capability.

-- " Rather the logic is that there is more probability of Iran-Israel having a conventional exchange if they both have nukes. The essence of ur arguement is that it doesnt take nukes as DETERRENT into account. Which is why u say illogical stuff like, nukes wud make conventional weapons obsolete whilst not taking into account that nukes are the only thing that makes conventional warfare more probable."

I always viewed nukes as a general deterrent against any overt military hostilities in the first-place rather than a mitigating factor in a conflict between two-nations. Nuclear equipped nations simply don't (or rarely) getting into open conflagrations with one another as to avoid the specter of nuclear war due each others respective stockpiles.

-- " This is also why a Hypothetical war between Russia and US wud only go as far as a limited conventional weapons exchange and thats all. They can both blow each other off the planet. But imagine if russia didnt have Nukes and only Conventional missiles. It wud get invaded tomorrow and blown to hell with nukes."

Okay...how can you, in good-faith, apply Russian-American nuclear deterrence ideology (whilst avoiding the nuances between the two) to Iran and Israel? I mean I see the comparison you're trying to make but I think their are important factors that apply differently to that relations as would apply to Iran and Israels. Just my opinion personally...

Look....idk if my take on the way Iran views nuclear weapons is the correct one (like I said, anyones view on this is tenable) but up until now the Iranian leadership has hinged its deterrence policy on massive quantities of conventional warheads and missiles and it has, thus far, provided some level of protection against overt military action against Iranian soil.

Idk how else to phrase that aforementioned statement in order to make it make sense to you.

Other than that, I personally don't mind seeing Iran with a nuclear arsenal of its own. I fully recognize the newly found level of protection it provides and honestly, Iran has been suffering 100s of billions if not trillions of dollars in damage due to its nuclear energy program without nukes already.

Iran seems to lack political will (conviction) to see a nuclear weapon built.[/QUOTE][/QUOTE]

 

[Blue In Green]

@SalarHaqq

Am I going crazy or something?

Have I been thinking the wrong way?

 

[thetutle]

If what I put forward was "totally illogical" then what Iran has been doing for past 30-40 years has also been "totally illogical" since what I said is what Iran has been doing to a tee for past several decades.... You guys tend to want to think that your rationale, one that apparently isn't shared by Iranian leadership, is somehow the right rationale to have yet we see the Iranians doing something else entirely, care to explain that one?

Seems as though I'm choosing this hill to die-on... So be it.

-- "1. There is no logic in the idea that iran cant attack Israel with conventional missiles while in possession of nukes. You made the point that, If iran attacks Israel with conventional weapons while having no nukes then Israel wud only attack by conventional means too. Where is the guarantee in this? Infact it doesnt even sound logical."

Thanks for not grasping the original intent of my argument, the scenario in which Israel nukes Iran in return would be to due directly with how Iran responds to any sort of overt attack by Israeli proper. Like I said before, the issue doesn't lie necessarily with the weapons used but escalatory measures implemented by either nation respectively.

Each country (Iran, Israel) when engaged in combat will gauge their options for reciprocal actions against one another with the presumed goal of completing military objectives without resorting immediately to the last option, which would be nukes. Iran will use their conventional ballistic missiles (and drones, and cruise missiles, and proxies, and cyber-attacks etc...) in a tactical manner as to complete certain battle-field objectives as well as strategic ones without risking nuclear retaliation due the attacks themselves being gauged as to not push Israel too far, so-to-speak. You don't automatically, at the start of hostilities, push your enemy to resort to drastic options if you can help it.... I thought this point was abundantly clear when I originally made it, seems as though I didn't properly explain myself, although this assertion was more implied rather than outright stated, so my apologies there.

No nation, especially one like Israel, is going to risk not nuking Iran back if they see on their radars that several dozen, if not hundreds (or thousands) of ballistic warheads are coming their way by a newly crowned nuclear weapon capable nation (Iran) which has (according to them) wished and planned for its destruction. Again, it's completely logical to see why Israel would respond to an Iranian (now nuclear capable) conventional ballistic missile strike with a nuclear attack of their own. THE POLICY OF M.A.D. APPLIES TO IRAN THE SECOND IT ACQUIRES NUCLEAR WEAPONS. Israel doesn't know what Iran's intent is behind a ballistic missile strike and the only thing helping Iran to be not get nuked currently is the fact that Iran has no nuclear warhead arsenal reducing (not completely removing) the "existential threat" factor in any future conflict.

This idiotic thought that Israel will simply nuke Tehran or Qom back because Iran sent conventional warheads towards purely military (or adjacent) targets is preposterous. Iran is recognized by the world as not having a nuclear weapons stockpile (for now). So I highly doubt Israel would want to be the bane of the world by committing the ultimate act of atrocity through immediate use of nukes during the opening stages of a conflict against a non-nuclear armed state (Iran).

-- " 2. Lets say Iran has nukes and It attacks Israel with conventional missiles. Why the hell wud Israel retaliate with nukes? To get nuked back right after? this is where ur arguement is illogical."

Just read what you've wrote and apply some holistic knowledge to it then get you'll realize why I said what it is I said in the first place.

Israel's policy regarding Iran, especially their rhetoric and their actions that multiple various governmental officials (U.S., Israeli etc..) have hinted at, would lend credence to the idea that in the event Iran does acquire nukes, any sort of attack by Iran will have a higher chance of being met with a nuclear retaliation of some sort right off the bat. Guys like Collin Powel even stated Israel has nukes directly pointed at Iran and some time ago, Yavar had said there are nuclear cruise missile equipped Israeli submarines in somewhat close proximity to Iranian shores (idk the veracity of this statement) but the threat of nuclear retaliation is clearly present.

My entire argument, the one that Iran presumedly is operating under, hinges primarily on the increased threat level Iran would be under in the event they openly admit to having nuclear weapons capability.

-- " Rather the logic is that there is more probability of Iran-Israel having a conventional exchange if they both have nukes. The essence of ur arguement is that it doesnt take nukes as DETERRENT into account. Which is why u say illogical stuff like, nukes wud make conventional weapons obsolete whilst not taking into account that nukes are the only thing that makes conventional warfare more probable."

I always viewed nukes as a general deterrent against any overt military hostilities in the first-place rather than a mitigating factor in a conflict between two-nations. Nuclear equipped nations simply don't (or rarely) getting into open conflagrations with one another as to avoid the specter of nuclear war due each others respective stockpiles.

-- " This is also why a Hypothetical war between Russia and US wud only go as far as a limited conventional weapons exchange and thats all. They can both blow each other off the planet. But imagine if russia didnt have Nukes and only Conventional missiles. It wud get invaded tomorrow and blown to hell with nukes."

Okay...how can you, in good-faith, apply Russian-American nuclear deterrence ideology (whilst avoiding the nuances between the two) to Iran and Israel? I mean I see the comparison you're trying to make but I think their are important factors that apply differently to that relations as would apply to Iran and Israels. Just my opinion personally...

Look....idk if my take on the way Iran views nuclear weapons is the correct one (like I said, anyones view on this is tenable) but up until now the Iranian leadership has hinged its deterrence policy on massive quantities of conventional warheads and missiles and it has, thus far, provided some level of protection against overt military action against Iranian soil.

Idk how else to phrase that aforementioned statement in order to make it make sense to you.

Other than that, I personally don't mind seeing Iran with a nuclear arsenal of its own. I fully recognize the newly found level of protection it provides and honestly, Iran has been suffering 100s of billions if not trillions of dollars in damage due to its nuclear energy program without nukes already.

Iran seems to lack political will (conviction) to see a nuclear weapon built.

This train of thought is simply devoid of all logic and reason, and does nothing more than try to justify the idea that nukes will not help Iran.

I wonder if most Iranians think like this? It's just mind boggling.

But it's always fun to read. My personal favourite in this crescendo of mis-logic is "Iran should not have nukes because it won't be able to use its conventional missiles". I should include it in my signature for all to see and wonder and amazement.

 

[Blue In Green]

This train of thought is simply devoid of all logic and reason, and does nothing more than try to justify the idea that nukes will not help Iran.

I wonder if most Iranians think like this? It's just mind boggling.

But it's always fun to read. My personal favourite in this crescendo of mis-logic is "Iran should not have nukes because it won't be able to use its conventional missiles". I should include it in my signature for all to see and wonder and amazement.

There are Iranians (in Iran) who are on both sides of the argument. Some will push for nuclear weapons whilst others with push against Iran having them.

 

[HAIDER]

Interesting turn , son of late scientist said, during the gun battle his mother was there. It was 2 to 3 attackers.

 

[TheImmortal]

Hello, I don't know to spread fake news, but just to ask you to check if this news is true :

Breaking/Exclusive: Iran Assassinates Mossad Chief in Downtown Tel Aviv (updated/videos/proof) | VT Foreign Policy

www.veteranstoday.com

In my view, Iran is largely capable to do some operations. This website is not known to speak fake news. As many of you know Iran better than me, I just ask you to confirm.

fake news.

no western media would use the term “Zionist” in an article.

 

[SalarHaqq]

If this is done, the west will hurry to negotiate and give Iran whatever they want. they will stop trying to changing the equation through external means(war, invasion) and turn all their resources to toppling the government from internal unrest. Which they will fail in.

If didn't notice, brother, this is already the case. When it comes to Iran, the west has already been refraining from engaging into war and invasion. They know they have no military option. Otherwise they would have resorted to it some twenty years ago at the latest. I mean, this very fact by itself is enough to invalidate the contention that only nuclear weapons can protect Iran from downright military aggression. If it weren't the case, then what have they been waiting for all these years? Why is that attack never coming, then...?

And it's precisely because of this that they (both Trump and Obama/Biden) are so desperate to bring Iran to negotiate away its missile force and its regional influence. Because as long as these assets are at Iran's disposal, they have zero military options versus Iran.

Some seem to confuse sabotage / isolated terror attacks / token amounts of targeted assassinations with overt military aggression: the mentioned acts are not part of, nor preludes to invasion; on the contrary, they are part of hybrid alternatives to invasion and war, they are part of the enemy's psy-ops and its attempts to bring about destabilization through internal unrest.

Actually if you listen to the panel discussions at Washington D.C. think tanks over the past years, or if you read policy recommendation papers by American analysts, you will notice that this is exactly how the enemy conceives of these sort of operations. In these discussions, their analysts mention sabotage, assassination etc as tools in a hybrid strategy designed to fill the void left by the actual absence of any military option.

For Iran, nuclear weapons are one possibility among others. But they are not the only viable one. And should therefore be considered a last resort. Those who insist otherwise have already been disproven by the history of the past 40+ years.

_____

@SalarHaqq
Have I been thinking the wrong way?

No brother, you haven't, at least when it comes to the general point you're arguing (namely, that there are also other ways than nuclear weapons for Iran to ensure deterrence against military aggression).

The opposite side has proposed inoperative examples / comparisons, which I addressed in my previous reply.

Despite having been repeatedly invited to do so, none has felt up to the task to address the blog post by Patarames, which perfectly describes the solid rationale behind Iran's conventional counter-force doctrine. To compensate, they will tend to resort to ad hominems and/or derision and/or superlatives, which of course offers an easy rhetorical way out, but cannot actually win them the argument.

Therefore I'll reiterate that as long as they haven't proven Patarames's demonstration wrong (or mine, for that matter, but let's stick to the blog post), attempts to portray their own position as self-evident are not justified.

 

[Xerxes22]

In case you didn't notice, brother, this is already the case. When it comes to Iran, the west has already been refraining from engaging into war and invasion. They know they have no military option. Otherwise they would have resorted to it some twenty years ago at the latest. I mean, this very fact by itself is enough to invalidate the contention that only nuclear weapons can protect Iran from downright military aggression. If it weren't the case, then what have they been waiting for all these years? Why is that attack never coming, then...?

And it's precisely because of this that they (both Trump and Obama/Biden) are so desperate to bring Iran to negotiate away its missile force and its regional influence. Because as long as these assets are at Iran's disposal, they have zero military options versus Iran.

Some seem to confuse sabotage / isolated terror attacks / token amounts of targeted assassinations with overt military aggression: the mentioned acts are not part of, nor preludes to invasion; on the contrary, they are part of hybrid alternatives to invasion and war, they are part of the enemy's psy-ops and its attempts to bring about destabilization through internal unrest.

Actually if you listen to the panel discussions at Washington D.C. think tanks over the past years, or if you read policy recommendation papers by American analysts, you will notice that this is exactly how the enemy conceives of these sort of operations. In these discussions, their analysts mention sabotage, assassination etc as tools in a hybrid strategy designed to fill the void left by the actual absence of any military option.

For Iran, nuclear weapons are one possibility among others. But they are not the only viable one. And should therefore be considered a last resort. Those who insist otherwise have already been disproven by the history of the past 40+ years.

_____



No brother, you haven't, at least when it comes to the general point you're arguing (namely, that there are also other ways than nuclear weapons for Iran to ensure deterrence against military aggression).

The opposite side has proposed inoperative examples / comparisons, which I addressed in my previous reply.

Despite having been repeatedly invited to do so, none has felt up to the task to address the blog post by Patarames, which perfectly describes the solid rationale behind Iran's conventional counter-force doctrine. To compensate, they will tend to resort to ad hominems and/or derision and/or superlatives, which of course offers an easy rhetorical way out, but cannot actually win them the argument.

Therefore I'll reiterate that as long as they haven't proven Patarames's demonstration wrong (or mine, for that matter, but let's stick to the blog post), attempts to portray their own position as self-evident are not justified.

I understand the perspective you are putting forward. I understand ur response that America are already not considering war/invasion (right, only every now and then they come up with ideas of striking inside Iran, like trump suddenly wanted a week ago). I get all that.

I also read Patarames's demonstration. Yes its an effective deterrent. An effective deterrent until elites in tel aviv go rogue nd unleashes its nuclear arsenal on Iran and turns it to zombieland. Then all these deterrent become absolutely useless. Whatever is left of Iran's aresenal after Israeli first strike wont be enuf to stop it from a 2nd and 3rd strike. It's all done and dusted then.

My point is you guys are underestimating how easily the israelis can use nuclear missiles in response for an iranian conventional missile strike at any stage of an exchange. This sceneario can only be stopped if israel knows that Iran can just nuke it right back. Then the fight will stay on the conventional sphere and Iran can take advantage of its missile arsenal and strike israel with impunity without having to think about Nuclear annihilation.

This is where my argument varies from @Blue In Green. Im saying to the contrary to what he's saying, nukes wud allow Iran to use its conventional weapons to it fullest extent and take advantage of its capabilities without fear and with impunity.

As far as my opinion about Iran developing nukes and then blocking the strait, yes Iran can still do that without nukes but there is a great chance it will have to pay for it with WAR. But if they have nukes and goes rogue then the enemy will not have much of a choice. Nukes for Iran will function as an armor in any case.

and yes they are giving up on war on Iran. But lets just analyse this further. Was it a lie that trump even a week ago considered striking Inside iran ? Was it a lie we came so close to a war so many times in the last 12 months? Is this all lies? Is it a lie that the attack on the Nuclear scientist is to provoke Iran so that they can get their war before biden comes? So who's coming up with inoperative examples here? Iran is exercising the most restraint in its history and still coming so close to war and being threatened by enemy . is this the deterrent u want ? No , i want a stronger deterrent. I want them to know if you attack iran then we all perish together filha da putas. I want them to understand that all israeli bones will melt with a nuclear strike if it dares to ever threaten Iran again until the end of time.

How can anyone sane say having nukes leaves a country more vulnerable to nuclear strike ? And it causes their conventional weapons to be obsolete as according to blue in green? Thats a totally inoperative illogical example which is not at all practical. Having nukes make sure Iran can pound tel aviv with conventional weapons and still be able to sleep at night.

I'll go eat sum more biriyani now.

 

[SalarHaqq]

right, only every now and then they come up with ideas of striking inside Iran, like trump suddenly wanted a week ago

Ideas they never put into practice. There's a good reason for this.

An effective deterrent until elites in tel aviv go rogue nd unleashes its nuclear arsenal on Iran and turns it to zombieland. Then all these deterrent become absolutely useless. Whatever is left of Iran's aresenal after Israeli first strike wont be enuf to stop it from a 2nd and 3rd strike. It's all done and dusted then.

Well, Patarames' demonstration shows precisely that Iran would be able to hit back after a nuclear first strike by the enemy. Iran's underground missile cities can survive a nuclear attack. Likewise, nuclear strikes will never turn the entire territory of Iran (1.6 million square kilometers) into wasteland. Mobile, truck-based BM launchers could be scattered literally anywhere accross that vast territory.

My point is you guys are underestimating how easily the israelis can use nuclear missiles in response for an iranian conventional missile strike at any stage of an exchange.

For it to reach such a stage, an open conflict would need to have been started in the first place. However, Iran's ballistic missile deterrence is averting just that.

Then the fight will stay on the conventional sphere and Iran can take advantage of its missile arsenal and strike israel with impunity without having to think about Nuclear annihilation.

How is this conventional fight supposed to be kicked off? Iran is unlikely to start it unless attacked first. And they too are unlikely to go for it, given how Iran's missile power is deterring them from engaging into such an undertaking.

Was it a lie that trump even a week ago considered striking Inside iran ? Was it a lie we came so close to a war so many times in the last 12 months? Is this all lies?

Or reports during the Obama and Bush years that the zionists were about to bomb Iranian nuclear facilities but backed off due to due to opposition by either the US or the "I"DF's own high level command...

But the common points to all these claims are that:

1) In the end, they never did it. The reason is obvious, namely Iran's deterrence power.

2) There is indeed some propaganda involved here as well. Some of these reports might be completely or partly inaccurate, with the aim of pursuing their psy-ops against Iran and also for domestic consumption, to reassure their own populations about their supposed might.

Is it a lie that the attack on the Nuclear scientist is to provoke Iran so that they can get their war before biden comes?

I don't think that's true. They know better than to expect Iran to react in non-calculated ways. And they aren't ready to stomach Iranian retaliation in case of an all out war either. So I don't think that was their intention.

So who's coming up with inoperative examples here?

I wasn't referring to you, brother, when I spoke of inoperative examples. Don't take it personally, as it wasn't directed at anything you wrote. But rather was I thinking of some of the points I responded to in my aforegone post, as said. Look that up if you want to know what I was referring to.

Iran is exercising the most restraint in its history and still coming so close to war and being threatened by enemy . is this the deterrent u want ? No , i want a stronger deterrent. I want them to know if you attack iran then we all perish together filha da putas. I want them to understand that all israeli bones will melt with a nuclear strike if it dares to ever threaten Iran again until the end of time.

I will not spit on a deterrent that keeps Iran safe from aggression / destruction and at the same time allows Iran to maintain and expand its geostrategic position in addition to advancing steadily in terms of economic, social and military development.

You need to understand that my argument isn't against nuclear weapons as much as it is to show that nuclear weapons aren't the only conceivable and effective means of deterrence against aggression in the case at hand, and that therefore Iranian policymakers deserve to be cut some slack here.

To make it appear as if they were completely stupid (vs us random internet users, and considering how well they survived 40+ years of taking on the zio-American empire frontally) or even treasonous is thus completely out of place. And if you re-read my whole contribution to the subject, you'll notice that this is exactly what my motivation consists in.

I'll go eat sum more biriyani now..

Have a good meal.

 

[Xerxes22]

You need to understand that my argument isn't against nuclear weapons as much as it is to show that nuclear weapons aren't the only conceivable and effective means of deterrence against aggression in the case at hand, and that therefore Iranian policymakers deserve to be cut some slack here.

I understand that it isnt the only conceivable option (If i say that nukes are the only option doesnt necessarily mean that i mean that literally. But the fact that it is the easier and safer option) and I read the Patarames' piece as soon as u posted that. I know Isreal can be destoyed conventionally even if they use nukes. It is more than possible considering the damn size of the place.

the argument i had with @Blue In Green was about the use of conventional weapons and how it was literally suggested that having nukes mitigates the effectiveness of conventional weapons or basically how they get in each others way, which i disagreed with.

Im not suggesting nukes are the ONLY way to deter and defend, Im saying that Nukes strengthens iran's position. Iran can have its nukes and all these missile cities with ballistic missiles at the same time. I dont think they get in each others way.

 

[thetutle]

Germany's foreign minister Heiko Maas told Der Spiegel that any new deal with Iran will have to be "a kind of nuclear plus" agreement, a more precise version of Biden's suggestion to CNN that a deal would have to address "the missile issues."

As Iran mulls retaliation for nuclear scientist's death, a riddle remains. What exactly was he working on? | CNN

Iran's leaders are furious over the killing of a top nuclear scientist, and the Supreme Leader has demanded that Mohsen Fakhrizadeh's work be continued. The broader issue for Iran's adversaries is exactly what that work was.

edition.cnn.com

so there will be no new deal probably. sanctions will remain. Iran will get the Saddam treatment of 1992+ with sanctions used to soften them up for 20 years, these current and greater sanctions.