What's new

Iranian Chill Thread

Arian

ELITE MEMBER
Oct 21, 2011
2,231
0
4,392
Location
Germany
Do you suffer from reading comprehension problems? I said Iran has firmly institutionalized any knowledge on nuclear enrichment.

And who cares whether Saudi, UAE or Turkey are following Iran's footstep by setting up a similar infrastructure. These considerations were never an issue for Iran, nor does it change Iran's strategic outlook.

Iran has calculated that its strategic autonomy and regional policy would never have been accepted by foreign powers. Ever. The fact that Iran manages to get global powers at the negotiating table for sanctions relief is entirely due to its nuclear program, which has made Iran a nuclear threshold state already. If you can't see the strategic benefits of this, then nothing will.
I don't suffer from "reading comprehension" problems lol It's just that what you said was so naive and simple-minded that deserved no attention.

You haven't "firmly institutionalized" nuclear enrichment if your current capacity of enrichment is merely 8,000 SWU and you have agreed to never reprocess plutonium.

So, let me see if I understood you correctly: You are saying that even if Saudi Arabia, Turkey or the UAE successfully went nuclear, that would change nothing in our calculations? So, a nuclear Turkey that already has a stronger military and economy than us should not worry us at all, while we have basically a useless civilian program that is a total embarrassment in many ways... Do I need to remind you of what happened in the Nagorno-Karabakh war or are you going to find an excuse for that too?

You're one of those apologists that wants to distort the truth and make the situation look better than it is. The truth is that Iran went to the negotiating table only to hand over all its nuclear assets in 2013. You don't need a card to submit to the will of the world powers. Even African countries could do that. The JCPOA was a surrender, or as we say it in Persian, it was a case of "Goh Khordim" rather than negotiations. Khamenei can call it "Narmesh-e Ghahremananeh" (Heroic compromise), but that doesn't change what happened.
 

thetutle

FULL MEMBER
Oct 4, 2020
533
0
1,058
Country
Bosnia And Herzegovina
Location
Australia
The problem with your apologists is that you think that the United States will prevent Saudi Arabia from building nukes without providing any proof. The United States did not stop the Shah from building nukes. Why should they stop Saudi Arabia?

Did the Unites States stop Saudi Arabia from purchasing DF-21 missiles from China?

Iran is also dependent on the Russians for running its only functioning nuclear reactor. So, what's the difference? If Russia decides not to provide us with enriched uranium for the Bushehr nuclear reactor, it will take us months (probably over a year) to enrich the necessary uranium on our own, assuming that there won't be a preemptive strike or sabotage operations during the time we are enriching uranium.

And please do enlighten me: how has Iran's nuclear program helped us strategically?
Saudi could not build a sand castle, let alone a nuke. If they did, their country would be invaded the next day by USA. It would be an act of war if they went nuclear. Don't forget, the country was created by the western powers and it better behave. All Arab countries east of the Sini were created by western powers.

As trump said, the life expectancy of the Saudi monarchy and the Saudi state is about 2 weeks without americas help. This longer than Israel's life expectancy. Israel would probably last a decade or two. Soi thick you have Saudi figured out wrong.

You say the US did not stop shah making nukes? errrrr, yes they did. He got arrogant and probably considered nukes. And he was gone and replaced by a man who was living in the west. was he not? So I'd say the shah was well and truly stopped.

But you are right, the nuclear program has just been a burden for Iran. Iranians can't keep their nuclear scientist safe. can't keep their centrifuges safe, how are they going to keep their nukes safe fo they ever build them. Iran is probably not ready for such high technologies. It requires competent leadership and courage. Like Pakistan.
 

Arian

ELITE MEMBER
Oct 21, 2011
2,231
0
4,392
Location
Germany
Saudi could not build a sand castle, let alone a nuke. If they did, their country would be invaded the next day by USA. It would be an act of war if they went nuclear. Don't forget, the country was created by the western powers and it better behave. All Arab countries east of the Sini were created by western powers.

As trump said, the life expectancy of the Saudi monarchy and the Saudi state is about 2 weeks without americas help. This longer than Israel's life expectancy. Israel would probably last a decade or two. Soi thick you have Saudi figured out wrong.

You say the US did not stop shah making nukes? errrrr, yes they did. He got arrogant and probably considered nukes. And he was gone and replaced by a man who was living in the west. was he not? So I'd say the shah was well and truly stopped.

But you are right, the nuclear program has just been a burden for Iran. Iranians can't keep their nuclear scientist safe. can't keep their centrifuges safe, how are they going to keep their nukes safe fo they ever build them. Iran is probably not ready for such high technologies. It requires competent leadership and courage. Like Pakistan.
I personally believe that one should not underestimate his enemies. Your #1 enemy in the region going nuclear is not something that you want to bet on it based on superficial things like they can't build a sand castle or they would be invaded the next day if they did so. As I mentioned earlier, China sold Saudi Arabia DF-21 missiles and nobody objected to it. Not even Americans.

The Shah started pursuing a nuclear weapons program only in 1970s. Had the Iranian revolution not stopped him, he would've made nukes without any problem. The US itself sold the Shah of Iran the Tehran nuclear reactor that worked with HEU (90% enriched uranium) and they provided the fissile material to the Shah to run it for more than 2 decades. The IAEA never bothered to issue a statement on Iran's nuclear activities before the restarting of Iran's nuclear activities after the Iraq-Iran war.

When I said it was a burden, I was talking about the economic costs of running the program as it is. We need to increase our enrichment capacity to 200,000 SWU at least, which is something that is impossible under the JCPOA. Our enrichment capacity at the moment is about 8,000 SWU. As for other things you said, losing a few scientists is worth the progress. Iran is by far the most advanced nation in the region when it comes to technology without foreign help. No country in the region can come close to Iran in that respect. So, it's not a matter of technology, but a matter of wrong strategy and incompetence by the leadership. They are lost. They don't know what they want.
 

thetutle

FULL MEMBER
Oct 4, 2020
533
0
1,058
Country
Bosnia And Herzegovina
Location
Australia
I personally believe that one should not underestimate his enemies. Your #1 enemy in the region going nuclear is not something that you want to bet on it based on superficial things like they can't build a sand castle or they would be invaded the next day if they did so. As I mentioned earlier, China sold Saudi Arabia DF-21 missiles and nobody objected to it. Not even Americans.

The Shah started pursuing a nuclear weapons program only in 1970s. Had the Iranian revolution not stopped him, he would've made nukes without any problem. The US itself sold the Shah of Iran the Tehran nuclear reactor that worked with HEU (90% enriched uranium) and they provided the fissile material to the Shah to run it for more than 2 decades. The IAEA never bothered to issue a statement on Iran's nuclear activities before the restarting of Iran's nuclear activities after the Iraq-Iran war.

When I said it was a burden, I was talking about the economic costs of running the program as it is. We need to increase our enrichment capacity to 200,000 SWU at least, which is something that is impossible under the JCPOA. Our enrichment capacity at the moment is about 8,000 SWU. As for other things you said, losing a few scientists is worth the progress. Iran is by far the most advanced nation in the region when it comes to technology without foreign help. No country in the region can come close to Iran in that respect. So, it's not a matter of technology, but a matter of wrong strategy and incompetence by the leadership. They are lost. They don't know what they want.
trust me, saudi or any Arab will not be permitted to have nukes, not in a million million years. These are all client states.

Yes USA built Iran the nuclear infrastructure so they can monitor it and see what he's up to and take all his money. When they saw what Shah was planning, what happened to him? he was replaced by a gentleman who was living in the west? Am I right? of course I am.

Same would happen in Saudi. MBS would suddenly be facing a wahabi revolution. who issue a fatwa that nuclear bobs and energy are haram and no more nuke threat.

Oh, didn't Iran issue a fatwa that nukes are haram? hmmm how convenient. Hands over your nuclear assets while your enemies have bombs that can destroy entire cities. Bunch of fools. Iran needs better leaders. We agree on that.
 

aryobarzan

FULL MEMBER
Feb 17, 2019
834
1
2,713
Country
Iran, Islamic Republic Of
Location
Canada
I personally believe that one should not underestimate his enemies. Your #1 enemy in the region going nuclear is not something that you want to bet on it based on superficial things like they can't build a sand castle or they would be invaded the next day if they did so. As I mentioned earlier, China sold Saudi Arabia DF-21 missiles and nobody objected to it. Not even Americans.

The Shah started pursuing a nuclear weapons program only in 1970s. Had the Iranian revolution not stopped him, he would've made nukes without any problem. The US itself sold the Shah of Iran the Tehran nuclear reactor that worked with HEU (90% enriched uranium) and they provided the fissile material to the Shah to run it for more than 2 decades. The IAEA never bothered to issue a statement on Iran's nuclear activities before the restarting of Iran's nuclear activities after the Iraq-Iran war.

When I said it was a burden, I was talking about the economic costs of running the program as it is. We need to increase our enrichment capacity to 200,000 SWU at least, which is something that is impossible under the JCPOA. Our enrichment capacity at the moment is about 8,000 SWU. As for other things you said, losing a few scientists is worth the progress. Iran is by far the most advanced nation in the region when it comes to technology without foreign help. No country in the region can come close to Iran in that respect. So, it's not a matter of technology, but a matter of wrong strategy and incompetence by the leadership. They are lost. They don't know what they want.
You have brought up a good question ..it is a simple question and I have not been able to answer that .

if we assume that Iran is not interested in making the bomb Then :

What is end objective of Iran nuclear program?

end objective is:
  • it gives Iran technology to make medical Isotopes!!!
  • It is sign of Iran independence , no one can tell Iran what we can or can not do!!
  • it is to accumulate Uranium because it looks good!
  • It provides Iran with reactor fuel so we do not have to get it from Russia!!!
  • It is a tool to remove the sanction in any negotiations!!!
None of the above makes sense when you consider the cost that Iran is paying so my only conclusion they must be making the bomb or they made a bad bet.
 
Last edited:

Arian

ELITE MEMBER
Oct 21, 2011
2,231
0
4,392
Location
Germany
trust me, saudi or any Arab will not be permitted to have nukes, not in a million million years. These are all client states.

Yes USA built Iran the nuclear infrastructure so they can monitor it and see what he's up to and take all his money. When they saw what Shah was planning, what happened to him? he was replaced by a gentleman who was living in the west? Am I right? of course I am.

Same would happen in Saudi. MBS would suddenly be facing a wahabi revolution. who issue a fatwa that nuclear bobs and energy are haram and no more nuke threat.

Oh, didn't Iran issue a fatwa that nukes are haram? hmmm how convenient. Hands over your nuclear assets while your enemies have bombs that can destroy entire cities. Bunch of fools. Iran needs better leaders. We agree on that.
Well, as I said earlier, issues related to national security and regional interests do not really work based on opinions and trusting them.

I think you're confused now. What happened in Iran in 1979 was not something like the 1953 coup against Mosaddegh or regular military coups against Turkish governments by the USA. Khomeini lived in France because the Shah was stupid enough to send him there. And your argument about building nuclear infrastructure in a country to monitor them is not really valid, nor supported by history. Canada provided India with a CIRUS reactor in 1960s and that facilitated the nuclearization of India. And India has always been more loyal to the Western countries than Iran, even under the Shah.

Yeah. I think we can agree that the Iranian leadership is incompetent and lacks a clear strategy for its nuclear program.
 

thetutle

FULL MEMBER
Oct 4, 2020
533
0
1,058
Country
Bosnia And Herzegovina
Location
Australia
You have brought up a good question ..it is a simple question and I have not been able to answer that .

if we assume that Iran is not interested in making the bomb Then :

What is end objective of Iran nuclear program?
They might not know how to make it. and want to get as close a possible before it provokes a war. But west won't let them play that game. As they already replaced one guy that tried that (the shah).

Its not an easy thing to manufacture. Iran has technological capacity of Germany in 1944
Well, as I said earlier, issues related to national security and regional interests do not really work based on opinions and trusting them.

I think you're confused now. What happened in Iran in 1979 was not something like the 1953 coup against Mosaddegh or regular military coups against Turkish governments by the USA. Khomeini lived in France because the Shah was stupid enough to send him there. And your argument about building nuclear infrastructure in a country to monitor them is not really valid, nor supported by history. Canada provided India with a CIRUS reactor in 1960s and that facilitated the nuclearization of India. And India has always been more loyal to the Western countries than Iran, even under the Shah.

Yeah. I think we can agree that the Iranian leadership is incompetent and lacks a clear strategy for its nuclear program.
I think it makes sense to give the reactors to Iran to monitor them. then an ally. Im sure they did it also with India. but India became one billion people. then you can't stop them. Pakistan also. Who was goling to invade Pakistan of 200 million people.

Iran had 35 million when shah was in charge. that's nothing. They did with Iran as they pleased. not its 80 million, not a toy anymore. but still not critical mass. If they don't do something drastic now and Iran gets 150 million people it's game over for the west. Who will stop them getting nukes?
Khomeini lived in France because the Shah was stupid enough to send him there.
The shah was stupid? lol Didn't he have spy agency that regularly tortured snd disappeared dissidents. But because he was a puppet he couldn't just kill anybody. It had to be approved by the council of zionist elders or whatever they call western institutions these days.

And when they saw Homeini, they must have thought, hmmmm beard, tick, menacing look, tick, turban, tick. Lets keep this guy safe in France, just in case the shah goes rogue. And the shahs henchmen got a call form the "elders" saying, leave this guy alone, not a fingerprint is to mess up his turban. And he came in very useful.

I'm not saying he was a western player, but they got a predictable bogeyman out of him.

Same with Saudi. they have a panel of wahabis ready to replace MBS in 5 minutes if he gets any strange ideas. each has a more menacing beard then MBS, each thinks nuclear power and technology are Haram. Each thinks selling cheap oil to the west is halal.

If this plan fails and Saudis don't submit, they pull out the "Hijazi and Shiite liberation plan" form the bottom of the CIA chiefs desk. Where the great kingdom of hijaz is restored and Shiites that live on top of all the oil are armed with F-22's and their human rights are finally taken seriously. There will also be plan to drop food aid to the wahabis in the desert so they don't starve after this.
 
Last edited:

Arian

ELITE MEMBER
Oct 21, 2011
2,231
0
4,392
Location
Germany
You have brought up a good question ..it is a simple question and I have not been able to answer that .

if we assume that Iran is not interested in making the bomb Then :

What is end objective of Iran nuclear program?

end objective is:
  • it gives Iran technology to make medical Isotopes!!!
  • It is sign of Iran independence , no one can tell Iran what we can or can not do!!
  • it is to accumulate Uranium because it looks good!
  • It provides Iran with reactor fuel so we do not have to get it from Russia!!!
  • It is a tool to remove the sanction in any negotiations!!!
None of the above makes sense when you consider the cost that Iran is paying so my only conclusion they must be making the bomb or they made a bad bet.
Your points are spot on. But let me add a few remarks besides your bullet points.

The TRR (Tehran Research Reactor) is nearing the end of its life soon. The reactor was installed by the Americans in 1967 if I'm not mistaken. So, it's already 53 years old. The Argentinians modified the reactor in 1990s, but very soon we will have to find a way to either extend its life for a few more years or install a new reactor. We are not building any new reactors now. Without the TRR, you cannot produce medical isotopes. If you can't produce medical isotopes, your patients suffering from cancer will die, and even your medical radiology will be disrupted. Hence, you won't be able to claim independence either.

Is Iran's nuclear program good for accumulating uranium? On paper, yes. But no matter how much you stockpile 4% enriched uranium, you'd still need time to enrich it further to percentages beyond 90%. To reduce this break-out time, you will need more centrifuges. I don't see an attempt by the regime to increase our current enrichment capacity.

Does it provide Iran with reactor fuel so we don't need to rely on Russia? No, it does not. As I said, running even our current nuclear facilities require 200,000 SWUs per year. Our current enrichment capacity is below 10,000 SWUs which means that it will take us about 2 decades to enrich enough uranium for just one year of the consumption of our current nuclear infrastructure.

And your last bullet point is basically a North Korean tactic. However, the difference is that North Korea has nuclear bombs. Not only they have fission bombs, they have hydrogen bombs too. So, even if that is the purpose of our nuclear program, they aren't doing it correctly.
 

Shawnee

FULL MEMBER
Jan 22, 2020
1,172
0
2,018
Country
United States
Location
United Kingdom
نفرات در لیست ترور اسراییل

نفر اول عبدالرضا شهلایی با اسم حسن ایرلو در راس هرم

حسن ایرلو در رشادت و موثر بودن داره جای قاسم سلیمانی رو به خوبی پر می کنه

نفر دوم حاجی زاده

نفر سوم اسماعیل قاانی

چهارم سلامی

بقیه لیست

فریدون عباسی دوانی
باقری‌
حاتمی‌
الی اخر​
Your points are spot on. But let me add a few remarks besides your bullet points.

The TRR (Tehran Research Reactor) is nearing the end of its life soon. The reactor was installed by the Americans in 1967 if I'm not mistaken. So, it's already 53 years old. The Argentinians modified the reactor in 1990s, but very soon we will have to find a way to either extend its life for a few more years or install a new reactor. We are not building any new reactors now. Without the TRR, you cannot produce medical isotopes. If you can't produce medical isotopes, your patients suffering from cancer will die, and even your medical radiology will be disrupted. Hence, you won't be able to claim independence either.

Is Iran's nuclear program good for accumulating uranium? On paper, yes. But no matter how much you stockpile 4% enriched uranium, you'd still need time to enrich it further to percentages beyond 90%. To reduce this break-out time, you will need more centrifuges. I don't see an attempt by the regime to increase our current enrichment capacity.

Does it provide Iran with reactor fuel so we don't need to rely on Russia? No, it does not. As I said, running even our current nuclear facilities require 200,000 SWUs per year. Our current enrichment capacity is below 10,000 SWUs which means that it will take us about 2 decades to enrich enough uranium for just one year of the consumption of our current nuclear infrastructure.

And your last bullet point is basically a North Korean tactic. However, the difference is that North Korea has nuclear bombs. Not only they have fission bombs, they have hydrogen bombs too. So, even if that is the purpose of our nuclear program, they aren't doing it correctly.
When NK made their nuclear deal with Bush, they already had nuclear weapon. They wanted to also use it to open the doors of their country. They informed Russia in about 2000 that they have made a nuclear weapon. It was likely built in 1990s. They declared a test in 2006.

Pakistan made it in 1980s and declared in 1990s.
 
Last edited:

SalarHaqq

FULL MEMBER
Dec 29, 2019
487
2
917
Country
Belgium
Location
Pakistan
But, aren't you also advocating for Iran to abandon its anti-zionist stance?

Here for instance you consider it to be a "very good" thing for Iranians to participate in a videogame competition in Isra"el" (a news item by the zionist publication "Jerusalem Post" that turned out to be bogus):


If one rejects the very notion of Resistance against zionism, then one will not be particularly well placed to deem Iranian efforts against Tel Aviv as insufficient.

Either one is supportive of Iran's anti-zionist position, and then one may logically be entitled to formulate criticism as long as it is sincere and constructive (rather than motivated by mere resentment towards the Islamic Republic); or, one does not believe in the anti-zionist struggle, in which case one should not blame Tehran for the way it chooses to conduct its Resistance against zionism.

____

ببینید امام جمعه ها و سطوح بالای روحانیت چقدر بی خاصیت شدندکه الان سی و چند ساله ارزش ترور نداشتند​
Well, there's been no change: the highest levels of the clergy (marjai'a, mujtahids, grand ayatollahs) hadn't been the targets of terror attacks back then either.

This is because first, most have been apolitical, second because those who haven't, were and are too highly ranked in the political system for the cost/benefit analysis to make sense to potential perpetrators. Assassinating the Supreme Leader of the Islamic Revolution, for instance, will necessarily have considerable repercussions for any criminal stupid enough to attempt such a thing, be it the US regime itself, so that they will not view the expected benefits to be worthy of the costs involved.

Regarding the first decade of the Revolution: in the early 1980's, the MKO was committing dozens upon dozens of killings. Nowadays the situation does not allow the enemy to conduct that many attacks, it will thus have to carefully select its targets. That's why out of handful of martyrs the enemy managed to assassinate on Iranian soil over the past 12 years or so, most if not all were nuclear scientists. If they had the possibility to assassinate more, then there would no doubt also be clerics among the martyrs.

The Leader of the Islamic Revolution is still missing a hand from a terror attack. I wonder who else among current world leaders is an actual mujahid who put his life on the line, resulting in him being injured in such a manner? As far as I know, other than the Supreme Leader, there is no other example at this time. Also, what major political leader other than Hassan Nasrallah has a son martyred at young age while fighting for the cause?

Therefore I would personally not contrast clerics and non-clerics in this context.

اقلا یه سوریه برن
Ebrahim Raisi toured the frontlines in Syria.

____

And he was gone and replaced by a man who was living in the west. was he not? So I'd say the shah was well and truly stopped.
he was replaced by a gentleman who was living in the west? Am I right? of course I am.
Imam Khomeini didn't live in the west. His stay in France did not even last for four months (October 1978 to February 2, 1979). And it came to this only because Turkish and Iraqi authorities decided to expell him from their territories.

Also according to the memoirs of a high ranking French official, the French secret services contemplated assassinating him. In addition to this a "Mossad" official admitted that Tel Aviv had hatched its own plan to kill the Imam upon his arrival in Tehran.

And the shahs henchmen got a call form the "elders" saying, leave this guy alone, not a fingerprint is to mess up his turban. And he came in very useful.
The west or the zionists didn't give the shah any instructions about Imam Khomeini.

I'm not saying he was a western player, but they got a predictable bogeyman out of him.
Only months after the establishment of the Islamic Republic, elements with reported links to the CIA attempted coups to topple the newly intoduced political system and eradicate its leadership. You can look up the Nojeh coup attempt by Air Force officers loyal to the monarchy, etc.

The US regime doesn't need to go to such lengths to justify its aggressive policies in the region (justify them to whom?). They will simply order their lackeys to purchase their overpriced weapons en masse and station GI's on their territories, and the lackeys will bow and oblige. Nothing more is really needed to have these clients obey.

can't keep their centrifuges safe, how are they going to keep their nukes safe fo they ever build them.
Nuclear warheads can't be suppressed in the same manner as individuals can be assassinated or token numbers of centrifuges sabotaged. Such weapons would be guarded by segments of Iran's security forces that are outside the enemy's reach (at least if the cost of such operations is to remain acceptable to said enemy).

Iran is probably not ready for such high technologies. It requires competent leadership and courage. Like Pakistan.
I am yet to witness another country muster enough courage to take on the zionist regime and the US like Iran has been doing. The fact that Iran has not only survived this for 40+ years but is actually getting stronger buy the day and increasing its deterrence against all out aggression, is a testimony to the competence of its leadership. I am certain hardly another leadership would be capable of such an extraordinary feat.

Pakistan is not facing the same adversary - or rather, when it comes to Iran and Pakistan's common zio-American enemy, that enemy has not opened the chapter of active, full fledged hostilities against Pakistan yet. On the zionist death list, Pakistan's turn to be destroyed comes after Iran. India is certainly a large and relatively capable country, but in terms of raw power there's no comparison between India and global zionism + its lackeys, namely the US.

trust me, saudi or any Arab will not be permitted to have nukes, not in a million million years. These are all client states.
On this I fully agree.

who issue a fatwa that nuclear bobs and energy are haram and no more nuke threat.
Oh, didn't Iran issue a fatwa that nukes are haram? hmmm how convenient. Hands over your nuclear assets while your enemies have bombs that can destroy entire cities. Bunch of fools. Iran needs better leaders. We agree on that.
1) Iran didn't completely hand over its nuclear assets. Western-apologetic liberals within the system (reformist + moderate factions) would certainly have no issues with doing so, but the revolutionary core of the IR prevented them from going that far. Not that the JCPOA was a satisfactory deal from the perspective of the revolutionaries but their presence imposed certain red lines on the liberal Rohani administration and prevented worse scenarios.

Nuclear technology has been indigenized by Iran. So unless Iran is destroyed like Iraq and Syria, or unless in-house liberals somehow manage to eradicate the revolutionaries (extremely unlikely), this acquisition of scientific knowledge and expertise is irreversible and can always be relied upon to resuscitate any and all aspects of Iran's nuclear program suspended or cancelled under deals such as the JCPOA.

2) You don't need nuclear weapons to effectively deter the US and Isra"el" from major forms of aggression, as long as your weapons are survivable enough, able to reach Tel Aviv and cause sufficient damage.

The equation is the following:

Extremely limited geographical and demographic extension of the zionist regime, with a limited number of critical military and infrastructural targets.

+

Fragility of the "zionist dream", which hinges upon the IDF's carefully cultivated image of flawless invincibility. Any large scale, sudden, traumatizing blow to that image will demoralize a settler population used to western standards of comfort and security, to the point of triggering mass emigration back to Europe, the US, Canada, etc.

+

America's actual status as a zionist vassal (underscored once again by Biden's now famous remarks), and the subsequent fact that to the ruling oligarchy in Washington, Isra"el" and its security are more important than the US itself.

=

Iran's tens of thousands of ballistic missiles, including many highly precise ones, and the associated mobile launchers and hardened underground missile bases (missile cities as they are called), offer a deterrence comparable to nuclear weapons when used against the zionist entity (with the added benefit of minimizing civilian casualties, namely among indigeneous Palestinians, and of sparing Masjid ul-Aqsa from any potential fallout).

and want to get as close a possible before it provokes a war. But west won't let them play that game. As they already replaced one guy that tried that (the shah).
See above regarding the Islamic Revolution. Also trust me, if it was easy for them to overthrow the Islamic Republic they would have already done so in a heartbeat long time ago.

Its not an easy thing to manufacture. Iran has technological capacity of Germany in 1944
Seriously? Do we need to list all domains in which Iranian scientists and industries (from stem cells to nanotechnologies and many more) have largely surpassed any technology in existence back then?

____

They are useful donkey. Why kill them?
This is contradicted by the tremendous efforts which the US regime and its zionist masters have been putting into trying to overthrow the Islamic Republic and to provoke "regime change" in Iran.

The propaganda and psy-ops war waged on the IR is totally unprecedented in volume, mass, sophistication and underhandedness. The sanctions regime slapped on Iran is also among the worst in history. Washington and Tel Aviv's support for the entire array of anti-IR oppositionists - from the MKO camp in Albania to monarchists and even takfiri and "ethno"-separatist terrorist gangs, shows that they do not want the Islamic Republic and its leadership to govern in Iran. So does the behaviour of zionist lobbies and pressure groups accross the US, Canada and Europe.

And the primary targets of their wrath, as visible from their propaganda narrative against Iran, have consistently been the Supreme Leader and the IRGC.
 
Last edited:

Trench Broom

FULL MEMBER
Feb 14, 2020
389
-1
309
Country
Morocco
Location
United Kingdom
But, aren't you also advocating for Iran to abandon its anti-zionist stance?
Remind me what Iran has to do with a secular Jewish movement for self determination?

And why a bunch of guys with towels on their heads decided they would spend 40+ years and waste their entire country's wealth on confronting this?
 

Dariush the Great

FULL MEMBER
Jan 28, 2020
1,158
0
2,693
Country
Iran, Islamic Republic Of
Location
Iran, Islamic Republic Of
US itself sold the Shah of Iran the Tehran nuclear reactor that worked with HEU (90% enriched uranium) and they provided the fissile material to the Shah. The IAEA never bothered to issue a statement on Iran's nuclear activities before the 1990s.
But, aren't you also advocating for Iran to abandon its anti-zionist stance?

Here for instance you consider it to be a "very good" thing for Iranians to participate in a videogame competition in Isra"el" (a news item by the zionist publication "Jerusalem Post" that turned out to be bogus):


If one rejects the very notion of Resistance against zionism, then one will not be particularly well placed to deem Iranian efforts against Tel Aviv as insufficient.

Either one is supportive of Iran's anti-zionist position, and then one may logically be entitled to formulate criticism as long as it is sincere and constructive (rather than motivated by mere resentment towards the Islamic Republic); or, one does not believe in the anti-zionist struggle, in which case one should not blame Tehran for the way it chooses to conduct its Resistance against zionism.

____



Well, there's been no change: the highest levels of the clergy (marjai'a, mujtahids, grand ayatollahs) hadn't been the targets of terror attacks back then either.

This is because first, most have been apolitical, second because those who haven't, were and are too highly ranked in the political system for the cost/benefit analysis to make sense to potential perpetrators. Assassinating the Supreme Leader of the Islamic Revolution, for instance, will necessarily have considerable repercussions for any criminal stupid enough to attempt such a thing, be it the US regime itself, so that they will not view the expected benefits to be worthy of the costs involved.

Regarding the first decade of the Revolution: in the early 1980's, the MKO was committing dozens upon dozens of killings. Nowadays the situation does not allow the enemy to conduct that many attacks, it will thus have to carefully select its targets. That's why out of handful of martyrs the enemy managed to assassinate on Iranian soil over the past 12 years or so, most if not all were nuclear scientists. If they had the possibility to assassinate more, then there would no doubt also be clerics among the martyrs.

The Leader of the Islamic Revolution is still missing a hand from a terror attack. I wonder who else among current world leaders is an actual mujahid who put his life on the line, resulting in him being injured in such a manner? As far as I know, other than the Supreme Leader, there is no other example at this time. Also, what major political leader other than Hassan Nasrallah has a son martyred at young age while fighting for the cause?

Therefore I would personally not contrast clerics and non-clerics in this context.



Ebrahim Raisi toured the frontlines in Syria.

____





Imam Khomeini didn't live in the west. His stay in France did not even last for four months (October 1978 to February 2, 1979). And it came to this only because Turkish and Iraqi authorities decided to expell him from their territories.

Also according to the memoirs of a high ranking French official, the French secret services contemplated assassinating him. In addition to this a "Mossad" official admitted that Tel Aviv had hatched its own plan to kill the Imam upon his arrival in Tehran.



The west or the zionists didn't give the shah any instructions about Imam Khomeini.



Only months after the establishment of the Islamic Republic, elements with reported links to the CIA attempted coups to topple the newly intoduced political system and eradicate its leadership. You can look up the Nojeh coup attempt by Air Force officers loyal to the monarchy, etc.

The US regime doesn't need to go to such lengths to justify its aggressive policies in the region (justify them to whom?). They will simply order their lackeys to purchase their overpriced weapons en masse and station GI's on their territories, and the lackeys will bow and oblige. Nothing more is really needed to have these clients obey.



Nuclear warheads can't be suppressed in the same manner as individuals can be assassinated or token numbers of centrifuges sabotaged. Such weapons would be guarded by segments of Iran's security forces that are outside the enemy's reach (at least if the cost of such operations is to remain acceptable to said enemy).



I am yet to witness another country muster enough courage to take on the zionist regime and the US like Iran has been doing. The fact that Iran has not only survived this for 40+ years but is actually getting stronger buy the day and increasing its deterrence against all out aggression, is a testimony to the competence of its leadership. I am certain hardly another leadership would be capable of such an extraordinary feat.

Pakistan is not facing the same adversary - or rather, when it comes to Iran and Pakistan's common zio-American enemy, that enemy has not opened the chapter of active, full fledged hostilities against Pakistan yet. On the zionist death list, Pakistan's turn to be destroyed comes after Iran. India is certainly a large and relatively capable country, but in terms of raw power there's no comparison between India and global zionism + its lackeys, namely the US.



On this I fully agree.





1) Iran didn't completely hand over its nuclear assets. Western-apologetic liberals within the system (reformist + moderate factions) would certainly have no issues with doing so, but the revolutionary core of the IR prevented them from going that far. Not that the JCPOA was a satisfactory deal from the perspective of the revolutionaries but their presence imposed certain red lines on the liberal Rohani administration and prevented worse scenarios.

Nuclear technology has been indigenized by Iran. So unless Iran is destroyed like Iraq and Syria, or unless in-house liberals somehow manage to eradicate the revolutionaries (extremely unlikely), this acquisition of scientific knowledge and expertise is irreversible and can always be relied upon to resuscitate any and all aspects of Iran's nuclear program suspended or cancelled under deals such as the JCPOA.

2) You don't need nuclear weapons to effectively deter the US and Isra"el" from major forms of aggression, as long as your weapons are survivable enough, able to reach Tel Aviv and cause sufficient damage.

The equation is the following:

Extremely limited geographical and demographic extension of the zionist regime, with a limited number of critical military and infrastructural targets.

+

Fragility of the "zionist dream", which hinges upon the IDF's carefully cultivated image of flawless invincibility. Any large scale, sudden, traumatizing blow to that image will demoralize a settler population used to western standards of comfort and security, to the point of triggering mass emigration back to Europe, the US, Canada, etc.

+

America's actual status as a zionist vassal (underscored once again by Biden's now famous remarks), and the subsequent fact that to the ruling oligarchy in Washington, Isra"el" and its security are more important than the US itself.

=

Iran's tens of thousands of ballistic missiles, including many highly precise ones, and the associated mobile launchers and hardened underground missile bases (missile cities as they are called), offer a deterrence comparable to nuclear weapons when used against the zionist entity (with the added benefit of minimizing civilian casualties, namely among indigeneous Palestinians, and of sparing Masjid ul-Aqsa from any potential fallout).



See above regarding the Islamic Revolution. Also trust me, if it was easy for them to overthrow the Islamic Republic they would have already done so in a heartbeat long time ago.



Seriously? Do we need to list all domains in which Iranian scientists and industries (from stem cells to nanotechnologies and many more) have largely surpassed any technology in existence back then?

____



This is contradicted by the tremendous efforts which the US regime and its zionist masters have been putting into trying to overthrow the Islamic Republic and to provoke "regime change" in Iran.

The propaganda and psy-ops war waged on the IR is totally unprecedented in volume, mass, sophistication and underhandedness. The sanctions regime slapped on Iran is also among the worst in history. Washington and Tel Aviv's support for the entire array of anti-IR oppositionists - from the MKO camp in Albania to monarchists and even takfiri and "ethno"-separatist terrorist gangs, shows that they do not want the Islamic Republic and its leadership to govern in Iran. So does the behaviour of zionist lobbies and pressure groups accross the US, Canada and Europe.

And the primary targets of their wrath, as visible from their propaganda narrative against Iran, have consistently been the Supreme Leader and the IRGC.
Did you saw this post ?

 

sha ah

FULL MEMBER
Mar 2, 2018
694
0
921
Country
Iran, Islamic Republic Of
Location
Canada
Considering all the economic losses that Iran has incurred over its nuclear program, Iran should have just gone ahead and built nuclear weapons.

However keep in mind that 10-20 years ago, Iran's air defenses and missile program were not nearly as formidable as they are today. Therefore pursuing a nuclear bomb could have very well caused the US or Zionists to launch an attack on Iran's entire nuclear program.

In any case, it seems likely that the Biden administration with rejoin the nuclear deal. I'm not sure what the exact terms will be, however I doubt that the US or Europeans will give Iran any kind of compensation, as some Iranian officials are demanding.

However Iran should firmly demand that the Americans and Europeans first comply with all of their obligations under the nuclear deal before Iran even lifts a finger. Last time, in good faith, Iran fully abided with all the terms of the nuclear deal, while the US never fully lived up to its end of the bargain.

Anyways, Iran needs new passenger planes and considering how desperate companies like Boeing / Airbus are right now, I would say that the timing is perfect for Iran to purchase a large number of passenger planes at a deep discount. Iran's
airforce is also in desperate need of modern fighter jets and an influx of modern military technology from countries like Russia and China.

IMO Iran should not hesitate to buy a large number of SU-30 / SU-35 / MIG-35 / SU-57 fighter jets with technology transfers. As for helicopters, tanks, ships, drones, armored vehicles, etc, Iran should cooperate with Russia / China to purchase some vital components and jointly research and develop various weapons systems.

However any new deal should ensure that Iran has access to medical isotopes in the future and the ability to expand it's civilian nuclear program to the point where 10-20% of Iran's power grid with nuclear energy. Currently only 2-3% of the power grid is being powered with nuclear energy. With help from Russia / China, Iran should also build new nuclear power plants

As for companies like Peugeot or Renault, they will have to pay a steep penalty in order to be allowed back into the Iranian market. Furthermore any company that wants to invest in Iran should put down a decent security deposit so that if they suddenly decide to leave, Iran keeps the deposit. Something to that extent.

In other news, it seems that thanks to Iran, Venezuela's oil industry is up and running. They are now able to sell oil to China yet again. I'm sure Maduro will be forever thankful to Iran.


Even in that case, Iran's nuclear program is of no use as it is now. If you want to use Iran's nuclear program as a political card, it must be a nuclear weapons program, not a civilian program that 70% of the IAEA's monitoring activities and reports are related to it. Even Saudi Arabia and the UAE are progressing in nuclear technology now. Trump provided Saudi Arabia with sensitive nuclear technology and the IAEA is completely ignoring their nuclear activities. The UAE recently inaugurated a 5 GW nuclear facility that was built with the aid of South Koreans. Iran's nuclear program has lost its strategic nature. If Iran does not have a nuclear weapons program, it is nothing but a burden, and a clear sign of incompetency, mismanagement and treason.
 
Last edited:

Shawnee

FULL MEMBER
Jan 22, 2020
1,172
0
2,018
Country
United States
Location
United Kingdom
به گزارش خبرگزاری فارس، یک روز پس از حادثه ترور ناجوانمردانه شهید فخری زاده، خبرنگاران فارس به جزئیاتی از این عملیات تروریستی دست پیدا کرده‌اند.



بنابر این گزارش، ماشین ضدگلوله حامل شهید محسن فخری زاده و همسر وی، صبح جمعه به همراه ۳ ماشین تیم حفاظت از شهر رستم کلای مازندران به سمت آبسرد دماوند حرکت می‌کند.

ماشین پیشرو تیم حفاظت چند کیلومتر مانده به محل حادثه، اسکورت را برای چک و خنثی محل مقصد ترک می‌کند.

در همین لحظات، صدای ناشی از اصابت چند گلوله به ماشین، موجب جلب توجه دکتر فخری‌زاده و متوقف کردن ماشین می‌شود. فخری‌زاده به تصور اینکه صدا ناشی از برخورد با مانع خارجی یا اشکال در موتور خودرو بوده از ماشین پیاده می‌شود.

در همین لحظه از خودرو نیسانی که در فاصله ۱۵۰ متری ماشین شهید متوقف بوده، از یک دستگاه تیربار اتوماتیک کنترل از راه دور، شلیک‌های متعددی به سمت شهید صورت می‌گیرد. دو گلوله به پهلو و یک گلوله به پشت شهید برخورد می‌کند که منجر به قطع نخاع وی می‌گردد.

در این اثنا سرتیم حفاظت بدن خود را حائل پیکر شهید می‌کند و چند تیر نیز به بدن وی اصابت می‌کند. لحظاتی بعد همان نیسان متوقف شده نیز منفجر می‌شود.

پیکر مجروح شهید به درمانگاه و از آنجا با هلی‌کوپتر به بیمارستانی در تهران منتقل می‌شود که متاسفانه بعد از مدتی به شهادت می‌رسد.

گفتنی است طبق اطلاعات خبرنگار فارس در این عملیات که حدود ۳ دقیقه طول کشیده است، هیچ عامل انسانی در محل ترور حضور نداشته و تیراندازی‌ها تنها توسط سلاح خودکار انجام شده است و به جزء محافظ شهید که مجروح می‌شود، هیچ فرد دیگری در این حادثه آسیب نمی‌بیند.

در همین رابطه بررسی هویت مالک خودروی نیسان، نشان دهنده خروج وی در ۸ آبان ماه سال جاری از کشور است.

به گزارش فارس، شهید محسن فخری زاده از دانشمندان پرافتخار هسته‌ای و دفاعی کشورمان نزدیک به ۳ دهه در فهرست ترور گروه‌های تروریستی و رژیم صهیونسیتی قرار داشت. در سالهای اخیر بارها عملیات‌های تروریستی علیه وی کشف و خنثی شده بود


نتیجه گیری

......::::::
خیلی داستان منطقی به نظر نمیاد
و اصلا فردی نبوده و همه چیز روباتیک بوده
دوربین ها چی
مسلسل با ماهواره کنترل میشده
پس چرا بمب کنار جاده ای نگذاشتن
نیسان میخواستن چه کار و بمب کنار جاده ای راحت تر بود که میشد مثل دفعات قبل توی سنگ باشه
اینقدر خر تو خره ماشین می ایسته و بین دوازده نفر اصل کاری اینقدر بیرون بوده
چه خبر از اون محافظی که پرید جلو و خودش شهید شد
نقطه زنی کردن و محافظی هم کشته نشد
پس با این نقطه زنی ترور نکردن و بگین برگه برنده رو کردن بدتر ترور
...
ریدید برادر ها
لطفا مثل ماجرای تایلند سریع انتقام نگیرید و دو تا پت و مت نفرستید خودشونو ناقص کنن‌

بعد باید یه پرستویی پیدا کنیم پت و مت شما رو ازاد کنیم
نفوذی هم لابد نداریم و همه چی شنود و ماهواره ای و روباتیک بوده
اخرین نفوذی خود کشمیری بود
.....
قدرت ایران در حمله به زیرساخت ه نه ترور روباتیک و اطلاعاتی
ما باید ثابت کنیم اماده ایم همه رو به صفر صفر صفر برسونیم و بازنده نهایی اونیست که مالش بیشتر بوده

لطفا به همون زیرساخت زنی و کشتی گیری ادامه داده و پت و مت نفرستین
ماشالا شما هم چنان زیر ساخت میزنید هیچ وقت خونی از دماغ کسی نمیاد
بنده خدا محافظی که خودش رو سپر یه جسد کرد​
 
Last edited:

Users Who Are Viewing This Thread (Total: 3, Members: 0, Guests: 3)


Top Bottom