What's new

Iranian Chill Thread

NightStrike

FULL MEMBER

New Recruit

Aug 3, 2019
49
0
68
Country
United States
Location
United States
I think you believe the Israelis will fly directly towards Natanz, bomb it and fly away as quickly as possible. Right? Do you believe that?

That is not what will happen. To bomb Natanz (and other places) you need to bomb air-defences, military bases,airports, chain of command etc to prevent an immediate disruption to the aerial campaign and hamper any retaliation. So within a few hours Israel would have already indiscriminately bombed Iran. It would be well within international rights for Iran to respond in the same manner.. tough luck for Israel as it is only 100km's wide it would suffer an unimaginable destruction at the hands of Iranian missiles. The world (apart from the US) wouldn't condemn Iran for responding to the Israeli aggression. That is the whole problem here for the Israeli hawks.

Btw, Israel does not have the capability to carry out an extensive aerial bombing campaign of Iran. Iranian territory is too far and too huge for Israel to take on. They need the US onboard with them but that is not going to happen under Biden.

Conclusion : indiscriminate Iranian bombing of Israel is well within all International norms.
Nobody said Israel will or can attack Natanz. What I said was a high intensity conflict may cause Israel to use nuclear weapons against Iran. How that conflict begins is anyone’s guess.
 
Jan 28, 2020
2,001
-3
4,798
Country
Iran, Islamic Republic Of
Location
Bahrain
Nobody said Israel will or can attack Natanz. What I said was a high intensity conflict may cause Israel to use nuclear weapons against Iran. How that conflict begins is anyone’s guess.
And i replied that a high intensity conflicts starts with Israel bombing Iran. Israel will not use nukes to respond to an indiscriminate Iranian retaliation.
 

Aspen

SENIOR MEMBER
Sep 18, 2019
3,508
1
6,221
Country
Pakistan
Location
United States
And i replied that a high intensity conflicts starts with Israel bombing Iran. Israel will not use nukes to respond to an indiscriminate Iranian retaliation.
I think the kind of shadow war going on currently will escalate into a more intense version of the same shadow war but bolder.

Think of the Dimona missile type events, but instead of missing they actually decide to hit something.

I have to say, firing a missile near Dimona was pretty bold, I was surprised not only that they actually did it, but how it shattered just how hyped up Israel's AD is.

I feel like it was a test case building up to something bigger. Maybe Iran testing the waters to see if they can actually use kinetic strikes to take out hard targets in Israel. Enforcing a new normal that can actually retaliate in a meaningful way for all of Israel's sabotage attempts, cyberattacks, and strikes in Syria by hitting back in Israel itself and penetrating Israel's AD layers to take out high value targets like Dimona.
 

NightStrike

FULL MEMBER

New Recruit

Aug 3, 2019
49
0
68
Country
United States
Location
United States
And i replied that a high intensity conflicts starts with Israel bombing Iran. Israel will not use nukes to respond to an indiscriminate Iranian retaliation.
That won’t happen, I think at some point Iran’s encirclement of Israel may lead to a war if Israel feels desperate. They may use tactical nukes on Syria and or Lebanon in such conflict under certain circumstances.
 
Last edited:

Stryker1982

SENIOR MEMBER
Oct 5, 2016
2,200
-2
3,503
Country
Canada
Location
Canada
And i replied that a high intensity conflicts starts with Israel bombing Iran. Israel will not use nukes to respond to an indiscriminate Iranian retaliation.
Theirs a reason why Iran has nuclear hardened missile bases. War planners know that all options are on the table and it would cause great harm and destruction to mis-calculate the enemy.

1620405641048.png
1620405648082.png


What ever circumstances that lead to the destruction of Israeli's economy (Haifa port), and water/food supply (2 desalination plants (50% of water supply)) among other civilian infrastructure such as power plants, and sewage treatment plants in conjunction with the destruction of 50%-90% of Tel-Aviv, I can assure you for their own survival, they WILL use nuclear weapons to halt an Iranian missile launches. Their are no doubts about this.

Bavar-373 wasn't developed for no reason. They were designed with interception of ballistic missiles in mind among other high-altitude targets. This indigenous capability is required to counter with the best possible methods, the use of multiple nuclear Jericho launches. Israel will not be destroyed with Iran unscathed, therefore Iran has been preparing diligently for years about this issue. I'm sure @TheImmortal can attest to this.

1620405839196.png
 

TheImmortal

SENIOR MEMBER
Mar 11, 2017
3,797
-10
6,274
Country
United States
Location
United States
One last point: Syria had one of the worlds largest WMD warhead stockpile of worlds deadliest virus’ and it gave it no deterrence from Mossad operations on its territory from 2000-2010 nor saved its nuclear program (2007) from air strikes.

The West is afarid of nuclear weapons in the hands of great powers (Russia and China) and nuclear weapons in the hands of weak groups ( terrorist groups or 3rd world countries) because the latter has not much to lose if they use it and the former has the capability to wipe out the West in a 1st strike.

It is not concerned about mid tier powers (Iran/Turkey)

Iran would only have justification to use a nuclear weapon in the case of LAND INVASION where the governments control is at risk (thinking battle of Berlin 1945).

Or else Israel or US launching air strikes on you in Yemen or Israel or engaging in small scale conventional battles will not be prevented by having a “nuclear umbrella” when the other party also has a nuclear umbrella.
 

SalarHaqq

FULL MEMBER
Dec 29, 2019
861
2
1,897
Country
Belgium
Location
Netherlands
It looks like the friends of the MEK have decided to try and take their shot,interesting timing tho,isnt it?.
I think the israelis are literally sh!tting bricks at even the thought of a jcpoa revival,I think that they`re pulling out all the stops and calling in every favor to try and derail it.
https://www.msn.com/en-xl/middleeast/top-stories/dozens-of-former-un-officials-call-for-inquiry-into-1988-iran-massacre/ar-BB1gmQjm
https://thehill.com/policy/international/middle-east-north-africa/551719-dozens-of-former-un-officials-human-rights
Say thanks to the Democrat Biden regime, which some Iranians (mainly reformist supporters) seem to believe is somehow "less" accomodating of the zionist entity and more lenient towards Iran than a Republic regime would have been.

There appears to be this incorrect assumption among various forum users that a Democrat US administration will be less inclined to harm Iran compared to a Republican one. Likewise, they seem to believe that Democrat US administrations are worse for Isra"el". Nothing could be farther from the truth though. Historically, one might even argue that Democrat US presidents assisted Tel Aviv more than their Republican counterparts - either way, the difference between the two, in terms of subservience to the zionists has been minimal. I am by no means trying to exonerate the Republican crazies here, but simply formulating a wake up call, that both ruling cliques of the US regime are equally interested in destroying Iran. US hostility towards Iran is bipartisan, and both parties constitute existential threats to Iran. Such broad foreign policy goals are determined by the US regime's deep state anyway, which is entirely beholden to global zionism, and not by this or that president.

So everyone, stop falling for this misleading idea, peddled by the likes of the NIAC (National Iranian-American Council), its former head Trita Parsi (now working for sort of a think tank funded by messianist globalist George Soros, who was backing the 2009 Green Movement in Iran and is on the record for predicting (read: wishing) the imminent downfall" of the Islamic Republic), as well as their reformist and moderate friends in Iran.

Also, it was the administration of probable child molester William Clinton (a Democrat not a Republican), that is responsible for the infamous Iran Sanctions Act (ISA) or D'Amato law, one of the centerpieces of the inhumane US sanctions regime against Iran. It was under Barack Obama, another Democrat, that Syria was assaulted by NATO regimes with their all-out backing of the sectarianist terrorist insurgency there, with the goal of disrupting the Iranian-led Resistance Axis to the benefit of Isra"el".

Iranians need to dispel these notions as quickly as possible, since they will only lead to two things: one, erroneous geostrategic assessment, and two, favoring the election of another liberal at Iran's presidential election to succeed Rohani, and resulting in more of the same for another 8 years.

Speaking of which, even if one might argue that Zarif is not the same as Rohani or other arch-liberals: please have no illusions whatsoever that a future Zarif administration, or an administration led by some liberal candidate backed by Zarif, is going to be staffed by the exact same people who made up the Rohani cabinet, and is going to pursue the exact same policies. This would result in JCPOAs II and III, which would see Iran open up her ballistic missiles program to western and zionist spies, limit the range of her missiles to a few hundred kilometers, and have Iran stop supporting her allies in the region militarily, thus losing any and all influence outside of its borders.

I hope users who have been supporting Zarif on this forum over the past few days are well aware of this fact, and that they will advise Iranians against voting for either Zarif or another liberal coming June, their position on Zarif himself notwithstanding. Unless of course, they are themselves bona fide liberals (we have a few of those here too).

_____

100% as you say, it's the normalization they fear the most, Iran-Saudi Rapprochement Iran must remain an outcast for them to be happy. Albeit, we have many in the Iran camp that prefer NO deal, and prefer this position because it does allow the opportunity for nuclear breakout.
Unfortunately I must take issue with this statement. It all depends what you can normalization: if you have an Iran-Saudi raprochment not accompanied by wholesome Iranian retreat from the region (retreat that Iranian liberals like the Rohani gang, and that includes Zarif, are willing to carry out) in mind, then yes. But any other notion of a normalization, namely integration into the nation-eroding globalist system is not feared by Isra"el" at all. On the contrary, this sort of a normalization is exactly what the likes of Pompeo, no less, have been demanding. Never forget that Mike Pompeo very explicitly called for the "normalization" of Iran (he used that exact word).

Please understand that no US administration is going to conduct a policy that will result in Iran overtaking the Arab regimes, let alone Isra"el". The US regime's condition for "reintegrating" Iran back into the so-called "international community" is precisely that Iran stops its struggle against the zionist entity, if not outright recognition of the latter by Iran, and also that Iran agrees to rolling back its main assets of deterrence, i.e. one its regional presence and two its ballistic missile (and even UAV) power. Hence all the talk of a JCPOA II and III, explicitly anounced both by the US regime - whether led by Obama, Trump or Biden, and also by Rohani himself in his televized Noruz address to the nation right after the nuclear JCPOA was implemented (not "signed" by the way, I see everyone, including Zarif himself, commit this mistake - when it comes to the JCPOA, no document was signed by anybody, as this deal was not an international treaty, only a political understanding).

Please understand that the JCPOA, from a US perspective, was never meant to strengthen Iran economically - in fact we clearly witnessed how little the JCPOA benefited Iran economically speaking, and we also witnessed how Obama immediately proceeded to imposing new sanctions on Iran after the JCPOA was implemented. No, to Washington, the JCPOA's exclusive purpose is to serve as a stepping stone for similar deals limiting Iran's ballistic missile power and its reach in the region. After which, they will do to Iran what they did to Ghadafi's Libya, or, alternatively, use an Iranian Gorbachev to bring about Iran's collapse and "ethnic" balkanization from within similar to the USSR.

____


China and US killed each other in Korea, both when they were nuclear weapons powers and neither umbrellas helped the other in that war. Stop promoting Western propaganda.
But China wasn't a nuclear weapons power during the Korean war. It acquired such weapons in 1964 only, that is years after the end of the Korean war (1950-1953).

Also, the Korean war is quite telling in this regard. Indeed, we know that US general McArthur seriously considered employing nuclear weapons after China entered the war and managed to give the Americans more than a bloody nose. Sure, in the end the Americans didn't go so far, but if China was already in possession of a nuclear deterrent back then, the risk would have been averted completely, since in that case neither McArthur nor any other maniac in Washington would have even remotely considered nuclear strikes on North Korea.

You guys are in a rude awakening thinking nuclear weapons will prevent Iran from getting attacked in other countries. Russia got attacked by Turkey. US got attacked by Iran (Iran-Iraq war and 2003 Iraq war).
Nuclear weapons prevent the fall of ones territorial integrity to ones enemy as a desperate last measure. It doesn’t prevent conventional conflicts with your enemy (see Pakistan and India) nor does it prevent extra territorial or proxy war conflicts far away from ones borders.

So this thinking that if iran had nukes, israel would be afraid to attack it in Syria because of some “escalation ladder” is nonsense. What is Iran going to say, “you better stop attacking me in Syria or I will nuke you?” Israel will respond “you nuke me and I’ll nuke Tehran, Isfahan, and Qom”.

There is no escalation ladder in a minor conventional conflict or shadow war (which is what Syria is) that would lead to nuclear war that Iran would employ because the situation doesn’t warrant such a escalation.
If Iran became a declared nuclear armed state, in case of Isra"el"i strikes in Syria, sabotage actions on Iranian soil etc, Iran could very well move a few steps up the escalation ladder using conventional means. There are many, many steps on this ladder prior to reaching the stage of an full out nuclear exchange.

Iran is not going to say "you better stop attacking me in Syria or I will nuke you", no. But, if Iran was a declared nuclear power, she is very much going to say: "you better stop attacking me in Syria or I will lob a few ballistic missiles onto zionist military targets in Occupied Palestine". What would Isra"el" do about it? Threaten Iran with nuclear strikes? No chance, since Iran will then respond: "you dare use nukes on us, we will nuke Tel Aviv and Haifa in return".

But either way, given that recent zionist actions against Iran are nowhere near enough to tip the strategic balance, Iran can also do without nuclear weapons. Only all out US-led aggression could theoretically neutralize Iran, but that happens to be sufficiently deterred by Iran's conventional ballistic missile force as well as Iran's regional allies, which by themselves are enough to wreck absolute havoc on the zionist entity.

So again the fallacy that if Iran gets a nuclear bomb it will be untouchable and can stream roll thru the Middle East is a a lie promoted by the West to justify sanctions regime and containment protocol. Has no basis in reality or historical precedent.
Iran is already deterring her enemies efficiently enough through her conventional military means. Which is why to this day, Iran has not rushed to acquire the bomb (or to openly admit being a nuclear armed state).

That said, with a declared Iranian nuclear weapons arsenal, the rules of engagement would change nonetheless and Tel Aviv and Washington would additionally be deterred from some of the non-game changing, symbolic acts of aggression they've been conducting against Iran as of late. Not that this would change the equation in any meaningful way, since those actions against Iran have been largely inefficient in the big picture anyway. But if Iran were to be able to deter these minor jabs as well, she would score some additional little psy-ops points (as in, no more Iranian users on PDF getting demoralized or letting their imaginations run wild about how "weak", "miserable", "incapable" the Islamic Republic has supposedly become).

It is not concerned about mid tier powers (Iran/Turkey)
Concerned enough, otherwise the US regime wouldn't be as powerless as it is against an otherwise minor actor such as the Democratic People's Republic of Korea. And there are no valid excuses for the US, such as postulating that North Korea is somehow "useful" to Washington - just as Iran is not "useful" to either Isra"el" or the US; if the US has failed to "regime change" North Korea so far, it is because it has been incapable to do so at an acceptable cost.

In Iran's case, since the Iranian ballistic missile force offers quasi-equivalent deterrence to a nuclear arsenal (especially considering the lack of geographic depth of Iran's main adversary, Isra"el", an entity that the US is never going sacrifice), it causes the west as much headache if not more than Korea's nuclear arms. Else they wouldn't be spending this much effort on trying to contain and in effect, on trying to destroy and balkanize Iran through the use of "ethno"-separarist groups, through their massive propaganda and psy-ops war against the Iranian nation (unprecedented in human history), through the toughest sanctions regime imposed on any country in the world, etc.
 
Last edited:
Jan 28, 2020
2,001
-3
4,798
Country
Iran, Islamic Republic Of
Location
Bahrain
But if Iran were to be able to deter these minor jabs as well, she would score some additional little psy-ops points (as in, no more Iranian users on PDF getting demoralized or letting their imaginations run wild about how "weak", "miserable", "incapable" the Islamic Republic has supposedly become).
Salar jan, i don't think there are any Iranians (whether on PDF or outside) who see IR as weak or incapable. On the contrary, IR is extremely powerful and it has plenty of options to teach the little child Israel a lesson. What is mind boggling to a lot of Iranians (including me) is the lack of any meaningful response while having plenty of options. If you ask me i would tell you that the aggressive revolutionary zeal that was in place has been broken and replaced by a materialistic mindset accommodating to the imperialists. Had we launched a missile (not necessarily from Iran) for every Israeli strike we wouldn't have been in this situation nowadays. And with that i mean the political landscape. IMO sanctions are also in place because lack of an effective deterrence. Ghavi va shojaa bash ke baghiye azet betarsan.
 

SalarHaqq

FULL MEMBER
Dec 29, 2019
861
2
1,897
Country
Belgium
Location
Netherlands
Beatiful analysis by Dr. Abbasi on the policies of liberal Iranian administrations (Khatami, Rohani). Although Dr. Abbasi is basing himself on game theory, which I do not believe to be an adequate tool in the analysis of social and political phenomena, the point up to which he develops his presentation has nothing much game theoretical, and is akin to regular political analysis.

Learn why and how the "peaceful coexistence" approach towards the US recommended by liberals is dangerous to Iran's future.

Understand the US perspective, and how Washington is mainly trying to lead Iran into the same trap it led the USSR's Nikita Krushchev into.

Dr. Abbasi also expands upon the differences between moderates (Hashemi / Rohani clique) and reformists in Iran. In fact the latter are even more defeatist and dangerous than the former, in case you had a doubt.


Brothers, don't let any individual sympathies you might feel for Zarif right now, or the belief that he has been unfairly branded as a traitor, cause you to lower your guard or worse, encourage you to vote for a liberal candidate in June, if not for Zarif himself.

Else you will get "more of the same" - and even much worse than that, for another 8 painful years, and will be in no position to call out things you have been lamenting here on this forum during Rohani's presidency.
 
Last edited:

SalarHaqq

FULL MEMBER
Dec 29, 2019
861
2
1,897
Country
Belgium
Location
Netherlands
If you ask me i would tell you that the aggressive revolutionary zeal that was in place has been broken and replaced by a materialistic mindset accommodating to the imperialists. Had we launched a missile (not necessarily from Iran) for every Israeli strike we wouldn't have been in this situation nowadays. And with that i mean the political landscape. IMO sanctions are also in place because lack of an effective deterrence. Ghavi va shojaa bash ke baghiye azet betarsan.
I will only answer briefly, due to a lack of time: Iran, via its allies, neutralized more US occupation troops in the past 20 years (in Iraq mostly) than during the entire "hot" phase of the Revolution in the 1980's.

Also, the attacks Iran has been subjected to were already taking place in the 1980: assassination of Iran's democratically elected president shahid Raja'i, terrorist downing of an Iranian airliner, daily bombings and attacks by the MKO, separarists in Kurdish regions causing serious problems. Iran's response to these was not much more aggressive than what we see nowadays, and Iran was in the middle of a full fledged war back then, a war of aggression launched by Saddam who used to be actively sponsored by both the western and the eastern blocs.

I don't see what's there to deplore about Iran's geopolitical situation, to be honest. Openly launching a ballistic missile from Iran onto Occupied Palestine would have represented an escalation and would not have been the smartest thing to do. Instead, the security establishment in Iran has been acting wisely, and today we are delighted to witness Iran's almost daily retaliation against Isra"el".

The only remaining issue are the western-apologetic liberals within the IR. There are no excuses for a patriot not to help removing them from power in the upcoming presidential election. Let's stay focused on this and not divert, since it is this which will determine Iran's future.

Iran is at a radical crossroads now: in the next couple of decades, she will either be destroyed - literally, or to the contrary, her rise as a global power and an indestructible fortress, challenging global zionism and imperialism like never before, will be completed. Therefore this will be the most important election in the history of the Islamic Republic. Let us all join hands to defeat the liberals come June, and propel to power a candidate who believes in a strong, powerful Iran.
 
Last edited:

SalarHaqq

FULL MEMBER
Dec 29, 2019
861
2
1,897
Country
Belgium
Location
Netherlands
Hasan Kachlanloo was killed by Turkish border guards after significant torture including rape with a knife.

Another Iranian Azerbaijani found Turkey is not his friend unless there is a gain.
Just f.y.i., the suffix -loo denotes Kurdish surnames rather than Azari ones. The victim was a Kurdish Iranian trans-border goods carrier. But thanks for letting us know. At any rate, this murder by Turkish border guards (if reports are correct) is of course entirely unacceptable in addition to being a criminal act against an Iranian citizen (smuggler or not, you just don't extra-judicially torture captives to death, this is plain savagery).
 

PeeD

FULL MEMBER
Nov 28, 2014
1,447
21
6,173
Country
Iran, Islamic Republic Of
Location
Iran, Islamic Republic Of
I hope users who have been supporting Zarif on this forum over the past few days are well aware of this fact, and that they will advise Iranians against voting for either Zarif or another liberal coming June, their position on Zarif himself notwithstanding. Unless of course, they are themselves bona fide liberals (we have a few of those here too).
I for one just saw Zarifs haq taken. I doubt he will become candidate and I would not vote for him, I'm too militaristic for Zarifs diplomatic approach.

Hence, ya haq!
 

Users Who Are Viewing This Thread (Total: 4, Members: 0, Guests: 4)


Top Bottom