What's new

Iranian Chill Thread

TheImmortal

SENIOR MEMBER
Mar 11, 2017
4,103
-13
6,849
Country
United States
Location
United States
There's Russia in the SCO, a developed country. But the SCO isn't exactly a NATO-type military alliance.

NATO includes Turkey and Greece, two traditional enemies whose forces have continued to skirmish even after joining the alliance.



The Philippines is an interesting example. Although they do have a mutual defence pact with Washington, President Duterte has tried to distance his country from the US. Also, in the face of Chinese intrusion into territory claimed by the Philippines, not only have the latter's armed forces proven to lack any sort of deterrence power, but their American allies equally failed to keep China out despite their treaty obligations.


Washington and its Arab allies aren't bound by mutual defence accords. The militaries of these states are of regional relevance at best and as such would do not really count as a deterrence force against China.

Nor would the zionist regime participate in a serious operation against China. It'd most likely sit on the fences, play both sides and draw benefit from their clash. In fact, zionists are busy sending out their pawns into China as we speak. In a very methodical and discrete manner, as per their habits. There are also significant links between the globalist oligarchy and China's economic elites.

Some hints are visible here and there... For instance, China may be in the process of moving towards the legalization of homosexual unions and child adoptions by homosexual couples. Likewise, it seems like the groundwork for extra-continental mass immigration is slowly being laid in certain Chinese urban areas such as the Guangdong / Pearl River Delta megalopolis - along with the same engineered theatrics of racism vs anti-racism, which we know western oligarchies are busying their populations with, in order to redirect the revolutionary energy of the working class towards futile intra-class struggles on an "ethnic" instead of an economic basis. We also have the subtle encroachment of the Haifan Bahai organization in China, with a particular view to targeting successful and wealthy business people for conversion and recruitment. In the same way, marriages between influential zionist and Chinese individuals have sharply increased over the past years. But, this is a complex topic of its own.

https://www.nbcnews.com/feature/nbc-out/why-china-raising-prospect-same-sex-marriage-n1109471

https://www.globaltimes.cn/content/501588.shtml

India, for its part, is indeed being groomed by the US in a frontline deterrence role against China. However face to face with China, India has amply demonstrated its vulnerabilities.



Germany during WW2 had allies, collectively referred to as the so-called Axis Powers:

- Germany
- Italy
- Japan
- Finland
- Hungary
- Slovakia
- Romania
- Bulgaria

Many of these countries having in fact annexed large swaths of territory from their neighbors, ie they were larger and relatively speaking more populous than in their present form. Of course, France and the UK had far more extensive colonial possessions; but then again, these colonies experienced quasi non-stop demographic expansion at much faster pace than the west since the end of the war, thus they weren't particularly populous back in the day (with the exception of the British Raj in India).

From England to India and from the Baltic States to Croatia and Serbia, some hundreds of thousands of volunteers joined moreover the ranks of the Waffen-SS. Quite unbelievably, there were even Russian volunteers fighting against the USSR (see Kaminiski Brigade).

Thus it makes sense for the following

China
-Iran
-(HZ-Iraqi militias, Syrian militias, Hamas, Houthi Resistance alliance)
-Russia
-NK

Wildcards (potential to flip to axis side)
-Turkey
-Pakistan

Realistically this is the only way to provide military deterrence and allow Chinese led world order to emerge. Or else building only a economic deterrence by ways of Silk Road Integration of various countries will not provide suffice deterrence from an attack.

Remember the white man “acts” civilized because social norms calls for it. But when it’s security and livelihood are challenged they will not hesitate to turn back into savages in order to protect their way of life.

I'm not against the above suggested idea of an alliance between China and the mentioned countries and movements. This said, on the other side there's a considerable imbalance between the US and its allies. So I don't know how much of a difference it would make for a country the size of China. For example, France and the UK put together have only slightly more than 500 nuclear weapons officially vs America's over 5500, in other terms they add less than 10% to the US regime's nuclear power. In terms of defence budgets, in 2020 other NATO countries spent about a third of America's over 780 billion USD. Add south Korea, Japan and Australia, and that's "only" some additional 120 billion.
Do not look at military budget as power status or else Iran would look like a pushover at merely $20B defense budget annually.

Look at manpower, navy ships, air power.

Manpower alone between India, SK, Japan could muster = 1-1.5M soldiers.

NATO = 750K-1M soldiers (Turkey alone could supply 400K)

US 1-1.5M soldiers

So an allied force could muster 4M soldiers including reservists. Where as China would be at about 1M or so before having to draft regular civilians.

Again this is a “world war” scenario aka a “all hands on decks”

Between the Allied forces alone, allies could muster at least 5000+ military aircraft to China’s 1500.

Another issue is China like Imperial Japan has an oil problem. (Indeed one reason for Pearl Harbor was oil sanctions had crippled Japanese war machine). While China does have an emergency reserve (exact amount is state secret) securing additional oil to not crash its local economy during a prolonged war effort would be very difficult. Not to mention allies would attack onshore oil storage in the beginning of conflict knowing energy is its weakest link.

Thus we arrive at my original point. Removing nuclear weapons out of the equation (even tactical would open a Pandora’s box that China may be hesitant to do in the beginning). China will need allies, alone it cannot hope to stand against the United effort of the world.

Like I said individually US allies pose not a major threat to China, however together with addition of US the swarm alliance becomes much more lethal in unison and synergistic effect.

Thus until China develops alliances it will never reach world order leader status. Merely economic superpower status which does not exactly translate to world order leader status. It will have big say at the table, but not the FINAL say and that right there is key.
 

Shawnee

FULL MEMBER
Jan 22, 2020
1,847
0
3,214
Country
United States
Location
United Kingdom
Do not look at military budget as power status or else Iran would look like a pushover at merely $20B defense budget annually.

Look at manpower, navy ships, air power.

Manpower alone between India, SK, Japan could muster = 1-1.5M soldiers.

NATO = 750K-1M soldiers (Turkey alone could supply 400K)

US 1-1.5M soldiers

So an allied force could muster 4M soldiers including reservists. Where as China would be at about 1M or so before having to draft regular civilians.

Again this is a “world war” scenario aka a “all hands on decks”

Between the Allied forces alone, allies could muster at least 5000+ military aircraft to China’s 1500.

Another issue is China like Imperial Japan has an oil problem. (Indeed one reason for Pearl Harbor was oil sanctions had crippled Japanese war machine). While China does have an emergency reserve (exact amount is state secret) securing additional oil to not crash its local economy during a prolonged war effort would be very difficult. Not to mention allies would attack onshore oil storage in the beginning of conflict knowing energy is its weakest link.

Thus we arrive at my original point. Removing nuclear weapons out of the equation (even tactical would open a Pandora’s box that China may be hesitant to do in the beginning). China will need allies, alone it cannot hope to stand against the United effort of the world.

Like I said individually US allies pose not a major threat to China, however together with addition of US the swarm alliance becomes much more lethal in unison and synergistic effect.

Thus until China develops alliances it will never reach world order leader status. Merely economic superpower status which does not exactly translate to world order leader status. It will have big say at the table, but not the FINAL say and that right there is key.
Numbers, numbers, numbers

Did you watch Yemen or Afghanistan war?

Patience, perseverance and faith trumps armor, airforce and odds.
 

TheImmortal

SENIOR MEMBER
Mar 11, 2017
4,103
-13
6,849
Country
United States
Location
United States
Patience, perseverance and faith trumps armor, airforce and odds.
That is the dumbest thing I have ever read. So thank you for that.

A US allied war against China would be conventional army vs conventional army. China is not Vietcong, it operates under conventional military strategies, C&C, and military structures. It’s literally building it’s military in the image of US (massive airforce, massive navy, massive troop count). Only Iran is a dual military using asymmetrical and symmetrical tactics.

Afghanistan and Yemen are guirella warfare against conventional army. And in case of Yemen not even conventional army, Saudi Arabia isnt even fighting on the ground. It’s mostly mercenaries with Saudi airsupport. Most Saudi troops you are seeing are near the Saudi Yemen border fighting. Assad also was getting his *** handed to him by terrorists with Tows till Russian air support came in along with Iranian shock troops.

Don’t compare those battlefields vs battlefields of nations vs nations.
 

Shawnee

FULL MEMBER
Jan 22, 2020
1,847
0
3,214
Country
United States
Location
United Kingdom
That is the dumbest thing I have ever read. So thank you for that.

A US allied war against China would be conventional army vs conventional army. China is not Vietcong, it operates under conventional military strategies, C&C, and military structures. It’s literally building it’s military in the image of US (massive airforce, massive navy, massive troop count). Only Iran is a dual military using asymmetrical and symmetrical tactics.

Afghanistan and Yemen are guirella warfare against conventional army. And in case of Yemen not even conventional army, Saudi Arabia isnt even fighting on the ground. It’s mostly mercenaries with Saudi airsupport. Most Saudi troops you are seeing are near the Saudi Yemen border fighting. Assad also was getting his *** handed to him by terrorists with Tows till Russian air support came in along with Iranian shock troops.

Don’t compare those battlefields vs battlefields of nations vs nations.
I am not surprised that you have no grasp of non-physical values in militaries.

Battle of Kabul, despite more manpower and armor and airforce, was won by Talibs.
That was not guerilla hit and run attack. That is true war. War.

Same for Yemen. Saudis have soldiers of many nations. They have a coalition. They are exhausted and worn out though.
Airforce will not guarantee a win.

In any kind of war, patience and faith matters.

If you disagree, keep counting the ships and MBTs then.
 
Last edited:

Shawnee

FULL MEMBER
Jan 22, 2020
1,847
0
3,214
Country
United States
Location
United Kingdom
من آدم مذهبی نیستم ولی هر چه بزگتر میشم بیشتر به ارزش صبر پی میبرم. برای موفقیت در زندگی لازم نیست باهوش باشید ولی لازمه صبور باشین
چه مهندس باشین چه رزمنده چه در بازار بورس

من غیر مذهبی رو یاد این میندازه

الْآنَ خَفَّفَ اللَّهُ عَنكُمْ وَعَلِمَ أَنَّ فِيكُمْ ضَعْفًا ۚ فَإِن يَكُن مِّنكُم مِّائَةٌ صَابِرَةٌ يَغْلِبُوا مِائَتَيْنِ ۚ وَإِن يَكُن مِّنكُمْ أَلْفٌ يَغْلِبُوا أَلْفَيْنِ بِإِذْنِ اللَّهِ ۗ وَاللَّهُ مَعَ الصَّابِرِينَ

از اموزه های دوران دبیرستان :)
 

SalarHaqq

FULL MEMBER
Dec 29, 2019
1,290
2
2,623
Country
Belgium
Location
Netherlands
Do not look at military budget as power status or else Iran would look like a pushover at merely $20B defense budget annually.
This is correct but it applies to countries with a significant domestic defense industry as well as a weak currency relative to the US dollar and/or significantly lower production costs compared to western standards. Of America's allies listed above, only India might fit the bill here. The others do not get much more than America itself out of each dollar invested in their armed forces. Actually, China would also have to be considered more powerful than its nominal defense budget expressed in USD might suggest, given lower production costs compared to its western rivals.

Look at manpower, navy ships, air power.

Manpower alone between India, SK, Japan could muster = 1-1.5M soldiers.

NATO = 750K-1M soldiers (Turkey alone could supply 400K)

US 1-1.5M soldiers

So an allied force could muster 4M soldiers including reservists. Where as China would be at about 1M or so before having to draft regular civilians.
Minbing, the Chinese militia under direct command of the CCP is a parallel military corps of some 8 million, twice the manpower of the described allied force. It's comparable to the Basij.

Despite its rapid transformation, today's People's Republic of China is still consecutive to a founding period marked by Mao Zedong and a heritage of popular mobilization and guerilla warfare (civil war and anti-Japanese resistance before and during WW2). I wouldn't be surprised if these were still taught at Chinese military academies, at least in history classes.

Again this is a “world war” scenario aka a “all hands on decks”
Much would depend on who starts the conflict, whether nuclear weapons are used or not, where exactly it is fought. If China is attacked on its own soil, it will benefit from home turf advantage and all the bonuses defending forces usually enjoy in a military confrontation. Seeing how the attacking side is supposed to muster several times the amount of assets as the defending one, even with the current differential between China and the US plus allies, I would say that boat has almost sailed already.

But this kind of projection is rendered moot by the nuclear factor. A protracted world war scenario would imply that nuclear weapons have lost their deterrent value, that MAD no longer applies. I can't see why this should happen. In the unprecedented event that the US ignores China's nuclear deterrent and attacks the latter even though this ought to mean that several major US cities would get demolished by retaliatory nuclear strikes, then all bets are open that Russia would no longer stay passive because it'd probably interpret such a precedent as a signal that it could well be next, assurances by the west notwithstanding...

In which case Moscow would be likely to go on the offensive, obliterating European NATO members - just the bulk of their armed forces if they're lucky, and major population centers if they aren't. From what I could gather, Russian doctrine with regards to hypothetical war against NATO on European soil seems to be quite nasty: read, multiple strategic and tactical nuclear first strikes, as it relies more heavily on nuclear weapons than during the Soviet era, reason being of course the widened gap in conventional terms between NATO and post-Soviet Russia.

A similar scenario would doubtlessly apply to North Korea, with which China does have a mutual defence agreement. A convenient sort of ally, one which could fulfill a "madman" role - something which isn't lost on the US nor on Japan, which along with California might find itself at the receiving end of a nuclear firestorm unleashed by Pyongyang under the envisaged circumstances.

Between the Allied forces alone, allies could muster at least 5000+ military aircraft to China’s 1500.
Certainly, but here also the question arises what proportion of these 5000 military aircraft belong to US allies vs America's own arsenal. My point is that these allies all put together do not weigh half as much as the US. So to me it's doubtful whether the critical factor is America's network of allies and I'd tend to believe it's more US military power per se.

Apart from that China has not attained parity with the US as of yet. It is however catching up little by little with every passing year. In the meantime, in order to prevent any sort of aggression by the west - which would hardly come in the shape of a direct military attack due to China's nuclear deterrent, Beijing would be wise not to build its doctrine around a USSR-style attempt to surpass the US where the latter's strengths lie, but to mix regular and irregular, symmetric and asymmetric, conventional and nuclear tactics which is precisely what I understand the PLA is doing (by including options such as anti-ship ballistic missiles, extensive drone warfare etc).

Another issue is China like Imperial Japan has an oil problem. (Indeed one reason for Pearl Harbor was oil sanctions had crippled Japanese war machine). While China does have an emergency reserve (exact amount is state secret) securing additional oil to not crash its local economy during a prolonged war effort would be very difficult. Not to mention allies would attack onshore oil storage in the beginning of conflict knowing energy is its weakest link.
Iran and Central Asia. If they attack Iran, then China will automatically have another ally.

Thus we arrive at my original point. Removing nuclear weapons out of the equation (even tactical would open a Pandora’s box that China may be hesitant to do in the beginning). China will need allies, alone it cannot hope to stand against the United effort of the world.

Like I said individually US allies pose not a major threat to China, however together with addition of US the swarm alliance becomes much more lethal in unison and synergistic effect.
If China hesitates to use nuclear weapons in case of a full out US military aggression, then it should never have acquired any. Isn't the whole point of these weapons to deter aggression? if not employed to this effect they make little sense.

By definition nuclear armed states aren't supposed to be defeated by direct war waged on them but through indirect means. Which is how the USSR lost the Cold War. The American empire too, isn't going to fall as a result of someone attacking US soil, but by a combination of internal contradictions reaching unmanageable levels, economic hurdles, imperial overstretching and hubris, strategic miscalculations etc.

Thus until China develops alliances it will never reach world order leader status. Merely economic superpower status which does not exactly translate to world order leader status. It will have big say at the table, but not the FINAL say and that right there is key.
My opinion is that US allies are not what would cause the balance to tip and consequently, that the menace for China emanating from NATO owes primarily to the US itself.

Probably no single party will have a final say as in the power to overrule general consensus between all other sides at the table, should such consensus materialize. But the US's voice would still weigh more. Until China catches up with them, which is matter of time unless some major events achieve to set back China relative to the west. Barring such an eventuality, Beijing will then be able to rely on a relative majorities among powers in order to have its way.
 
Last edited:

Blue In Green

FULL MEMBER
Nov 30, 2016
1,646
0
3,065
Country
United States
Location
United States
This is correct but it applies to countries with a vast domestic defense industry and a weak currency relative to the US dollar and/or significantly lower production costs compared to western standards. Of America's allies listed above, only India might fit the bill here. The others do not get much more than America itself out of each dollar they invest in their armed forces. Actually, China would also have to be considered more powerful than its nominal defense budget expressed in USD might suggest, given lower production costs compared to its western rivals.



Minbing, the Chinese militia under direct command of the CCP has 8 million members, twice the manpower of the described allied force. It is comparable to the Basij.

Despite its rapid modernization, today's People's Republic of China is still an heir to Mao Zedong's foundational rule, with its popular mobilization and guerilla warfare heritage. These are still taught at Chinese military academies, at the very least in history classes.



A lot would depend on who starts the conflict, whether nuclear weapons would be used or not, where exactly it is fought. If China is attacked on its own soil, it will benefit from a significant home turf advantage and all the bonuses defending forces enjoy in a military confrontation. Seeing how the attacking side is supposed to muster several times the amount of assets as the defending one, even with the current differential between China and the US plus allies, that boat has almost sailed already.

But this sort of projection is rendered irrelevant by the nuclear factor. A world war scenario would imply that nuclear weapons have lost their deterrent value, that MAD no longer applies. I don't see why this should happen. In the unprecedented event that the US ignores China's nuclear deterrent and attacks the latter even though this should mean that several major US cities will get razed by nuclear strikes, then all bets are open that Russia would no longer stay passive because it'd probably interpret this sort of a precedent as a signal that it will inevitably be next, assurances by the west notwithstanding...

In which case, Moscow would be likely to go on the offensive, obliterating one European NATO member after the other - just the bulk of their armed forces if they're lucky, and major population centers if they aren't. Russian doctrine with regards to a war against NATO on European soil is quite nasty: read, multiple strategic and tactical nuclear first strikes, as it relies more heavily on nuclear weapons than during the Soviet era, reason being of course the widened gap in conventional terms between NATO and post-Soviet Russia.

The same would surely apply to North Korea, with which China actually has a mutual defence agreement. A convenient sort of ally, one which could fulfill a "madman" role, something that isn't lost on the US and specially on Japan, which along with California might potentially form the first target of a nuclear firestorm unleashed by Pyongyang.



Certainly, but here also the question arises what proportion of these 5000 military aircraft belong to US allies vs America's own arsenal. My point is just that these allies all put together do not weigh half as much as the US. So I'm not sure whether the critical factor is the US's network of allies or rather US military power per se.

Apart from that yes, China has not attained strict parity with the US yet. It is however catching up little by little with every passing year. In the meantime, in order to avoid any sort of aggression by the west - which couldn't come in the shape of a direct military attack due to China's nuclear deterrent, Beijing would be wise not to build its doctrine around a USSR-style attempt to surpass the US where its strengths lie, but to mix regular and irregular, symmetric and asymmetric, conventional and nuclear tactics which is precisely what I understand the PLA is doing (by including options such as anti-ship ballistic missiles, hypersonic weapons, extensive drone warfare etc).



Iran, Central Asia. If they attack Iran, then China will automatically have another ally.



If China hesitates to use nuclear weapons in case of a full out US military aggression, then it should never have acquired any. The whole point of these weapons is to deter aggression, if they aren't employed to this effect then they don't make sense.

By definition nuclear armed states won't be defeated by military attack and direct war waged on them but through indirect means. Which is how the USSR lost the Cold War. And the American empire too, is not going to collapse as a result of someone attacking US soil, but by a combination of internal contradictions, imperial overstretching and hubris, strategic miscalculations etc.



My opinion is that US allies are not what would cause the balance to tip and that any menace emanating from NATO owes primarily to the US itself.

Probably no single party will have a final say - as in the power to overrule general consensus between all other sides at the table. Until China catches up with the US, which is matter of time unless some major events achieve to set back China relative to the west. Barring such an eventuality, Beijing will then be able to rely on a relative majorities among powers in order to have its way.
Sorry, didn't mean to derail your conversation lol.

What's your thoughts on Iran fully joining the Shanghai Cooperation Organization?
 
Mar 8, 2021
439
0
366
Country
Pakistan
Location
Pakistan
نیروهای پاکستانی اخیرا به طرز مشکوک وارد قرقیزستان شدند. امیدوارم ربطی به تاجیکستان نداشته باشه

مرز قرقیزستان و تاجیکستان میتونه جنگی بشه و اردوغان ممکنه در فکرش باشه و نباید مثل قفقاز غافلگیر شد
باید در عراق و سوریه غافگیرشون کرد

حرفهای بایدن علیه تاجیکها و سفر رییسی رو کنارش بگذارید

Why will Pakistani forces enter the Kargizstan?
Do you have any sense?
 

TheImmortal

SENIOR MEMBER
Mar 11, 2017
4,103
-13
6,849
Country
United States
Location
United States
I am not surprised that you have no grasp of non-physical values in militaries.

Battle of Kabul, despite more manpower and armor and airforce, was won by Talibs.
That was not guerilla hit and run attack. That is true war. War.

Same for Yemen. Saudis have soldiers of many nations. They have a coalition. They are exhausted and worn out though.
Airforce will not guarantee a win.

In any kind of war, patience and faith matters.

If you disagree, keep counting the ships and MBTs then.
First of all Battle of Kabul was not a battle. It was one poorly newly trained army that fled battle. If you are comparing the Afghan army with less than a decade of experience to some equate a correlation to the world leading superpower who has been in wars since 1776, then you are lost beyond belief.

It’s like comparing a boxer who just learned the game who ends up forefeiting against a much more veteran boxer then saying well that veteran boxer could also have defeated Muhammad Ali. Yeah right. Correlation that doesn’t exist.

Afghan army was fighting an experienced guerrilla unit with more than 40-50 years worth of experience dating back to Soviet invasion. At the time no European military could replicate what the mujahideen did to the Soviet Union in terms of losses.

But here lies the issue, China vs US or even Iran vs US would never amount to guirella warfare. Because China and Iran have things to PROTECT (infrastructure, livelihood of its citizens, economic prosperity, etc etc). Taliban had none of that. It’s easy to fight when you have nothing to lose and nothing to protect besides yourself and you can run away into Pakistan when things get too hot. Nations can’t run during war, especially the one that is being attacked. They have a territorial integrity that will disintegrate rapidly to the enemy. (See Qajar dynasty)

Look at Taliban in 2001 invasion when they had to protect, they folded like a bunch of lawn chairs = mass surrenders. US didn’t lose to Taliban, it lost to politics. US politics prevented adequate troop numbers. Or else much like the Iraqi surge, if US had 300-500K troops in Afghanistan then they could have eradicated much of the Taliban remnants (if they didn’t flee to Pakistan).

It’s how Pakistan defeated the lawless warlord regions of its own territory, massive military operation. If US and Pakistan coordinated that same effort on the Taliban, the result would be very different. Taliban wouldn’t disappear, but they would be what ISIS is today...a shell of its former self with limited capability.

One other thing, asymmetric warfare is not limited to “hit and run” attacks, as ISIS and Syrian terrorists shown they were able to capture and hold territory and counter attack. So your knowledge on how asymmetric warfare has evolved is lacking.

Nonetheless, the examples and quote you made don’t apply to nation vs nation warfare. And certainly don’t apply to a China vs US major war.
 

SalarHaqq

FULL MEMBER
Dec 29, 2019
1,290
2
2,623
Country
Belgium
Location
Netherlands
Sorry, didn't mean to derail your conversation lol.

What's your thoughts on Iran fully joining the Shanghai Cooperation Organization?
Significant event and sign of the times. Iran's long projected and often talked about "look East" policy finally taking a more serious turn, thus making it more complicated for domestic liberals (reformists, centrists) to put the brakes on this inevitable development. In other terms, another nail in the coffin of dreams and delusions nurtured by those who argued that Iran can or should operate a rapprochement with western imperialist powers.

Potentially enhanced cooperation against terrorism read NATO-sponsored region wide destabilization attempts using patsies of the so-called "jihadist" or ethno-separatist kind.

Economic potential, and an additional helping hand in countering the effects of illegal US and EU sanctions on the Iranian people. In particular, Iran's SCO membership will encourage certain practices which ought to have been systematized before but were delayed by the liberal Rohani administration, such as the use of local currencies as well as alternative payment systems (Chinese CIPS and Russian SPFS) to bypass SWIFT, and increased focus on neighbors for trade. Adherence to the entire bandwidth of FATF-imposed norms, which is completely unacceptable as it would endanger Iran's regional alliances, but which liberals have been pushing for nonetheless, will also become less relevant a topic.

With the SCO, a new diplomatic forum will become available to Iran to resolve possible disputes which might emerge with some of its neighboring countries.

All the above happening through relationships forged and cemented on largely equal footing. So Iran is not betraying its revolutionary tenet "neither East nor West", since membership in the SCO does not imply vassalage to any major power.

Some might argue that the degree of integration between SCO member states is low compared to a structure like the European Union, but this is in fact a necessity in the sense that pushed beyond a certain threshold, regional integration supposes transfer of sovereignty to the supranational organization. Which I'd be completely against, as such a thing would compromise Iran's independence. Essentially, highly integrationist regional organizations represent but a prelude to national and religious dissolution in the framework of a certain "world government" planned by a certain oligarchy which I have often talked about - hence why these same globalist oligarchs are usually enamored with supranational regional blocs.

In fact, there's a slight possibility that we might see Iran's liberals convert into avid promoters of Eurasian integration up to the political and institutional level in line with the EU model, since after all this could be yet another possible avenue towards globalism. But given the extent to which liberals are apologetic of the west, it is not the most probable hypothesis. Yet, this remains something to watch out for and be vigilant about. In particular, it must be made sure that officials with revolutionary persuasions will not get misled into lowering their guard with regards to transfer of sovereignty on the grounds that it's not a western-centric organization we're talking about. The same measured approach ought to apply to Iran's relationship with the Eurasian Economic Union (EAEU), with which a preliminary free trade agreement was signed in December 2015.

It must also be understood that the SCO doesn't seem to qualify as a real mutual defence pact, so one shouldn't assume that the existential threat posed by the zio-American empire to Iran has been neutralized now. Nor should one expect that Iran will be going on a shopping spree of relatively expensive conventional military hardware in Russia and China. However, Iran has scored yet another point in its defensive strategy, there's no doubt about that. Collective military drills and maneuvers with various SCO members are likely to take place at more regular intervals. In all, I'm very glad at the news.

Admittedly, it's been quite some time since I last studied the SCO charter, its mechanisms and its effective application on the ground, and there would surely be more to say about the topic. But for the time being, this is what my immediate reaction would boil down to.
 
Last edited:

Shawnee

FULL MEMBER
Jan 22, 2020
1,847
0
3,214
Country
United States
Location
United Kingdom
First of all Battle of Kabul was not a battle. It was one poorly newly trained army that fled battle. If you are comparing the Afghan army with less than a decade of experience to some equate a correlation to the world leading superpower who has been in wars since 1776, then you are lost beyond belief.

It’s like comparing a boxer who just learned the game who ends up forefeiting against a much more veteran boxer then saying well that veteran boxer could also have defeated Muhammad Ali. Yeah right. Correlation that doesn’t exist.

Afghan army was fighting an experienced guerrilla unit with more than 40-50 years worth of experience dating back to Soviet invasion. At the time no European military could replicate what the mujahideen did to the Soviet Union in terms of losses.

But here lies the issue, China vs US or even Iran vs US would never amount to guirella warfare. Because China and Iran have things to PROTECT (infrastructure, livelihood of its citizens, economic prosperity, etc etc). Taliban had none of that. It’s easy to fight when you have nothing to lose and nothing to protect besides yourself and you can run away into Pakistan when things get too hot. Nations can’t run during war, especially the one that is being attacked. They have a territorial integrity that will disintegrate rapidly to the enemy. (See Qajar dynasty)

Look at Taliban in 2001 invasion when they had to protect, they folded like a bunch of lawn chairs = mass surrenders. US didn’t lose to Taliban, it lost to politics. US politics prevented adequate troop numbers. Or else much like the Iraqi surge, if US had 300-500K troops in Afghanistan then they could have eradicated much of the Taliban remnants (if they didn’t flee to Pakistan).

It’s how Pakistan defeated the lawless warlord regions of its own territory, massive military operation. If US and Pakistan coordinated that same effort on the Taliban, the result would be very different. Taliban wouldn’t disappear, but they would be what ISIS is today...a shell of its former self with limited capability.

One other thing, asymmetric warfare is not limited to “hit and run” attacks, as ISIS and Syrian terrorists shown they were able to capture and hold territory and counter attack. So your knowledge on how asymmetric warfare has evolved is lacking.

Nonetheless, the examples and quote you made don’t apply to nation vs nation warfare. And certainly don’t apply to a China vs US major war.
We think differently in deduction.

During the peak of Trump maximum pressure, your solution was to cut a deal with Trump. My solution was the opposite.

You know, most people in the world would agree with you looking at the numbers, inflation rate, and other measures.

History is full of examples of poorer smaller nations who defeated larger, more equipped, richer armies.
It was nation vs nation or guerilla. Experienced or rookies.

It is a belief system.
I don’t just count the ships.
 
Last edited:

TheImmortal

SENIOR MEMBER
Mar 11, 2017
4,103
-13
6,849
Country
United States
Location
United States
As the intelligence poured in, the difficulty of the challenge came into focus: Iran had also taken lessons from the Suleimani killing, namely that their top officials could be targeted. Aware that Mr. Fakhrizadeh led Israel’s most-wanted list, Iranian officials had locked down his security.

His security details belonged to the elite Ansar unit of the Revolutionary Guards, heavily armed and well trained, who communicated via encrypted channels. They accompanied Mr. Fakhrizadeh’s movements in convoys of four to seven vehicles, changing the routes and timing to foil possible attacks. And the car he drove himself was rotated among four or five at his disposal.





My thoughts: Finally most of the story of the Fakhrizadeh attack come out. And it can be said without a reasonable doubt that Fakhrizadeh’s stubbornness was the main reason for Israel’s success. I don’t think you would have seen such actions from a similar official in China or NK during their respective tension periods with the West.

The article largely proves Iranian intelligence did the best they could given the circumstances of Fakhrizadeh’s character and embracement of martyrdom. While there are always room for improvements this isn’t a major failure of its intelligence services as originally thought. For if Fakhrizadeh was sitting in the back of an armoured car (like his security detail wanted) then the operation would likely have failed.

Lastly, the article makes a good point. The killing Solemani which was viewed as the killing of the 2nd most powerful man in Iran got a very tepid response (some missiles fired at some grunt officers in an Iraqi base). Thus it EMBOLDENED the Israelis and Americans to follow up and assassinate Fakhrizadeh.

Which brings me to my next point: lack of sufficient response to acts of war....invite more of such attacks in the future
 

Dariush the Great

SENIOR MEMBER
Jan 28, 2020
2,229
-4
5,327
Country
Iran, Islamic Republic Of
Location
Netherlands
As the intelligence poured in, the difficulty of the challenge came into focus: Iran had also taken lessons from the Suleimani killing, namely that their top officials could be targeted. Aware that Mr. Fakhrizadeh led Israel’s most-wanted list, Iranian officials had locked down his security.

His security details belonged to the elite Ansar unit of the Revolutionary Guards, heavily armed and well trained, who communicated via encrypted channels. They accompanied Mr. Fakhrizadeh’s movements in convoys of four to seven vehicles, changing the routes and timing to foil possible attacks. And the car he drove himself was rotated among four or five at his disposal.





My thoughts: Finally most of the story of the Fakhrizadeh attack come out. And it can be said without a reasonable doubt that Fakhrizadeh’s stubbornness was the main reason for Israel’s success. I don’t think you would have seen such actions from a similar official in China or NK during their respective tension periods with the West.

The article largely proves Iranian intelligence did the best they could given the circumstances of Fakhrizadeh’s character and embracement of martyrdom. While there are always room for improvements this isn’t a major failure of its intelligence services as originally thought. For if Fakhrizadeh was sitting in the back of an armoured car (like his security detail wanted) then the operation would likely have failed.

Lastly, the article makes a good point. The killing Solemani which was viewed as the killing of the 2nd most powerful man in Iran got a very tepid response (some missiles fired at some grunt officers in an Iraqi base). Thus it EMBOLDENED the Israelis and Americans to follow up and assassinate Fakhrizadeh.

Which brings me to my next point: lack of sufficient response to acts of war....invite more of such attacks in the future
Meh... this part by the Zionist official deserves to be singled out.

''Both countries were encouraged by Iran’s relatively tepid response to the American assassination of Maj. Gen. Qassim Suleimani, the Iranian military commander killed in a U.S. drone strike with the help of Israeli intelligence in January 2020. If they could kill Iran’s top military leader with little blowback, it signaled that Iran was either unable or reluctant to respond more forcefully. ''

I have always criticized Iran's top leader for blocking retaliations against the Zionist state. Esmail Gha'ani, Amir Ali Hajizadeh and other top IRGC officials were many times rebuffed by the leader even when presented with a solid, credible retaliation that would put the Zionist regime back into the box. I really do not understand why there is not a single massive retaliation on Israel.. just simply can not comprehend the reasoning. Lack of response just emboldens the enemy. I believe it is also haram in Islam to let the enemy go unpunished like this. But perhaps the state is too infiltrated...in that case this might be the explanation.
 

Stryker1982

SENIOR MEMBER
Oct 5, 2016
2,509
-2
4,124
Country
Iran, Islamic Republic Of
Location
Canada
As the intelligence poured in, the difficulty of the challenge came into focus: Iran had also taken lessons from the Suleimani killing, namely that their top officials could be targeted. Aware that Mr. Fakhrizadeh led Israel’s most-wanted list, Iranian officials had locked down his security.

His security details belonged to the elite Ansar unit of the Revolutionary Guards, heavily armed and well trained, who communicated via encrypted channels. They accompanied Mr. Fakhrizadeh’s movements in convoys of four to seven vehicles, changing the routes and timing to foil possible attacks. And the car he drove himself was rotated among four or five at his disposal.





My thoughts: Finally most of the story of the Fakhrizadeh attack come out. And it can be said without a reasonable doubt that Fakhrizadeh’s stubbornness was the main reason for Israel’s success. I don’t think you would have seen such actions from a similar official in China or NK during their respective tension periods with the West.

The article largely proves Iranian intelligence did the best they could given the circumstances of Fakhrizadeh’s character and embracement of martyrdom. While there are always room for improvements this isn’t a major failure of its intelligence services as originally thought. For if Fakhrizadeh was sitting in the back of an armoured car (like his security detail wanted) then the operation would likely have failed.

Lastly, the article makes a good point. The killing Solemani which was viewed as the killing of the 2nd most powerful man in Iran got a very tepid response (some missiles fired at some grunt officers in an Iraqi base). Thus it EMBOLDENED the Israelis and Americans to follow up and assassinate Fakhrizadeh.

Which brings me to my next point: lack of sufficient response to acts of war....invite more of such attacks in the future
That is pretty bad. I know in the US for example, the secret service actually has in theory more power than the president, in the sense that the Secret Service can forcefully detain the president in the event they suspect he is putting himself at risk..

It is too bad as the intel services should have insisted more strongly in his security and forced him into a bullet resistant vehicle.
Lastly, the article makes a good point. The killing Solemani which was viewed as the killing of the 2nd most powerful man in Iran got a very tepid response (some missiles fired at some grunt officers in an Iraqi base). Thus it EMBOLDENED the Israelis and Americans to follow up and assassinate Fakhrizadeh.

Which brings me to my next point: lack of sufficient response to acts of war....invite more of such attacks in the future
I have always criticized Iran's top leader for blocking retaliations against the Zionist state. Esmail Gha'ani, Amir Ali Hajizadeh and other top IRGC officials were many times rebuffed by the leader even when presented with a solid, credible retaliation that would put the Zionist regime back into the box. I really do not understand why there is not a single massive retaliation on Israel.. just simply can not comprehend the reasoning. Lack of response just emboldens the enemy. I believe it is also haram in Islam to let the enemy go unpunished like this. But perhaps the state is too infiltrated...in that case this might be the explanation.
This has always been something that will be a topic of discussion for quite sometime at what the appropriate response would've or should've been.

It wasn't the issue of capability, but it is clear it was a conscious decision to not retaliate too hard... I think what the people in Iran were thinking is that, the loss of Soleimani was not worth the potential for full-scale conflict had the response been very strong and it was okay to conduct a measured response and then continue with the countries long-term plans instead of risking it all.

In an ideal world the most appropriate response would've been to strike the CENTCOM base in Al-Udeid, likely killing several major US commanders but this of course would've led to the full-scale war scenario that was undesirable to the leadership in Iran. I suspect the civilian leadership is the roadblock here. To afraid of risking their personal wealth and money of course.

I agree with you Dariush, striking Israel is the appropriate response for Fakhrizadeh and is also much more easier than the US. Attacking Israeli Cargo ships is not nearly a good enough response at all. Missed opportunities
 

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


Top Bottom