What's new

Iranian Missiles | News and Discussions

yugocrosrb95

FULL MEMBER
Oct 6, 2015
766
-1
388
Country
Croatia
Location
Croatia
MARV is not HGV, they are very different, because Iran has MARV, but cant "make" the HGV yet, so once again, PROVE N KOREA MADE HGV on its own. Russia is the only country that made its own HGV FOR A FACT...China's HGV is probably Russia's too, but North Korea's HGV is 100% possible because of Russia- you are probably a N Korea fan boy whose blind to logic or reality, but i'm not. That kingdom is not capable of making its own HGV, i still stand by that. You're implying that HGV is new generation of MARV? then if it was , and it wasnt that different from MARV< Iran would have it already, afterall, IRan is ahead of N Korea in missile technology, ONE ON ONE that is...but Russia came in and helped N Korea, hence their new HGV.

you still havent proven crap.

Here is US further accusing Russia:
View attachment 808617

FOr you to be actually right, the above has to be a lie, and its not.
All you do is demonstrate that you are uneducated on the subject and don't know the difference.

Iranian MARV during their flight at one point exit Earth atmosphere, are you going to lie and say that North Korean HGV that you call MARV goes beyond Karman line?

You say it isn't yet if you were informed about subject, if you knew that it never went beyond Karman line.

Also then i guess this isn't HGV.


 

QWECXZ

SENIOR MEMBER
Apr 28, 2010
2,702
-3
4,657
Country
Iran, Islamic Republic Of
Location
Iran, Islamic Republic Of
The US is able to bomb the Supreme Leader of Iran and his family in a cost-effective manner as with Gaddafi, but has refrained from doing so? Really, they wouldn't hesitate a second if they thought they could. Reality is that Gaddafi - who never challenged the US and zionists to the extent that Iran has done, did not possess Iran's deterrence power. Which in turn explains why Washington is not replicating a similar approach with Iran.
Remember you guys said the same thing about General Soleimani?
Fortunately, Khamenei never travels outside of Iran. But you should never underestimate their stupidity.
 

Dariush the Great

SENIOR MEMBER
Jan 28, 2020
2,802
-12
6,326
Country
Iran, Islamic Republic Of
Location
Netherlands
What other sanctions would that be? Iran is sanctioned to the extreme already. And Iran's policy has shown that the prospect of sanctions have never prevented her from pursuing her strategic objectives.
That our planes or officials wouldn't even be able to visit neighboring countries then. Going extremely tough on China for not buying any more oil etc are several points i can immediately think of ''sanction toughening

The US is able to bomb the Supreme Leader of Iran and his family in a cost-effective manner as with Gaddafi, but has refrained from doing so? It wouldn't hesitate a second if it thought it could. Reality is that Gaddafi did not possess Iran's deterrence power. Which in turn explains why Washington is not replicating a similar approach with Iran.
US has refrained from doing so because the supreme leader respects the red lines and do not crosses them.

I don't get it - an IRGC armed with nuclear weapons would be weakened? So you agree that nukes do not necessarily increase military power, I would assume.
I should have elaborated on this. In a vast bombing campaign, the IRGC would get weakened.


The west's red line is Iran having nuclear break out capability. Which Iran has achieved to preserve. In fact, in the early 2000's the west's red line used to be Iran having any indigenous nuclear program.
Not true. Wests absolute red line is Iran having nuclear weapons. But that red line would also become meaningless then, so they come up with a few jokes like the JCPOA. Btw, as we speak, our negotiators are still in Vienna, with full authorization of rahbar, discussing things like installing cameras or giving more acces to CIA and Mossad spies for ''inspection''.

You are assuming Iran sought to develop nuclear weapons, which is incorrect.
Where did i assume that? I am on the record saying that the only ones want to see Iran without these weapons are the Americans, Zionists and other enemies of Iran. And unfortunately rahbar is agreeing with them.

Because Iran has achieved the similar deterrence without them.
I agree, but not by much.

Observable facts go against this assessment. Iran has ensured her security in the face of a full fledged "regime change" policy by the global superpower, read policy to dismantle and balkanize the Iranian nation-state, has done so without nukes, and keeps opposing zio-American interests across the board. Personally, I don't know what's laughable about that. No other country under comparable circumstances has even come close.
We are on the same page re: enslaving and balkanization. That is the wet dream of Iran's enemies, but we should not follow a policy of caution, restraint and all that nonsense when Iran is facing, according to yourself, a ''full fledged regime change policy''. If their gloves are off, why should ours remain on?
 

Oldman1

ELITE MEMBER
May 28, 2011
9,185
-1
4,152
Country
United States
Location
United States
The Shia militias are not reckless. You think it is hard to artillery the f out of the US embassy? Easy as drinking water. They are just playing with the US and keep sending them messages through these symbolic attacks. They have far more powerful weapons than these little katyusha rockets.

They are not playing, their goal is to get the Americans out of Iraq under the orders of Iran since that is their goal in the first place. They don't wait 20 years. They want them out like yesterday.
 

SalarHaqq

SENIOR MEMBER
Dec 29, 2019
2,349
2
4,569
Country
Belgium
Location
Netherlands
That our planes or officials wouldn't even be able to visit neighboring countries then. Going extremely tough on China for not buying any more oil etc are several points i can immediately think of ''sanction toughening

This not something that would deter Iran from taking any decisions deemed unavoidable for her survival or for the achievement of her strategic goals.

US has refrained from doing so because the supreme leader respects the red lines and do not crosses them.

The US has refrained because it cannot do such a thing in a cost effective manner. Libya's deterrence power in the 1980's versus Iran's today are literally worlds apart.

The essential red line for the zio-American empire is Iran's continued existence as a nation-state. They do not tolerate Iran's survival, let alone the Islamic Republic. The Supreme Leader has been stomping on those red lines ever since he is in charge, and there's nothing Washington can do about it.

I should have elaborated on this. In a vast bombing campaign, the IRGC would get weakened.

In that case your argument is self-contradicting, because nuclear weapons are supposed to deter vast bombing campaigns, not encourage them. And in turn, it would then not make sense to lament Iran's choice.

Not true. Wests absolute red line is Iran having nuclear weapons.

The west's red line is Iran existing. Much, much more so than Iraq, Libya, and all the other nations they destroyed. Difference however is that in Iran's case they are incapable of reaching their goals thanks to the Islamic Republic's sound decision making, which has led to effective deterrence.

But that red line would also become meaningless then, so they come up with a few jokes like the JCPOA. Btw, as we speak, our negotiators are still in Vienna, with full authorization of rahbar, discussing things like installing cameras or giving more acces to CIA and Mossad spies for ''inspection''.

It's a rational strategy. North Korea didn't act differently either.

Fact is that none of these negotiations are going to deprive Iran of her deterrence stemming from a fully indigenized nuclear infrastructure as well as from her mastery of nuclear technology, nor will she be deprived of civilian applications of nuclear science. Rahbar has made sure of that. And that's all which really counts.

Where did i assume that? I am on the record saying that the only ones want to see Iran without these weapons are the Americans, Zionists and other enemies of Iran. And unfortunately rahbar is agreeing with them.

You claim Iran not going ahead with nuclear weapons acquisition is because of fear for repercussions. But that isn't the reason. Iran does so because she can deter the enemy just fine without actually building any nukes, and because building them would imply initiating a geopolitical escalation. Proof is before our eyes.

Secondly, there's a fundamental self-contradiction in your assumption: if nukes invite serious, detrimental repercussions in the security realm, then there's no point advocating them in the first place now, is there.

Nuclear weapons would not add anything special to Iran's defensive prowess under current circumstances. Thus they aren't necessary, so long as Iran can reap similar benefits in terms of deterrence through politically and geostrategically more cost-effective means.

If the equation changes and nukes become the only guarantee for survival - like they did for North Korea in the early 2000's, then Rahbar will be the first person to revise Iran's policy accordingly. It's all very logical.

I agree, but not by much.

We are on the same page re: enslaving and balkanization. That is the wet dream of Iran's enemies, but we should not follow a policy of caution, restraint and all that nonsense when Iran is facing, according to yourself, a ''full fledged regime change policy''. If their gloves are off, why should ours remain on?

Because Iran has been successful in deterring them from putting into practice their malevolent plans, while at the same time avoiding to initiate an unnecessary geopolitical escalation. The hits Iran has taken from them so far do not even represent 0,0000001% of the damage they would have caused if they had their way. And Iran has dished out hits against them as well.

Even a state such as North Korea, which has a reputation for being intransigent, uncompromising and maximalist in its decisions, and which in 2003, after Bush jr.'s threats of invasion, was actually compelled to develop nukes because its strategic equation is different from Iran and because Pyongyang does not enjoy some of the major tools of deterrence at Iran's disposal (such as the geographical proximity to the zionist entity and thus the ability to inflict serious damage on the latter, knowing that Tel Aviv's security is of paramount importance to the US; such as sitting atop the Strait of Hormoz and a stone's throw away from PGCC oil installation; such as having an entire network of dedicated and loyal regional allies), would never have rushed towards obtaining nuclear arms under circumstances akin to Iran's.
 
Last edited:

Dariush the Great

SENIOR MEMBER
Jan 28, 2020
2,802
-12
6,326
Country
Iran, Islamic Republic Of
Location
Netherlands
This not something that would deter Iran from taking any decisions deemed unavoidable for her survival or for the achievement of her strategic goals.
Even the current sanctions has forced the establishment to go and negotiate. What you are describing is a fairy tale.


The US has refrained because it cannot do such a thing in a cost effective manner. Libya's deterrence power in the 1980's versus Iran's today are literally worlds apart.
US does not face existential threat from Iran. Nothing Iran has in its arsenal can threaten US survival so they do not ''fear'' to take out the Supreme leader if their absolute red lines get crossed.
It is good to be a nationalist (i am) but we need to be also rational.


The essential red line for the zio-American empire is Iran's continued existence as a nation-state. They do not tolerate Iran's survival, let alone the Islamic Republic. The Supreme Leader has been stomping on those red lines ever since he is in charge, and there's nothing Washington can do about it.
The video i posted is a clear indication of the supreme leader respecting the red lines. 2000KM is the red line put in place by the US and Israel. Any violation of the red line is unacceptable and the rahbar is following it very clearly.


In that case your argument is self-contradicting, because nuclear weapons are supposed to deter vast bombing campaigns, not encourage them. And in turn, it would then not make sense to lament Iran's choice.
You are not getting it. An IRGC without nukes is a threat to its own survival. The level of deterrence is clearly not too high.


The west's red line is Iran existing. Much, much more so than Iraq, Libya, and all the other nations they destroyed. Difference however is that in Iran's case they are incapable of reaching their goals thanks to the Islamic Republic's sound decision making, which has led to effective deterrence.
I do not like this arrogant tone. We said the same about thing before Soleimani ''They can not do a damn thing''.


It's a rational strategy. North Korea didn't act differently either..
North Korea is a disciplined communist nation. Totally different than the lax pirhan roo shalvar sepahis we have. And they are not afraid to threaten to nuke Seoul and Washington either if their existance is threatened.

Fact is that none of these negotiations are going to deprive Iran of her deterrence stemming from a fully indigenized nuclear infrastructure as well as from her mastery of nuclear technology, nor will she be deprived of civilian applications of nuclear science. Rahbar has made sure of that. And that's all which really counts.
I don't need to pull out statements from officials of IR how we lost our accumulated Uranium or how they poured Beton into Araks heavy water reactor. There is no need for negotiations. Stop being afraid.

You claim Iran not going ahead with nuclear weapons acquisition is because of fear for repercussions. But that isn't the reason. Iran does so because she can deter the enemy just fine without actually building any nukes, and because building them would imply initiating a geopolitical escalation. Proof is before our eyes.
US brazenly and without any fear took out or most powerful commander. Where was the deterrence? Proof is right before our eyes.

Secondly, there's a fundamental self-contradiction in your assumption: if nukes invite serious, detrimental repercussions in the security realm, then there's no point advocating them in the first place now, is there.
I already explained to you. You made a wrong assumption. Nukes bring safety, NKorea example is right before your eyes.

Nuclear weapons would not add anything special to Iran's defensive prowess under current circumstances. Thus they aren't necessary, so long as Iran can reap similar benefits in terms of deterrence through politically and geostrategically more cost-effective means.
Then you are living in a totally different world than the rest.

If the equation changes and nukes become the only guarantee for survival - like they did for North Korea in the early 2000's, then Rahbar will be the first person to revise Iran's policy accordingly. It's all very logical.
Rahbar will never violate the red line put in place by Israel and the US. Even if his person and his family gets bombed.

Because Iran has been successful in deterring them from putting into practice their malevolent plans, while at the same time avoiding to initiate an unnecessary geopolitical escalation. The hits Iran has taken from them so far do not even represent 0,0000001% of the damage they would have caused if they had their way. And Iran has dished out hits against them as well.
You are just assuming that because they have not attacked Iranian mainland yet. But that can all change in a blink of an eye if some red lines get crossed.



Even a state such as North Korea, which has a reputation for being intransigent, uncompromising and maximalist in its decisions, and which in 2003, after Bush jr.'s threats of invasion, was actually compelled to develop nukes because its strategic equation is different from Iran and because Pyongyang does not enjoy some of the major tools of deterrence at Iran's disposal (such as the geographical proximity to the zionist entity and thus the ability to inflict serious damage on the latter, knowing that Tel Aviv's security is of paramount importance to the US; such as sitting atop the Strait of Hormoz and a stone's throw away from PGCC oil installation; such as having an entire network of dedicated and loyal regional allies), would never have rushed towards obtaining nuclear arms under circumstances akin to Iran's.
I dare to say NKorea is in a even better geographical position in terms of US sensitivity. 2 of biggest puppets of the US (Japan and Korea) are their last bastion of defence against China and Asia as a whole. If they fall it means a huge boost to Chinese and Nkorean power. The US' own survival is at stake in its competition against China. That weighs much more than a white supremacy extra outpost somewhere in Palestine.
 

SalarHaqq

SENIOR MEMBER
Dec 29, 2019
2,349
2
4,569
Country
Belgium
Location
Netherlands
Even the current sanctions has forced the establishment to go and negotiate. What you are describing is a fairy tale.

You're entirely mistaken. Sanctions are forever. Until the downfall of the US regime. The establishment - its revolutionary core, knew this all along. And the Supreme Leader said so explicitly, insisting that he doesn't think the US can be trusted on any negotiated settlement.

US does not face existential threat from Iran. Nothing Iran has in its arsenal can threaten US

Of course it does. The threat the US empire is facing from Iran is not related to offensive weaponry. Your appreciation of geopolitics is too narrow and focused exclusively on nominal weapons comparisons. That's not how international politics work though.

Iran is potentially an existential threat to the zio-American empire because of the model of Resistance she embodies. Because of the fact that others may come to emulate her one day. And that thus, step by step, the balance of power might evolve to the benefit of the Resistance.

Which explains their obsession for Iran.

survival so they do not ''fear'' to take out the Supreme leader if their absolute red lines get crossed.

Of course they view such a move as not nearly cost-effective enough. It's not about "survival". It's enough to be associated, in their minds, with politically prohibitive costs. Same reason why they never dared launch military aggression against Iran.

The video i posted is a clear indication of the supreme leader respecting the red lines.

There are no such red lines outside your imagination. Nuclear armament is subsidiary in the eyes of the US. What antagonizes them about the Islamic Republic of Iran are three things:

1) The globalist agenda entails dissolving all nation-states and religious communities into a world government. Islamic Iran is not allowing it, and inspiring others elsewhere to rise up.
2) The zionist regime does not tolerate any large nation-state in its vicinity, allied to it or not (due to the risk of something like the 1979 Islamic Revolution happening and turning partner into adversary).
3) The Islamic Republic is undermining their interests across the region and beyond.

This is the core, the source, the origin of the zio-American empire's grudge against Iran. Not nukes. You have gotten their priorities upside down. No, they can't tolerate Iran as is. There's no tacit understanding on peaceful coexistence between the two sides.

So before trying to portray the Iranian leadership as particularly insecure, please hold your horses and start by showing me another leadership on planet Earth - with a tiny handful of exceptions, which dares to challenge the empire on the three criteria enumerated above. Credit where it's due.

2000KM is the red line put in place by the US and Israel. Any violation of the red line is unacceptable and the rahbar is following it very clearly.

Well, now you're making things up entirely. Care to point us to when and where the US and Isra"el" told Iran that the range of her BM's ought not exceed 2000 km?

Newsflash 1: 2000 km is exactly what is needed to target the zionist entity from as far away as central Iran.

Newsflash 2: the US establishment is Isra"el"-firster by nature, and this goes for both its Republican and Democrat components. Iran being able to strike the zionist entity in a massive way has just as much of a deterrence value against military aggression by the US, as Iran possessing ICBM's to hit US mainland.

You are not getting it. An IRGC without nukes is a threat to its own survival. The level of deterrence is clearly not too high.

You keep refusing to recognize the fundamentally self-contradicting nature of the argument you put forth, which at this point is actually quite amazing.

I'll try again: you claim Iran won't develop nukes because if she did, the IRGC would then get subjected to massive bombing by the US. Which begs the question, what the heck are nukes good for, if they can't deter massive bombing?

I do not like this arrogant tone. We said the same about thing before Soleimani ''They can not do a damn thing''.

No, Iran never said they cannot do a thing against the person of shahid Soleimani. They're saying the US cannot do a damn thing to reach its objectives vis a vis Iran, and they're spot on.

North Korea is a disciplined communist nation. Totally different than the lax pirhan roo shalvar sepahis we have. And they are not afraid to threaten to nuke Seoul and Washington either if their existance is threatened.

That's not a reply to what I posted about North Korea. Please stay focused.

I don't need to pull out statements from officials of IR how we lost our accumulated Uranium or how they poured Beton into Araks heavy water reactor. There is no need for negotiations. Stop being afraid.

Because the temporary reduction in Iran's uranium stockpile and the work done at Arak deprived Iran of her latent nuclear break out capacity, or of the civilian applications of nuclear science? No, neither did such a thing. QED.

US brazenly and without any fear took out or most powerful commander. Where was the deterrence? Proof is right before our eyes.

What did that do in terms of advancing the US regime's strategic objectives towards Iran? Nothing, and proof is before our eyes.

I already explained to you. You made a wrong assumption. Nukes bring safety, NKorea example is right before your eyes.

You claimed otherwise by suggesting that nuclear armament would trigger a massive military assault on Iran as well as the assassination of her Leadership. You're blatantly contradicting yourself. Make up your mind please, you can't have it both ways.

Other things than nukes can bring safety as well, depending on each country's specific geopolitical profile and circumstances. Iran's example is there to prove it.

Rahbar will never violate the red line put in place by Israel and the US. Even if his person and his family gets bombed.

There's no such imaginary red line. And it's disingenuous to make such claims about one of the few leaders on Earth who dares to Resist the zio-American empire.

You are just assuming that because they have not attacked Iranian mainland yet. But that can all change in a blink of an eye if some red lines get crossed.

And once again, the same self-contradiction. If ignoring that "red line" you keep referring to is supposed to render Iran safer, they you can't flip flop and now contend that crossing it would lead to Iran getting attacked! I'm puzzled as to why you're not seeing this.

I dare to say NKorea is in a even better geographical position in terms of US sensitivity. 2 of biggest puppets of the US (Japan and Korea) are their last bastion of defence against China and Asia as a whole.

If they fall it means a huge boost to Chinese and Nkorean power. The US' own survival is at stake in its competition against China. That weighs much more than a white supremacy extra outpost somewhere in Palestine.

1) Isra"el" is no US puppet. It is America's master. Huge difference.

2) North Korea never went for nukes until it thought its survival otherwise. Which is why they negotiated with the US during the Clinton presidency and agreed to freeze their nuclear program before they had any nuclear bombs. Fact.

3) South Korea and Japan have totally different strategic depth than the illegitimate occupation regime in Palestine. Look at a map. The DPRK's conventional arsenal would never have been enough to inflict traumatic, paralyzing damage on either south Korea or Japan. Iran's BM force is capable of such with regards to Isra"el".

4) The zionist entity is a settler state, south Korea and Japan are not. Isra"el"'s viability completely hinges upon its settler population continuing to uphold its belief in Tel Aviv's military invulnerability. This doesn't apply to south Korea or Japan. Zionist settlers have a home in north America and Europe, where they originate from. South Koreans and Japanese don't.

Apples and oranges.

And that's without even counting Iran's ability to disrupt global energy supplies and thereby to trigger economic meltdown, an ability North Korea lacks. Likewise, Iran's extensive network of regional allies which grant Tehran considerable escalation power in case of a military aggression by the US, again something North Korea lacks. Hence why Pyongang opted for nukes while Iran didn't so far. Else North Korea wouldn't have built them either, hence why they took the decision only after Bush junior's threats of military invasion and prior to that, were conducting negotiations and striking nuclear deals with Washington.
 
Last edited:

Dariush the Great

SENIOR MEMBER
Jan 28, 2020
2,802
-12
6,326
Country
Iran, Islamic Republic Of
Location
Netherlands
You're entirely mistaken. Sanctions are forever. Until the downfall of the US regime. The establishment - its revolutionary core, knew this all along. And the Supreme Leader said so explicitly, that he does not think the US can be trusted on any negotiated settlement.
Goodluck with that. Considering that Khamenei is literally the last substantial figure opposing the US. After he is gone (a decade or two at max) the sentiments will die down. It is all natural though, because he was incompetent to clamp down the internal and external opposition.

Of course it does. The threat the US empire is facing from Iran is not related to offensive weaponry. Your appreciation of geopolitics is too narrow, and focused on on-paper weapons comparisons only. That's not how international politics work.
Do you realize how silly you sound? Your rhetoric is from the late 70's. In today's world your arguments don't make any sense. But like i said before, this is a self inflicted wound.



Iran is potentially an existential threat to the zio-American empire because of the model of Resistance that it embodies. Because of the fact that others may come to emulate her one day. And that thus, step by step, the balance of power might evolve for the benefit of the Resistance.
You very well know that after Khamenei there will be no meaningful resistance from the IR anymore, at least not on the level of today's. Younger generation clerics are either incompetent or have no experience regarding the ''resistance'' matters.



Of course they view such a move as not cost effective. It's not about "survival". It's enough to be associated, in their minds, with politically prohibitive costs. Same reason why they never dared launch military aggression against Iran.
Do not repeat silly things. You make the opposing side tired with rhetoric. They took out Iran's most powerful commander in Iraq. It is like IR droning American defence minister Austin in Mexico. Do you know what a severe escalation an daring military move this is?

There are no such red lines. Nuclear armament is completely subsidiary in the eyes of the US. What antagonizes them about the Islamic Republic of Iran are three things
You got it upside down.
US tolerates IR for 4 decades already
US will not tolerate IR's nuke for even 1 day






So before trying to portray the Iranian leadership as particularly insecure, hold your horses and start by showing me another leadership on planet Earth - with a tiny handful of exceptions, that dares to challenge the empire on the three criteria enumerated above. Credit where it's due.
Not only insecure, but also extremely cautious and indecisive.

Really? Now you're making things up entirely. Care to point us to when and where the US and Isra"el" told Iran that the range of her BM's ought not exceed 2000 km?
I will laugh if you really think these issues need to be really made public. They are done through politics, messaging, signaling etc

Newsflash 1: 2000 km is exactly what is needed to target the zionist entity from as far away as central Iran.
Won't really destroy the Zionist establishment in occupied Palestine.


Newsflash 2: the US establishment is Isra"el"-firster by nature, and this goes both for its Republican and Democrat components. Iran being able to hit the zionist entity has just as much of a deterrence value against military aggression by the US, as Iran possessing ICBM's to hit US mainland.
ICBM's are forbidden by the leader for now. So forget that for a moment.
The missiles we have currently do not threaten the rooted zionist military establishment in Palestine.



You claim Iran won't develop nukes because if she did, the IRGC would get subjected to massive bombing by the US.
No, i did not claim that, please help me to remember the exact quote i made. Perhaps you misunderstood, and you are carrying the misunderstood context further into our conversation.


Which begs the question, what the heck are nukes good for then, if they can't deter massive bombing?
They deter. Example : North Korea. Not only a massive bombing, but also targeted killing or other forms of aggression.





That's not a reply to what I posted about North Korea. Please stay focused and avoid unrelated interjections.
very much related, albeit indirectly.

Because the temporary reduction in Iran's uranium stockpile and the work done at Arak deprived Iran of her latent nuclear break out capacity, or of the civilian applications of nuclear science? No, it didn't. QED.
The fact that the regime is even talking about possible constraints on its nuclear program is a shame and treason.


What did that do in terms of advancing the US regime's strategic objectives towards Iran? Nothing, and proof is before our eyes.
They don't need another expensive war. They are choking through other ways. The key is Khameneis death. They are waiting for him to pass away. After him, it is everyone's guess and who knows what the other side has up its sleeves?


You claimed otherwise by suggesting that nuclear armament would trigger a massive military assault on Iran and the assassination of her Leadership. You're contradicting yourself again. Make up your mind please, you can't have it both ways.
You are continuing your gibberish, i never said that. However, in Khameneis world view, it will result in that. But he is wrong.



Other things than nukes can bring safety, depending on each country's specific geopolitical circumstances. Iran's example is there to prove it.
Such as respecting the red lines too.



There's no such imaginary red line. And it's disingenuous to make such silly claims about one of the few leaders on Earth who dares to Resist the zio-American empire.
Imaginery is only in your head. Not anything should be printed in big letters on a newspaper for you to understand. There are silent agreements between governments on many issues. I do not have time to delve deeper into this.

And once again you're contradicting yourself. If that "red line" you made up is supposed to render Iran safer, they you can't flip flop and now contend that crossing it would lead tro Iran getting attacked. Please realize your narrative is not making sense because it is self-contradicting.
You are repeating your misunderstood point many times over. Already adressed.

1) Isra"el" is no US puppet. It is America's master. Huge difference.
Not as easy you put it. I wish the world's issues were that simplistic, that with one sentence of yours, we could easily figure out things.


2) North Korea never went for nukes until it thought its survival otherwise. Which is why they negotiated with the US during the Clinton presidency and agreed to freeze their nuclear program before they had any nuclear bombs. Fact.
They posses nukes close to 2 decades now. Far more farsighted than the rahbar we have.
 

SalarHaqq

SENIOR MEMBER
Dec 29, 2019
2,349
2
4,569
Country
Belgium
Location
Netherlands
Goodluck with that. Considering that Khamenei is literally the last substantial figure opposing the US.

Kindly update your information on Iran's domestic political scene, because the quoted assessment is far off.

After he is gone (a decade or two at max) the sentiments will die down. It is all natural though, because he was incompetent to clamp down the internal and external opposition.

That's just speculation. And yes, there's a substantial revolutionary core in the Iranian establishment, which is going to take over after seyyed Khamenei.

Seyyed Khamenei successfully neutralized all enemies of the Revolution.

Do you realize how silly you sound? Your rhetoric is from the late 70's. In today's world your arguments don't make any sense. But like i said before, this is a self inflicted wound.

Arguments, not slogans please.

You very well know that after Khamenei there will be no meaningful resistance from the IR anymore, at least not on the level of today's. Younger generation clerics are either incompetent or have no experience regarding the ''resistance'' matters.

Well, no. Pro-Resistance sentiment among young clerics is present enough.

We have seyyed Raisi poised to succeed ayatollah Khamenei, and if you think Raisi's not enthusiastic about resisting the zio-American empire, I don't know what to say.

You make the opposing side tired with rhetoric. They took out Iran's most powerful commander in Iraq. It is like IR droning American defence minister Austin in Mexico. Do you know what a severe escalation an daring military move this is?

Let's not dodge what really matters and let's focus on the question instead: how did the martyrdom of hajj Qassem alter the overall geopolitical balance to Iran's detriment? It didn't? Right!

You got it upside down.
US tolerates IR for 4 decades already
US will not tolerate IR's nuke for even 1 day

For over four decades, the US tried everything in its power to topple the IR. And failed miserably. Nukes are subsidiary here.

Not only insecure, but also extremely cautious and indecisive.

Courageous, intrepid, decisive are the only attributes which correctly describe Iran's Supreme Leader. One of only a handful of heads of state who dares challenge the zio-American empire head on. And with brilliant results, too.

Whereas secular nationalist forces' main achievement in Iran's modern history was to turn the country into a bona fide zionist and western vassal of the most subservient kind. Reality's reality, even if it isn't to one's liking.

I will laugh if you really think these issues need to be really made public. They are done through politics, messaging, signaling etc

In other words, there's no evidence to back up that contention.

Won't really destroy the Zionist establishment in occupied Palestine.

Not relevant here. The only thing that counts, is that they are viewing such strikes by Iran as a unsustainably costly from the political point of view.

ICBM's are forbidden by the leader for now. So forget that for a moment.
The missiles we have currently do not threaten the rooted zionist military establishment in Palestine.

Yes, they do. Which is why they are considering these missiles as an unsustainable cost to bear if they were mass-launched at Tel Aviv and Haifa. Which in turn explains why they haven't attacked Iran to date.

No, i did not claim that, please help me to remember the exact quote i made. Perhaps you misunderstood, and you are carrying the misunderstood context further into our conversation.

1.jpg


They deter. Example : North Korea. Not only a massive bombing, but also targeted killing or other forms of aggression.

If nukes deter aggression, then you can't claim that the reason why Iran has chosen not to go for nukes is because aggression would follow. One can't have it both ways.

The fact that the regime is even talking about possible constraints on its nuclear program is a shame and treason.

No it's not, because these constraints are not going to affect Iran's break out capability. Treason is what the shah regime did, turning the country intro a zionist, Bahai, American vassal in the full sense of the term.

They don't need another expensive war. They are choking through other ways. The key is Khameneis death. They are waiting for him to pass away. After him, it is everyone's guess and who knows what the other side has up its sleeves?

In other words, there's no counter argument to mine, other than "who knows?" type of speculation.

You are continuing your gibberish, i never said that. However, in Khameneis world view, it will result in that. But he is wrong.

Now you switched from "the US will assassinate Khamenei's family and bomb the IRGC if Iran builds nukes" to "the US won't do any of those but the Iranian leadership thinks it will". Honestly, I'd advise to give it a break. Do you seriously believe the Iranian leadership are oblivious to the deterrent attribute of nukes, and that they need us to reveal it to them? That's an outlandish assumption, no offense.

Such as respecting the red lines too.

Such as being able to make an aggression too costly. Which is why the US never dared to proceed with such. Despite the fact that Islamic Iran has been much, much more of a thorn in their side than Saddam's Iraq or Gaddafi's Libya ever used to be.

Imaginery is only in your head. Not anything should be printed in big letters on a newspaper for you to understand. There are silent agreements between governments on many issues. I do not have time to delve deeper into this.

There's no such thing. Only Islamic Iran subjecting them to unsolvable dilemmas is the case. Please don't join the takfiris with their demential delusions of a "secret under-the-table alliance between Rafidha and Jews".

And I must reiterate: show me another state leadership - outside of a handful, which has dared confront the zio-American empire like the Islamic Republic of Iran has been doing. Then you can talk about "fear", "treason" and so on. But until then, this kind of rhetoric doesn't have ground to stand on.

Not as easy you put it. I wish the world's issues were that simplistic, that with one sentence of yours, we could easily figure out things.

Even if I simplified, you have to admit that there's a massive difference. And I think people are intelligent enough to realize that when compared to the zionist lobby, the "south Korean lobby" and the "Japanese lobby" are nonexistent in the US.

They possed nukes close to 2 decades now. Far more farsighted than the rahbar we have.

They only went for nukes after the US threatened them with invasion, and because contrary to Iran, they are lacking other decisive means of deterrence. The approach of the Iranian and Korean leaderships in this specific regard are similar and follow the same logic.
 
Last edited:

Dariush the Great

SENIOR MEMBER
Jan 28, 2020
2,802
-12
6,326
Country
Iran, Islamic Republic Of
Location
Netherlands
Kindly update your information on Iran's domestic political scene, because the quoted assessment is far off.
No need to fool anyone here. I am an Iranian myself. We know what is going on inside the country. Only way IR can get saved is through a harsh crackdown on all traitors. From Shahis to MEK. Or they will be a trouble in the future.



That's nothing but speculation. And yes, there's a substantial revolutionary core in the Iranian establishment, which is going to take over after seyyed Khamenei.
Old clerics with experience are near their deaths. In a decade or two they will all die out. Who has the charisma and experience and zeal to gel together this revolutionary IR spirit?


Seyyed Khamenei successfully neutralized all enemies of the Revolution.
to a degree


Arguments, not slogans please.
i agree, please stick to that. as a disciple of Khamenei you should follow his advice.



Errr, nope. That's some delusion or actually, wishful thinking on your part. Pro-Resistance sentiment among young clerics is present enough. Please don't make things up on the go.
Please do not become emotional. It is what it is. You think present day clerics have the zeal and charisma of the 60's and 70's clerics? Do not tell jokes please.

Don't dodge what really matters and do focus on the question instead: how did the martyrdom of hajj Qassem alter the overall geopolitical balance to Iran's detriment? It didn't? Right! So please, there's no need for any saving grace rhetoric.
I agree that it did not do much. The Shia armed groups are still well connected and organized. But i was referring to saving face.


For over four decades, the US tried everything in its power to topple the IR. And failed miserably. Nukes are completely subsidiary here.
That is because IR never really escalated to a point that warrants its removal. They are forbidden to cross some red lines. e.g. having nukes, advanced missile tech etc



Courageous, intrepid, decisive are the only attributes which correctly describe Iran's Supreme Leader. One of only a handful of heads of state who dares challenge the zio-American empire head on. And with brilliant results, too.
Geez, i know you are a diehard supporter of his but can you keep this slogan rhetoric down on a discussion forum?
As opposed to secular nationalist forces, whose main achievement in Iran's modern history was to turn the country into a bona fide zionist and western vassal of the worse kind. Reality's reality, even if it isn't to one's liking.
Unfortunately, that is true. Modern day monarchist rulers have been extremely incompetent.





Don't you agree? In a vast bombing campaign by the full might of US airforce the IRGC would get weakened. What has this to do with nukes? Perhaps you misunderstood my point or i made it not clear to you.


If nukes deter aggression, then you can't claim that the reason why Iran has chosen not to go for nukes is because aggression would follow. One can't have it both ways.
Getting nukes is an Israeli/American red line. And IR will not escalate it to that point because of unforeseeable consequences.


Your reply failed to address my point.
How so? Please elaborate.


No it's not, because these constraints are not going to affect Iran's break out capability.
Why even negotiate with murderers and thugs? You should read some pieces of Shariatmadari's Keyhan newspaper.

Treason is what the shah regime did, turning the country intro a zionist, Bahai, American vassal in the full sense of the term.
I agree. True puppet of the West, although he changed his tone in his last years but still too late.

In other words, there's no counter argument to mine, other than "who knows?" type of speculation.
I think we both agree that Khamenei is one of a kind. I maintain the believe that he is genuinely anti-imperialist/zionist. But once he is gone, he will be irreplaceable. Thus the other side has all the time in the world and wait it out.

Now you switched from "the US will assassinate Khamenei's family and bomb the IRGC if Iran builds nukes" to "the US won't do any of those but the Iranian leadership thinks it will". Honestly, I'd advise to give it a break. Do you seriously believe the Leadership doesn't know the deterrent attribute of nukes, and that it needs you to reveal it to it? That's an outlandish assumption, no offense.
I think you have comprehension problems and make up things now. I stand by my statement.
Khamenei is afraid of US red lines and is indecisive and afraid of crossing those. Proof was the Soleimani saga (symbolic retaliatory strike) after Trump issued that 52 IR targets statement.



Such as being able to make an aggression too costly. Which is why the US never dared to proceed with such. Despite the fact that Islamic Iran has been much, much or a thorn in their side than Saddam's Iraq or Gaddafi's Libya ever were.
Depends on a lot of factors. Real life politics is too complicated to give one or two examples and make up your case. It does not work like that. Saddam's Iraq or Libya example talks are baseless talks without any insight.



Nope, there's no such thing. Only Islamic Iran exposing them to unsolvable dilemmas. Please don't join the takfiris with their demential delusions of a "secret under the table alliance between Rafidha and Jews".
I have to say it looks more like quiet agreements. Both sides signal in the open through their moves.

And I must reiterate: show me another state leadership - outside of a handful, which has dared confront the zio-American empire like the Islamic Republic of Iran has been doing. Then you can talk about "fear", "treason" and so on. But until then, your rhetoric doesn't have ground to stand on.
I am afraid the rhetoric is only coming from your side. Unlike you, i am not prone to any propaganda, especially propaganda related to religion, or worshipping some cleric. Please use logical arguments.



People are intelligent enough to realize that when compared to the zionist lobby, the "south Korean lobby" and the "Japanese lobby" are non-existent in the US.
World does not revolve on lobbies in the US. But i guess you would have figured it out by now?

They only went for nukes after the US threatened them with invasion, and because contrary to Iran, they are lacking other decisive means of deterrence. The approach of the Iranian and Korean leaderships in this specific regard are identical and follow the exact same logic.
Like pointed out earlier. One side is a disciplined, neat military type of government with extremely strong deterrence while the other one is indecisive,unprofessional and pestered to the negotiating table and forced to install cameras in their own backyard. Honestly, when talking about strength of military developments it is an insult to NK to compare it to IR.
 

Shawnee

SENIOR MEMBER
Jan 22, 2020
2,297
0
3,659
Country
United States
Location
United Kingdom
Remember you guys said the same thing about General Soleimani?
Fortunately, Khamenei never travels outside of Iran. But you should never underestimate their stupidity.

Killing an 80ish year old leader who can be easily replaced likely by harsher, more anti-west, more mercurial and less conservative leader is a pure loss for them.

Khamenei is the soul behind not publicizing Iranian nuclear and missile power for his own reasons.
 

SalarHaqq

SENIOR MEMBER
Dec 29, 2019
2,349
2
4,569
Country
Belgium
Location
Netherlands
No need to fool anyone here. I am an Iranian myself. We know what is going on inside the country. Only way IR can get saved is through a harsh crackdown on all traitors. From Shahis to MEK. Or they will be a trouble in the future.

Facts, not mere unsubstantiated contentions please. Transition will be smooth and completely frictionless.

Old clerics with experience are near their deaths. In a decade or two they will all die out. Who has the charisma and experience and zeal to gel together this revolutionary IR spirit?

We have seyyed Raisi poised to succeed ayatollah Khamenei. Plus, the system will have other options in store as well.

i agree, please stick to that. as a disciple of Khamenei you should follow his advice.

See, hajj Qassem's martyrdom did not alter the geopolitical balance to Iran's detriment. So you can't cherry pick that as evidence for Iran failing to deter the US regime.

Please do not become emotional. It is what it is. You think present day clerics have the zeal and charisma of the 60's and 70's clerics? Do not tell jokes please.

Sure they do. It's not my fault if you aren't in the know.

I agree that it did not do much. The Shia armed groups are still well connected and organized. But i was referring to saving face.

And I'm referring to why you initially brought it up.

That is because IR never really escalated to a point that warrants its removal. They are forbidden to cross some red lines. e.g. having nukes, advanced missile tech etc

Yeah, but Saddam did escalate to that point. Gaddafi also. Of course... not!

Geez, i know you are a diehard supporter of his but can you keep this slogan rhetoric down on a discussion forum?

Considering that I merely responded to your sloganeering, I don't think that's a fair objection.

Unfortunately, that is true. Modern day monarchist rulers have been extremely incompetent.

Then let's give credit where due. Not misrepresent things.

Don't you agree? In a vast bombing campaign by the full might of US airforce the IRGC would get weakened. What has this to do with nukes? Perhaps you misunderstood my point or i made it not clear to you.

This is how it unfolded (I paraphrase):

You: the Islamic Republic is afraid to acquire nuclear weapons because if it did, then the US would sanction Iran even more, assassinate the Supreme Leader and weaken the IRGC by subjecting it to a massive bombing campaign.

Me: but if nukes fail to deter aggression, what's the point in building them?

You: I didn't say that, nukes do deter.

Do you see the contradiction in your narrative?

Getting nukes is an Israeli/American red line. And IR will not escalate it to that point because of unforeseeable consequences.

So you're back to saying that consequences would be unforseeable, right? See, you really really need to make up your mind: will nukes shield Iran from aggression, yes or no?

If yes, then Iran's leadership knows this better than any of us. And thus, it will rush to acquire some nukes if it fears being toppled by the US, like you claim it does.

How so? Please elaborate.

I mentioned how North Korea has acted according to the same rationale as Iran in the nuclear realm, including when it comes to negotiations and when it comes to the criteria determining the need to go for nukes or refrain from doing so. To which you replied by saying the DPRK is disciplined and by remarks about the clothing style of Sepahis. Which is beside the point.

Why even negotiate with murderers and thugs? You should read some pieces of Shariatmadari's Keyhan newspaper.

For the exact same reason that North Korea negotiated with these murderers and thugs during the Clinton years, and even struck a nuclear deal with them. And you should read some official North Korean newspapers and how they talk about the US... which makes Keyhan pale in comparison.

Besides, the current Vienna negotiations aren't going to lead anywhere. But politically, it is better for Iran to be able to say "see, we tried to negotiate but the US is refusing to respect its own engagements" than to forego this bonus point. It's called diplomacy, something Keyhan is not tasked with.

I think we both agree that Khamenei is one of a kind. I maintain the believe that he is genuinely anti-imperialist/zionist. But once he is gone, he will be irreplaceable. Thus the other side has all the time in the world and wait it out.

Raisi. And other undisclosed options.

I think you have comprehension problems and make up things now. I stand by my statement.
Khamenei is afraid of US red lines and is indecisive and afraid of crossing those. Proof was the Soleimani saga (symbolic retaliatory strike) after Trump issued that 52 IR targets statement.

No really, it's you who seem to have difficulties settling for a viewpoint.

If these "red lines" you keep mentioning are a hoax - given that you claim nukes will deter the US from any acts of aggression, then seyyed Khamenei will know this better than you and I. And thus, fear of crossing these hoaxes of a "red line" cannot be the reason why Iran has not opted for nukes so far.

Depends on a lot of factors. Real life politics is too complicated to give one or two examples and make up your case. It does not work like that. Saddam's Iraq or Libya example talks are baseless talks without any insight.

If you believe Libya and Iraq went farther than Iran in confronting the zio-American empire, then you might want to review historic facts once again.

I have to say it looks more like quiet agreements. Both sides signal in the open through their moves.

It looks like Iran challenging zio-American hegemony, before anything else. Hence the incessant but failed attempts at "regime change" by Washington.

I am afraid the rhetoric is only coming from your side. Unlike you, i am not prone to any propaganda, especially propaganda related to religion, or worshipping some cleric. Please use logical arguments.

Great. Then answer the question: show me another state leadership - outside of a handful, which has dared confront the zio-American empire like the Islamic Republic of Iran has been doing.

World does not revolve on lobbies in the US. But i guess you would have figured it out by now?

First of all, yes it pretty much does. So much so that private interest groups are strong enough to have elected officials act against their promises to voters.

Secondly, US-zionist affinity goes way beyond lobby groups. It's at the very core of the ideological foundations of the US regime. From the zionist Christian Puritans and Quakers who settled in North America and shaped the US, to the freemason basis of the regime.

Either way, I don't think the fact that Isra"el" matters far more to the US than south Korea or Japan really stands to debate.

Like pointed out earlier. One side is a disciplined, neat military type of government with extremely strong deterrence while the other one is indecisive,unprofessional and pestered to the negotiating table and forced to install cameras in their own backyard.

You mean like North Korea used to do before Bush junior threatened them with military aggression? Knowing that they lack all the major deterrence assets Iran is endowed with - ability to choke global energy supplies and thus cause economic meltdown, extensive network of regional allies capable of significant counter-escalation, and having the one entity that matters the most to Washington in reach of thousands of ballistic missiles.

Honestly, when talking about strength of military developments it is an insult to NK to compare it to IR.

Only if one fails to take into account geopolitical context and specificities. Otherwise, one will realize how there's no difference between Iran and Korea in this regard.

- - - - -

Remember you guys said the same thing about General Soleimani?

Where was that, as far as I'm concerned? I don't remember making such a statement.

Fortunately, Khamenei never travels outside of Iran. But you should never underestimate their stupidity.

Nor should you underestimate their intelligence. In particular the fact that they understand how such a move would not fall under the same category as a terror attack against a general, no matter how popular the latter is. And that consequences would therefore be on a different level as well.

But that's beside the point anyway. The main issue here is that if nukes are the only thing that will deter the enemy from taking such steps, then the Leadership would immediately order to build them. To claim the Leadership is too dumb to realize this, but that some random forum users do, is simply preposterous.

Basic logic, really.
 
Last edited:

Dariush the Great

SENIOR MEMBER
Jan 28, 2020
2,802
-12
6,326
Country
Iran, Islamic Republic Of
Location
Netherlands
We have seyyed Raisi poised to succeed ayatollah Khamenei. Plus, the system will have other options in store as well.
He is nowhere near Khamenei's level.


See, hajj Qassem's martyrdom did not alter the geopolitical balance to Iran's detriment. So you can't cherry pick that as evidence for Iran failing to deter the US regime.
If you think killing a nations most powerful general is not a clear case of failed deterrence, i will rest my case.

Sure they do. It's not my fault if you aren't in the know.
Same as above. If you continue to believe that younger generation of clerics can be contributing to the establishment as the clerics of the 60 and 70's then you are free to believe. however,time is the best storyteller. And i hope we are all around and safe by then to discuss this again.





Considering that I merely responded to your sloganeering, I don't think that's a fair objection.
Your love for one person can not make you blind to facts and situations before your eyes. Initially, i said this discussion will be futile, we will not reach anywhere since you are a diehard fan of IR and can not see its obvious mistakes.


Then let's give credit where due. Not misrepresent things.
I am not a fan of propaganda and misrepresenting. I like to look more at the facts.

This is how it unfolded (I paraphrase):

You: the Islamic Republic is afraid to acquire nuclear weapons because if it did, then the US would sanction Iran even more, assassinate the Supreme Leader and weaken the IRGC by subjecting it to a massive bombing campaign.

Me: but if nukes fail to deter aggression, what's the point in building them?

You: I didn't say that, nukes do deter.

Do you see the contradiction in your narrative?
I think you are confused. What i meant is that the moment the IR crosses this red line and moves to make its first nuclear weapon there will be severe consequences and scenarios that i described earlier might unfold. High likely, considering what they have done to our most powerful General, they can also take out its commander in chief brazenly and without any consequences. After all What have they to fear?
Iran's conventional missile capacity will NOT destroy the Zionist military establishment in occupied Palestine. If you think otherwise you are misinformed about military matters. Only a credible, solid nuclear strike threat on Washington DC will be a guaranteed deterrent.

So you're back to saying that consequences would be unforseeable, right? See, you really really need to make up your mind: will nukes shield Iran from aggression, yes or no?
Nukes will deter Iranian enemies without any doubt. But the moment IR opt for this the US will take action, because we do not have any game changing weapons.

If yes, then Iran's leadership knows this better than any of us. And thus, it will rush to acquire some nukes if it fears being toppled by the US, like you claim it does.
If they knew better they would not go back to the negotiating table after two decades to discuss with the white man to install cameras in their own backyard. Make up your mind, you want to give nuclear concessions or keep your nuclear program totally intact?

I mentioned how North Korea has acted according to the same rationale as Iran in the nuclear realm, including when it comes to negotiations and when it comes to the criteria determining the need to go for nukes or refrain from doing so. To which you replied by saying the DPRK is disciplined and by remarks about the clothing style of Sepahis. Which is beside the point.
North Korea can not be compared to Iran. One is disciplined and has an honest anti-imperialist outlook while the other is worried what might happen tomorrow.


For the exact same reason that North Korea negotiated with these murderers and thugs during the Clinton years, and even struck a nuclear deal with them. And you should read some official North Korean newspapers and how they talk about the US... which makes Keyhan pale in comparison.
Nkorea tested its first nuke in 2006. IR is negotiating in 2021 to install cameras or not. You got to be kidding me. Clinton was North Korea's ''Obama''. So even if i do not dig deeper and explain more, you should get the explanation yourself. NKorea threw away the deal and went nuclear. Something Iran should have done in 2018 with Trump.

Btw, Rodong Sinmun can school Keyhan or other IR newspapers on anti US revolutionary zeal.


Besides, the current Vienna negotiations aren't going to lead anywhere.
What if they reached some deal in the near future?

But politically, it is better for Iran to be able to say "see, we tried to negotiate but the US is refusing to uphold its own engagements"
LOL. Did we not try that once? What is the JCPOA fiasco then?


No really, it's you who seem to have difficulties settling for a viewpoint.
Unfortunately, it is you who keeps getting confused. I made my point clear that nukes will
a) deter any foreign invasion and even slight military agressions.


If these "red lines" you keep mentioning are a hoax - given that you claim nukes will deter the US from any acts of aggression, then seyyed Khamenei will know this better than you and I. And thus, fear of crossing these hoaxes of a "red line" cannot be the reason why Iran has not opted for nuked so far.
Nope, impartial observers already realize this fact. And Khamenei is afraid of a direct war. I repeat, he will not cross this red line (making nukes). The moment he makes a step in that direction he will be eliminated. I know it is hard for you to accept this, but yes, the US dogs are that powerful. After nr.2 comes nr.1. But luckily, like @QWECXZ said, Khamenei does not travel outside Iran so he has less of a risk. But in a military campaign against Iranian mainland, he will be targetted, or you think the 52 targets Trump talked about is Takhte Jamshid instead of Beyte rahbari office, his house, insitutions etc? LOL




It looks like Iran challenging zio-American hegemony, before anything else. Hence the incessant but failed attempts at "regime change" by Washington.
I think you are daydreaming. Wake up seyed, regime change is ongoing in Iran now. All the youth and masses that are getting brainwashed by the enemy is a slow but sure regime change. You just do not see the effects now. Wait in a decade or two.


Great. Then answer the question: show me another state leadership - outside of a handful, which has dared confront the zio-American empire like the Islamic Republic of Iran has been doing.
Dared? I can immediately think of North Korea, Cuba, Venezuela, Bashar Al Assad etc. Or you meant something else than dare?





Either way, I don't think the fact that Isra"el" matters far more to the US than south Korea or Japan really stands to debate.
Please do not be naive. The reason the US made Japan and Skorea its outpost is because of Russia and China. Both Japan and Skorea even border Russia and China.

You mean like North Korea used to do before Bush junior threatened them with military aggression? Knowing that they lack all the major deterrence assets Iran is endowed with - ability to choke global energy supplies and thus cause economic meltdown, extensive network of regional allies capable of significant counter-escalation, and having the one entity that matters the most to Washington in reach of thousands of ballistic missiles.
Seyed, i am telling you, ballistic missiles are not an existential threat to the zionist regime. You can play resistance all you want but the facts are on the table for you.
 

Blue In Green

FULL MEMBER
Nov 30, 2016
1,884
0
3,601
Country
United States
Location
United States
This is a little bit of an incoherent rant but whatever, I wanna get this off my chest. I fully recognize Iran's weaknesses and the massive blows America has dealt to Iran, so I'm not delusion about where Iran stands in the grand scheme of things but there are important point to be happy about or at the very least, high-light.

I think there is a fundamental misunderstanding about the power America and its Zionist master holds over both the world and the region. Hint; they're not nearly as powerful as many of you here think they are, and their strength is waning year after year (please keep this in mind).

With regards to Shahid Hajj-Qassem Soleimani: He was and still is an important figure who fully-understood that his life was always forfeit for the cause he fought for (a cause that millions of others also fight for currently), so taking his death as a sign of Iran's "weakness" isn't entirely fair. In truth, his death was a cowardly act since he was unjustly lured in by certain 'interlopers' which set him up for assassination. But Iran got their pound of flesh out of America by striking Ain-Al Assad (Americans are straight lying to the world about the extent of the damage) and downing an essential American data-communications aircraft (one of only four in existence) quickly after his murder. This was (in my belief) done by a highly trained group of IRGC soldiers, utilizing yet to be unveiled AA systems that allowed for a low footprint on/in the Afghan/Iran border region. It still is quite humorous to see just how quickly American military brass and media covered up the story but the speed of which the photos had been disseminated and details in photos after the shoot-down (FARS news aired) would suggest that this was an Iranian covert tit-for-tat operation. The Ain-Al Assad strike was the overt operation meant to re-establish deterrence......So Iran got its "revenge" (sort-of) against America and is probably still seeking to kill higher ranking American political/service members.

Moving on to missiles: OSINT information gathered over the years (a lot of which all of us here have discussed) would point to the sobering reality that the IRGC-AEROSPACE missile fleet now represents an existential threat to the viability of Israel to function as a state (if a conflict were to go down) and an extreme danger to the United States and its interest in the region. When you have American generals/military commentators saying that Iran now has achieved "overmatch" then you know that Iran's actual capability has far surpassed even that. I've said it before and will say it again, IRGCs problem went from "we don't have enough missiles" to "we're making so many of these damn things that our firing methods aren't efficient enough and we need to make a lot more space for them" hence why we see Iranian engineers working year-round to establish ever expansive mountain missile bases. We all did bear witness to Iran finally unveiling the 'Multiple-Launch Ballistic Missile System' that utilizes large magazines loaded with EMAD type BMs on a motorized track. Such a thing is insane and further adds to the reality of just how dangerous Iran's missile quantity is becoming for both Israel and the United States.

These weapon systems have matured both in combat ability and quantity to the point that they actually can dismantle a smaller states (Israel) ability to function as a nation. In a week or less (or more, doesn't matter end result will be the same), IRGC missiles will have taken away the ability of Israelis to drink fresh water, drive, use electricity, get products via-sea port, rely on their occupation forces to oppress native Palestinians and use their air-planes (if Iran were to be extra cruel). I mean imagine the sheer amount of utter pandemonium when the Palestinians start to see Israeli occupation forces lose their ability to oppress them since their offices and barracks have been blown to shit by Iranian LACMs, Suicide drones and long-range BMs. This is what we mean by "missiles are an existential threat to Israel".

Moreover, we all saw the strike against the Americans, the operations against ISIS, the countless BM exercises conducted throughout the year, the missile fabrication lines, assembly plants, the recently showed off foreign export line of Iranian made missile systems, etc etc.... You'd have to completely removed from reality not to believe that Iran has achieved an immense missile/weapons production capacity.

Anyways......

The nuclear issue: Iran has lost too many young and talented nuclear physicists over the years due to Israel's ill-thought out assassination policies that have only helped Iran further increase its nuclear capacity. And the current infrastructure Iran has will only become bigger as Iran's knowledge and indigenous know-how of nuclear science expands each year. This nuclear issue was never about WMDs, it was always about dismantling or changing the way Iran currently is acting/their mission. The nuclear issue was always a means to an end. An end in which they currently have no viable means of achieving (quite ironic).

Idk guys, I think Iran will be fine for the time being. America is on its way out as the world's foremost hegemonic power and quite frankly, they've got WAY BIGGER FISH TO FRY. China's meteoric rise as a military/economic superpower will be the defining moment of America's worldwide legacy. Either they "get along" or one comes out on top. Given just how shitty things are here in America (domestically) I'd say China has more than a fair chance of beating America at its own game.

The Zionists on the other hand have a much more pressing matter facing them. With the continued advancement of Iran in the region and strengthening of Iranian allies (namely Hezbollah). There will come a time where the Zionist entity must come to open blows against a foe that has the means to takeaway the very things that make a nation run. Hopefully more progressive/liberal political groups take power in Israel over the coming years and allow native Palestinians to have more agency in their own homeland but as it stands currently. Iran/Hezbollah and other aligned groups will have a larger all-out conflict erupt with Israel sooner or later.
 
Last edited:

Users Who Are Viewing This Thread (Total: 2, Members: 0, Guests: 2)


Top Bottom