He is nowhere near Khamenei's level.
He is just as keen to continue to resist the empire, which is what this discussion was about.
If you think killing a nations most powerful general is not a clear case of failed deterrence, i will rest my case.
Given that this assassination changed nothing to the geopolitical equation, yes, there was no "breach" in deterrence.
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.
If you want to make a point, you need to substantiate it with hard facts. Mere statements can never cut it. What exactly you're basing yourself on to make such a claim about Iran's contemporary clergy is the question here. What study, what research paper, what evidence, etc.
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.
Problem with this is that I merely stated facts and produced rational arguments. So I'm not the one whom this charge of being biased vis a vis the person of the Supreme Leader would apply to.
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.
You keep saying I'm confused yet your argument is inherently self-contradicting.
So let me examine the latest variant of your evolving narrative: now you're saying the moment the IR decides to go for nukes, the Leader will be assassinated and massive bombing of the IRGC will ensue... This begs two questions:
1) Are you saying these bombardments will successfully prevent Iran from building the nukes? If yes, what exactly are you complaining about? Since you believe Iran cannot build nukes anyway, because the moment it tries, the US will bomb her so much as to prevent it from happening.
2) If you're saying that the US can assassinate the Supreme Leader and bomb the IRGC into oblivion, but can't prevent Iran from building nukes, then I'd suggest to reexamine your assertion under a somewhat more rational light. Because see, if the US had the means to do all which you suggest, it sure as hell would also have the means to militarily prevent Iran from completing the construction of nuclear weapons. If you're suggesting that one person - the Supreme Leader, cannot be safely protected from US bombings, but that the entire infrastructure needed to build nukes can, then you must be joking, honestly.
Hope you reckon that this right here is pristine, elementary logos. No bias, no propaganda, nothing of the sort.
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?
They have to fear the same thing which prevents them from launching all military aggression against Iran.
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.
Re-read my quote. You're not addressing it properly. Iran's present capability DOES deter and HAS deterred both the zionists and their American shabbos goys from attacking Iran. Else they would have done it ages ago. They'd have done it before Iraq, they'd have done it before Libya, they'd have done it before Syria because Iran's their biggest target among all the mentioned countries.
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.
Then what exactly are you lamenting about? If Iran cannot safely acquire nukes because the US will prevent her from doing so, as you now claim, why are you pretending its "fear" that's preventing Iran from taking that step, and not actual material impossibility, like you're now claiming? Please make up your mind.
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?
You make up your mind: can Iran develop nukes or not? You just seemed to suggest she won't be able to, just one line above. Either that, or you're suggesting Iran can protect nuclear facilities from US bombing, but can't protect the Supreme Leader from the same. None of which would be accurate.
Also as I told you, the negotiations won't result in Iran making any incapacitating concessions. Rahbar has made sure of that. But they do provide Iran with a heavy hitting political argument. So our minds are perfectly set already. You just need to make the effort of trying to understand these intricacies. It's not Iran's fault if choose not to.
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.
North Korea has pursued the exact same approach as Iran when it comes to this issue. I gave you exact reasons as to why, you're countering with slogans.
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.
I perfectly explained it already: North Korea had no other means to ensure deterrence. Iran does. Had North Korea been enjoying the same deterrence assets as Iran, she would never have opted for nukes. Simple as that.
Btw, Rodong Sinmun can school Keyhan or other IR newspapers on anti US revolutionary zeal.
Even when Pyongyang was sitting at the negotiating table with Clinton and Trump? Rodong Sinmun blasting America during those same days was okay, but Keyhan blasting the US now isn't?
What if they reached some deal in the near future?
They won't. And any deal reached will neither deprive Iran of her latent nuclear break out capability, nor of the benefits of civilian nuclear science. That's all which matters. The rest is just empty talk.
LOL. Did we not try that once? What is the JCPOA fiasco then?
The Ahmadinejad administration negotiated too, and no "JCPOA fiasco" came out of it.
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.
What are "slight military aggressions"? What's their relevance if they change nothing to the overall picture? Answer these questions, don't dodge them.
Also, you flip flopped your statement twice, no less. Going from "if Iran build nukes the US will attack" to "if Iran builds nukes the US will not be able to do anything, but the Iranian leadership is too dumb to realize that", to "the moment Iran tries to build nukes the US will attack" in your latest iteration. All three being baseless, obviously.
But most importantly, Iran's non-nuclear arsenal has successfully deterred the US from daring to launch military aggression against Iran. End of story.
Nope, impartial observers already realize this fact.
You don't even take the time to read what it is you're replying to it would seem. Re-read that part of the discussion.
And Khamenei is afraid of a direct war.
The US regime is afraid of direct war with Iran. Proof: it never dared initiate any, despite holding a far greater grudge against Iran than it ever did against Saddam, Gaddafi and so on.
I know, it's impossible to disprove the above logically and therefore it can only be countered through unsubstantiated claims over and over again. Not a problem with me, all this will achieve is to show readers who can back up their arguments with evidence and who can't.
I repeat, he will not cross this red line (making nukes).
He crossed all imperial red lines ever since he came to power. Nukes are subsidiary and insignificant in this regard. They are a means, not the be all end all. And so that's how we ought to appreciate things.
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.
Right, the US can "eliminate" Iran's Supreme Leader but then it cannot eliminate the facilities Iran would use to build those nukes... So rather than going straight for these facilities, it would go for Iran's Leader.
Frankly, try some solid logic now.
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
This is sub-par level argumentation. To suppose that Iran cannot protect her Supreme Leader in case of a war, but can shield facilities needed to produce nuclear weapons. Come on.
I think you are daydreaming.
You are free to think that.
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.
It's you who needs to wake up. It's been 43 years that we're hearing this mantra and nothing of the sort ever happened. Aren't you getting tired of it?
Dared? I can immediately think of North Korea, Cuba, Venezuela, Bashar Al Assad etc. Or you meant something else than dare?
Exactly what part of "outside of a handful" don't you understand? So yes, seyyed Khamenei is one out of 5 or so. Five out of some 195 sovereign states on Earth.
Now you grasp the meaning of to dare.
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.
The only naive one would be he who seeks to peddle the notion that south Korea and Japan matter more to the US and are wielding greater influence upon the American establishment than zionists.
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.
I'm not a seyyed, so kindly don't call me that.
Secondly, why constantly dodge the points? I'm referring to the proven deterrent power of Iran's ballistic missiles, which, along with the other tools mentioned, have successfully deterred the enemy from striking Iran as a matter of simple fact. It's not that hard to realize.