What's new

Iranian Chill Thread

Yeah trust me, I get paid relatively well compared to others in my full time job, part time is just ehh but it’s easy so I can’t complain but cost of living is expensive and my wife actually makes more than me at her job but like typical alpha male Arab from Palestine my wife’s money is hers, I’m lucky I bought my house during the last recession when housing prices collapsed so my house is paid off but having to kids I did the math one year it cost me more or less 3000 a month for my kids that’s half my full time wages just for them, bills every month even no mortgage 2000 and here comes the part time job to save money in my accounts my wife pays for groceries and nonessential’s and we spilt the difference on vacation……so to live a typical American lifestyle isn’t cheap is all im saying.
If I want to by 45 square meters house in Tehran , I have to pay 25,000,000,000 Rials in Tehran . My base salary is around 110,000,000 rials , I have to pay almost 250 months of my salary to be able to buy a grave in Tehran if the prices don't go up ...


This year inflation will be at least will be 50 percent, so the price of the home will be 37,500,000,000 rials in the end of year while my base salary will be 132,000,000 rials ....


This shithole ISI created and their blind supporters want us to be silence about it
 
Forget what?
I am the chill one calming you down here.

Imao, it's alright. I'm used to it. If they feel they are in a net-positive position, then who am I to judge. We shall see, how things turn out in the end, and what the end goal is, because I am not quite sure what that would be.
 
If I want to by 45 square meters house in Tehran , I have to pay 25,000,000,000 Rials in Tehran . My base salary is around 110,000,000 rials , I have to pay almost 250 months of my salary to be able to buy a grave in Tehran if the prices don't go up ...


This year inflation will be at least will be 50 percent, so the price of the home will be 37,500,000,000 rials in the end of year while my base salary will be 132,000,000 rials ....


This shithole ISI created and their blind supporters want us to be silence about it
Yes I’m sorry to hear that and I think people don’t understand fully the hardships people are going through unless they are on the other side, I’m lucky that I have a home that’s paid for but during the last recession I got that home because someone else couldn’t afford to make payments.
 

Minimal sacrifice in defense of haqq.

I am glad you removed the part about my British flags given your own European flags and residence.

The Iranian flag beneath my username is clearly visible. Missing from yours however.

Residence is of no relevance here, ideas and posture are.

As for what you retained, your slanderous narrative of a copy and paste driven pro-opposition crusade or infiltration (LOL) is just in your head and not reality.

Similarity with the oppositionist line on the topic at hand is a verifiable occurrence which cannot be erased through rhetoric.

For the record, I obviously never insulted 'Iranian war heroes' - that's a preposterous lie. Calling any criticism of Iranian military figures an insult against war heroes is an obvious and pathetic attempt to deflect from the very real criticisms of the following: how cheap Iranian life is under the IRI, how Iran is impotent and unwilling to respond to frequent Israeli acts of aggression (against Iranians and Iranian interests in Syria, Iraq and inside Iran) and how IRI officials lie about this to save face.

Systematically ridiculing war heroes is not called "criticism", it's insulting and any patriot ought to and will take offense at it. No matter how much spin is put on it.

The premise you're attempting to push through, namely that valuing the lives of Iranian soldiers supposes tit for tat retaliation against every single action taken by the enemy in the multiple, complex theaters in which the confrontation is playing out, is a fallacy which - whether you realize it or not - only serves the enemy's psy-ops campaign aimed at influencing the patriotic majority of Iranian opinion. Especially when:

1) Iran is operating under asymmetrical conditions, and material / economic resource distribution between Iran and her enemies is highly unequal.

2) Overall strategy is never sacrificed for avenging individual fatalities in what would reflect an inoperative tribalist mindset. Neither Iran nor the USA superpower will act in such a way - case in point, America's crass failure to retaliate for hundreds if not thousands of G.I. casualties caused by Iranian-backed Iraqi Resistance groups. In short, the Islamic Republic's modus operandi in this regard does not betray any lack of concern for "Iranian lives" but sound tactical and strategic thinking.

In the overall picture i.e. what actually matters, Iran has been and keeps being successful against the enemy. This fact alone instantly negates any pretense of legitimacy to misplaced rantings against Iranian decision makers.

What you're doing, is promoting unrealistic expectations which no rational political actor can be asked to meet, by appealing to readers' basic emotions instead of their intelligence.

3) If Iran was "impotent", she would have been razed to the ground several times over by the zio-American empire in the early 1980's rather than surviving and steadily progressing for 44 years all the while of confronting said imperialists, as one of only a handful of governments on earth brave enough to embark on this noble struggle.

A fact whose significance you've clearly set yourself the goal to try and minimize. However, no amount of what you may depict as shortcomings will ever suffice to put a dent into this impressive record. This method of obfuscating the essence for the benefit of inadequately interpreted, overblown side-aspects is exactly what the exiled opposition is practicing against the Islamic Republic.

You are complicit in the above by propagating the same lies,

No lies on Iran's part. Plenty of fabrications from zionist and other mainstream media however, which you've been endorsing at least passively and echoing in the framework of your narrative.

which is why I tagged you to recent developments after you claimed (1) Israeli strikes very rarely kill Iranians

Which corresponds to plain truth. Let's reiterate: if claims are accurate that zionist strikes against Syria have numbered in the hundreds, then the percentage of strikes in which Iranians were martyred has been very low.

You and another user taking issue with this were then invited to present the tally of confirmed Iranian fatalities to prove your contention. Both of you failed to address the challenge because you know it would prove wrong your discourse.

A contrario, I demonstrated with concrete evidence how zionist media outlets and regime officials, by means of fallacious semantic techniques, are bent on twisting the truth about the very low amount of Iranian martyrs resulting from zionist air strikes on Syria.

The suggestion that zionists have martyred large amounts of Iranians in Syria is a lie concocted by the regime in Tel Aviv and peddled at PDF by the likes of user Beny Karachun. And you are here obviously lending credence to this lie.

and (2) when they do, Iran always responds directly. Well (2) in particular is a very simple hypothesis to prove/disprove given we have unfortunately had two more martyrs in the past few days. The click is ticking for Hajizadeh to vindicate your thesis.

Responded, past tense, is what I wrote, prior to offering two illustrations to this effect. Not that it would matter in the grand scheme of things anyway, contrary to what you've been insinuating.
 
Last edited:
This has been my sentiment as well. Tone down the embarrassing rhetoric meant for domestic purposes because clearly those of us who see the forest for the trees can see Iran's glaring short-comings in their struggle against Zionist forces.

It is what it is... Until someone in Iran says "enough is enough": Men, equipment, face and much more will continue to degrade.

Could you remind everyone what happened to the USA regime's retaliation against Iran for hundreds if not thousands of casualties among US troops during the illegal occupation of Iraq? And what happened to the US regime "valuing the lives of Americans"?

So perhaps you'd like to focus on Washington's glaring shortcomings in its confrontation against Iranian forces, rather than dwelling on irrelevant aspects pertaining to Iran.

The discourse rehashed here against the IR by four of five users, won't fly with more rationally thinking readers.
 
Last edited:
In this day an age, you need a public relations account that can disseminate information quickly, and counter mis-information quickly. Like the ridiculous mis-information that spread after the quadcopters hit a building in Isfahan, somehow it was lead to believe attacks were all around Iran to the point where some Ukrainian official made a tweet about it (falsely)

Regarding the notion that IRGC-linked "Twitter" accounts have been publishing disinformation, which has been contended by other commenters.

It would be too easy to assume that the entire array of concrete indicators can be dismissed out of hand, on grounds that there's no hard evidence in what amounts to a covert operation.

As an example it is definitely peculiar that the father of the zionist regime's rocket program and one of their most distinguished scientists, would be killed in an attack days or weeks after shahid Fakhrizadeh's martyrdom, and that zionist sources in their reporting would be caught changing their storyline. These indications make the hypothesis of Iranian involvement possible to say the least.

Second example the crash over Afghanistan of an aircraft operated by US intelligence shortly after the terrorist attack on shahid Soleimani, knowing that the Taleban who had received military assistance from Iran before claimed responsibility and that during over twenty years of NATO occupation they've rarely been seen operating surface to air missiles, not to mention the report according to which top CIA agent Michael D'Andrea was on board, originated from a Russian not Iranian source.

Some users will be quick to take circumstantial indicators into account and assertively draw conclusions when it comes e.g. to allegedly failed Iranian satellites launches. But woe betide anyone applying a similar rationale to probable Iranian covert retaliation versus the zionist entity - said individuals will be all over the place lamenting "lies" by supposedly "corrupt IRI elites".

They could've been operating like this for last 5 years, to the point where Iran would be completely out of Syria due to the frequency of strikes. They should've known that strikes essentially have zero consequences. Took them long enough to find out I guess.

Bit by bit they will knock out Syrian and Iranian military equipment or atleast, what they think is military equipment until resources become low, and ability to re-supply is degraded.

Assuming Iran is incapable of replacing whatever equipment is supposedly lost. Zionist, western and oppositionist anti-IR media have been "predicting" the "imminent" withdrawal of (pro-)Iranian forces for over a decade. Call me when it happens.

Demoralized and no solutions available.

Barroom psychoanalysis.

And for your information, this was a meeting of CEO's with the President. CEO's pulling long faces possibly in reaction to governmental injunctions would be a good sign, considering that their modus operandi hitherto has not been satisfactory enough from the viewpoint of the common good.
 
Last edited:
Could you remind everyone what happened to the USA regime's retaliation against Iran for hundreds if not thousands of casualties among US troops during the illegal occupation of Iraq? And what happened to the US regime "valuing the lives of Americans"?

So perhaps you'd like to focus on Washington's glearing shortcomings in its confrontation against Iranian forces, rather than dwelling on irrelevant aspects pertaining to Iran.

No, the discourse rehashed here against the IR by four of five users, won't fly with rationally thinking readers.

They valued the lives of their soldiers enough to finally murder one of Iran's most respected and revered figures in recent memory, Shahid Hajj Qassem-Soleimani along with Abu-Mahdi and a number of other important adjuncts. Keep in mind, yes, whilst Iranian efforts to fund and arm anti-American/Zionist groups who strive for freedom and to break the shackles of Western oppression is significant, causing untold amounts of damage (?). The score still greatly favors their side as opposed to the Iranian side. -- U.S. armed forces losing "100s if not thousands" of troops barely puts a dent in their overall war-fighting capabilities, practically speaking. They still command legions of mercenaries and willing conscripts sporting the worlds most advanced hardware. Iranian kinetic options for retaliation will be costly, highly destructive and difficult to counter but what happens when the drones are gone and missile batteries run dry? I.R.I strategy still banks on enough destruction being wrought during the beginning stages of a conflict that a settlement of some kind is implemented in short-order without drawing respective parties into a longer conflict, thus achieving deterrence through conventional means without having to resort to WMDs due to fear of regional destruction being much too costly to justify a pro-longed conflict.

The Americans fumbled in Iraq and in Afghanistan, politically because they lacked domestic support. Militarily though, they smashed whatever was in their way.

We still must keep in mind that Iran is under draconian sanctions, Iran lost significant political/military and scientific figures, Iranian men, weapons and equipment are being destroyed left and right on a weekly basis (losses in men are less frequent), Iran is the one suffering from costly sabotages: Iranian allies are suffering lop-sided losses in shooting bouts with IDF/American forces, etc.,

Me focussing on Washington shortcomings in the Middle East doesn't take away from Iran's current issues. -- Discourse/dialogue discussed here is necessary and pertinent in every way imaginable. It keeps one grounded, reminds us of both strengths and weaknesses.
 
Last edited:
Could you remind everyone what happened to the USA regime's retaliation against Iran for hundreds if not thousands of casualties among US troops during the illegal occupation of Iraq? And what happened to the US regime "valuing the lives of Americans"?

So perhaps you'd like to focus on Washington's glaring shortcomings in its confrontation against Iranian forces, rather than dwelling on irrelevant aspects pertaining to Iran.

The discourse rehashed here against the IR by four of five users, won't fly with more rationally thinking readers.
My position has been clear for more than 5 years regarding continued Israeli strikes against Iranian assets in Syria. -- Iran must openly strike Israel: said operation should be tailored to cause adequate amounts of losses in both men and equipment. Stopping short of a full-blown shooting war. Re-establishing (or just establishing for that matter...) deterrence here is key, if that cannot be accomplished. Then let loose the dogs of war... it's a fools errand to believe Iran and Israel won't openly start firing at each other sooner or later.

If Iran fails to even RESPOND IN A MEANINGFUL WAY, then Iranian assets in Syria will continue to degrade. Iran cannot afford to replace all the destroyed equipment ad-nauseam.

Ballistic Missiles: Ready
Cruise Missiles: Ready
Drones: Ready
Air-Defense: Ready
Regional Allies: Armed and Ready
 
They valued the lives of their soldiers enough to finally murder one of Iran's most respected and revered figures in recent memory, Shahid Hajj Qassem-Soleimani along with Abu-Mahdi and a number of other important adjuncts.

This was not retaliation for Iraq casualties (suffered more than a decade earlier) but a psy-ops operation mostly, motivated by Iran's strong and advantageous geostrategic position.

Iran did not lose her ability nor the political will and readiness to repeat the same proxy war on US occupation forces - and even do so on a greater scale, whenever necessary.

Also, when it comes to valuing life the way you conceive of it, your comment implies that the US regime is considering the life of an Iranian general to be 600-800+ times more valuable than that of the average US citizen. Doesn't sound anything like the usual imperial arrogance and hubris coming out of Washington now does it.

Keep in mind, yes, whilst Iranian efforts to fund and arm anti-American/Zionist groups who strive for freedom and to break the shackles of Western oppression is significant, causing untold amounts of damage (?). The score still greatly favors their side as opposed to the Iranian side. -- U.S. armed forces losing "100s if not thousands" of troops barely puts a dent in their overall war-fighting capabilities, practically speaking. They still command legions of mercenaries and willing conscripts sporting the worlds most advanced hardware.

It did enough damage to practically oust their military from Iraq. This, not depletion of USA weapons inventories, was Iran's objective. Mission accomplished.

And if you still gauge victory and defeat in terms of either kill ratios or respective amount / quality of weaponry, here's food for thought: when it collapsed, the USSR retained the capability to flatten every major population center on earth. It hardly helped them though.

Iranian kinetic options for retaliation will be costly, highly destructive and difficult to counter but what happens when the drones are gone and missile batteries run dry? I.R.I strategy still banks on enough destruction being wrought during the beginning stages of a conflict that a settlement of some kind is implemented in short-order without drawing respective parties into a longer conflict, thus achieving deterrence through conventional means without having to resort to WMDs due to fear of regional destruction being much too costly to justify a pro-longed conflict.

I look at reality and what I see is that whatever strategy Iran devised to deter all out military aggression, it works perfectly well.

The Americans fumbled in Iraq and in Afghanistan, politically because they lacked domestic support. Militarily though, they smashed whatever was in their way.

Not really, the same pro-Iranian Resistance groups are still active in Iraq.

Also the statement above is of no consequence, it does not matter. Wars aren't fought to obliterate an enemy, they're fought to reach a pre-defined political objective.

In this regard the American public's low tolerance for casualties is part and parcel of the equation as much as any military-technical consideration, and it's the political result which counts, not any thing else.

We still must keep in mind that Iran is under draconian sanctions, Iran lost significant political/military and scientific figures, Iranian men, weapons and equipment are being destroyed left and right on a weekly basis (losses in men are less frequent),

Kindly substantiate the claim of Iranian weapons and equipment being destroyed on a weekly basis.

Iran is the one suffering from costly sabotages: Iranian allies are suffering lop-sided losses in shooting bouts with IDF/American forces, etc.,

And so?

Me focussing on Washington shortcomings in the Middle East doesn't take away from Iran's current issues. -- Discourse/dialogue discussed here is necessary and pertinent in every way imaginable. It keeps one grounded, reminds us of both strengths and weaknesses.

What's pertinent is the geostrategic picture. Smearing Iranian decision makers for their supposedly lacking response to enemy action when said enemy action has blatantly failed to bring about the results it is supposed to, is not an exercise in pertinence, it's fallacy-driven errancy if not pursuit of an underlying political agenda.

My position has been clear for more than 5 years regarding continued Israeli strikes against Iranian assets in Syria. -- Iran must openly strike Israel: said operation should be tailored to cause adequate amounts of losses in both men and equipment. Stopping short of a full-blown shooting war. Re-establishing (or just establishing for that matter...) deterrence here is key, if that cannot be accomplished. Then let loose the dogs of war... it's a fools errand to believe Iran and Israel won't openly start firing at each other sooner or later.

Why must Iran do such a thing? Why must these inconsequential strikes be deterred at the cost of a full fledged war with uncertain and quite possibly unfavorable outcome, when the present strategy has borne fruit?

If Iran fails to even RESPOND IN A MEANINGFUL WAY, then Iranian assets in Syria will continue to degrade.

Please prove that Iran assets have been degrading. Prove that the supposed (but highly unlikely) degradation represents a threat to the viability of Iran's strategy.

Iran cannot afford to replace all the destroyed equipment ad-nauseam.

Again, kindly present a detailed tally of allegedly destroyed Iranian equipment, and of Iranian production capabilities. Your argument is entirely based on assumptions, unrealistically negative ones in fact, considering the sum of available data.
 
Last edited:

Some other photographs from the same meeting:

i1.jpg
i2.jpg
i3.jpg
 
This was not retaliation for Iraq casualties but a psy-ops operation mostly, motivated by Iran's strong and advantageous geostrategic position.

Iran did not lose her ability nor the political will and readiness to repeat the same proxy war on US occupation forces - and even do so on a much grander scale, whenever necessary.



It did enough damage to practically oust their military from Iraq. This, not to depleting USA weapons inventories, was Iran's objective. Mission accomplished.

And if you still gauge victory and defeat in terms of either kill ratios or respective amount / quality of weaponry, here's food for thought: when it collapsed, the USSR retained the capability to flatten evey major population center on earth. It hardly helped them though.



I look at reality and what I see is that whatever strategy Iran devised to deter all out military aggression, it worked.



Not really, the same pro-Iranian Resistance groups are still active in Iraq.

Also the statement above is of no consequence, it does not matter. Wars aren't fought to obliterate an enemy, they're fought to reach a pre-defined political objective.

In this regard the American public's low tolerance for casualties is part and parcel of the equation as much as any military-technical consideration, and it's the political result which counts, not any thing else.



Kindly substantiate the claim of Iranian weapons and equipment being destroyed on a weekly basis.



And?



What's pertinent is the geostrategic picture. Smearing Iranian decision makers for their supposedly lacking response to enemy action when said enemy action has blatantly failed to bring about the goals it is supposed to serve, is not an exercise in pertinence, it's fallacy-driven errancy if not pursuit of a political agenda.



Why must Iran do such a thing? Why must these inconsequential strikes be deterred at the cost of a full fledged war with uncertain and quite possibly unfavorable outcome?



Prove that Iran assets have been degrading. Prove that the supposed (but highly unlikely) degradation represents a threat to the viability of Iran's strategy.



Again, kindly present a detailed tally of allegedly destroyed Iranian equipment, and of Iranian production capabilities. Your argument is entirely based on assumptions, unrealistically negative ones in fact, considering the sum of available data.

-There exists a bevy of Twitter accounts that post highly detailed satellite imagery showing clearly, the destruction IDF strikes have caused. -- Linked below is just a recent one. Iran doesn't say much at all regarding material losses, so it's either Israeli/Western sources which constantly report Iranian material destruction or Iranian sources that admit to personnel losses every now and then. I try to balance between the two believe it or not.

Nothing for me here to prove Salar, I see the satellite pictures, I read the articles and updates on Twitter reporting on said strikes. It's up to the individual to believe whatever it is they want to believe. Iran is suffering men and material losses in Syria: it's a sobering reality, I know, but one nonetheless.

Perhaps you can provide evidence to the contrary. I want to be wrong on the matter.... I'm not concrete in my rationalizations mind you.


-America choose to exit Iraq (not even fully) because the domestic political situation was becoming untenable and the need for American forces wasn't necessary: Saddam was killed, his army defeated, Iranian backed-Iraqi resistance groups caused substantial damage but nothing the Americans couldn't replace in order to continue combat/patrol missions. Their failure in Iraq was a political one, not a military one but they chose WILLINGLY CHOSE to cut their losses short and end combat/patrol missions and overall occupation. That is my stance on the matter. But America did lose Iraq to Iran, that's an immutable fact. -- Hajj-Qassem is still dead, Abu-Mahdi is still dead. The Americans are still in Iraq, The Americans are still in Syria and any shooting bout between Americans and Iranian allies in the regions leads to largely one-sided poundings (as evidenced over the years).

Point is, America was willing enough to murder an Iranian figure that was second only to Khamenei himself in a lot of respects. It means they can do it again if they feel it to be necessary. I don't believe the retaliation against Ayn-Al Assad was enough to establish deterrence in the way you might be thinking it has. I hope I'm wrong but I don't think it was enough.

- And?... and what Salar? Is the continued deaths/sabotage of Iranian military figures, scientists, nuclear facilities not a cause for concern? All these and more are justification for retaliation, I don't know what exactly is the confusion here.

"Why must Iran do such a thing? Why must these inconsequential strikes be deterred at the cost of a full fledged war with uncertain and quite possibly unfavorable outcome?" -- Inconsequential to who, you? Again, you seem to want to believe in an entirely different reality than the one that's currently playing out in Syria. Since I respect you, I will accept your position as being your interpretation of the situation but I don't agree with it at all.

Men are dying, equipment is being destroyed, Iran keeps bringing in new ones in but those also get destroyed eventually.
What's pertinent is the geostrategic picture. Smearing Iranian decision makers for their supposedly lacking response to enemy action when said enemy action has blatantly failed to bring about the goals it is supposed to serve, is not an exercise in pertinence, it's fallacy-driven errancy if not pursuit of a political agenda.
- Nope, completely irrational take on the matter. Bringing up the constant lack of equitable Iranian retaliation does not serve to smear Iranian decision makers. Only highlights their shortcomings.

-
It's not a fallacy-driven errancy whatsoever, and it is most definitely not in pursuit of some political agenda (please kindly avert from hollow accusations, I would appreciate it if you did not insinuate that I'm aiding Anti-Iranian notions through my posts).
 
-There exists a bevy of Twitter accounts that post highly detailed satellite imagery showing clearly, the destruction IDF strikes have caused. -- Linked below is just a recent one. Iran doesn't say much at all regarding material losses, so it's either Israeli/Western sources which constantly report Iranian material destruction or Iranian sources that admit to personnel losses every now and then. I try to balance between the two believe it or not.

So how does this prove the claim that Iran has lost massive, irreplaceable amounts of equipment? What proves those facilities were housing Iranian weaponry in the first place?

Had it been Iran striking a compound and declaring to have destroyed zionist armament, it'd automatically be met with skepticism by the same people who take zionist allegations for granted.

Nothing for me here to prove Salar, I see the satellite pictures, I read the articles and updates on Twitter reporting on said strikes. It's up to the individual to believe whatever it is they want to believe. Iran is suffering men and material losses in Syria: it's a sobering reality, I know, but one nonetheless.

Perhaps you can provide evidence to the contrary. I want to be wrong on the matter.... I'm not concrete in my rationalizations mind you.


Well, you expressed the opinion that these losses are strategically unsustainable, as a justification for the subsequent conclusion that Iranian policy is marred by miscalculation and/or weakness.

I'm asking for evidence in support of the mentioned assessment. It's really on you to come forward with proof since your assertion hinges upon it. Can't issue a claim based on negative feeling alone (which in turn is likely to stem from the enemy's dominance over the media).

-America choose to exit Iraq (not even fully) because the domestic political situation was becoming untenable and the need for American forces wasn't necessary: Saddam was killed, his army defeated, Iranian backed-Iraqi resistance groups caused substantial damage but nothing the Americans couldn't replace in order to continue combat/patrol missions. Their failure in Iraq was a political one, not a military one but they chose WILLINGLY CHOSE to cut their losses short and end combat/patrol missions and overall occupation. That is my stance on the matter. But America did lose Iraq to Iran, that's an immutable fact. -- Hajj-Qassem is still dead, Abu-Mahdi is still dead. The Americans are still in Iraq, The Americans are still in Syria and any shooting bout between Americans and Iranian allies in the regions leads to largely one-sided poundings (as evidenced over the years).

See, there is no such notion as 'political versus military' defeat. It's a feel-good subterfuge resorted to by imperial oppressors when they are resoundingly defeated in a conflict. Americans also notoriously claim they "won every battle in the Vietnam war", the French pretend the same with regard to the Algerian war of liberation.

I'd recommend reading Clausewitz' seminal work on warfare, if you're interested in researching this issue. I promise you'll never adopt to the same type of view afterwards. Wars are fought not to win battles, but to accomplish a pre-defined political goal. Battlefield history and kill ratios do not matter as compared to the political outcome. This is how decision makers and scholars will reason. And, this is how geopolitics actually work. Emotive reactivity to fatalities is for regular folk who lack deeper understanding of the subject matter (this is not directed at you personally, I'm just trying to highlight the difference).

The US regime failed to achieve its objectives in Iraq, namely to create a springboard on Iraqi territory for the destabilization of Islamic Iran (the big prize in Bush's "axis of evil") and additional operations across the region. The only objective they reached was the dismantling of the Iraqi nation-state, but that had already been well underway since 1991 and did not justify the tremendous expenditure associated with the illegal 2003 invasion and resulting occupation of Iraq.

Point is, America was willing enough to murder an Iranian figure that was second only to Khamenei himself in a lot of respects. It means they can do it again if they feel it to be necessary. I don't believe the retaliation against Ayn-Al Assad was enough to establish deterrence in the way you might be thinking it has. I hope I'm wrong but I don't think it was enough.

What would it earn them? Nothing much outside of psy-ops points i.e. a couple of Iranians becoming slightly more receptive to zionist- / NATO-concocted propaganda against the IR, like the first time around. Big deal.

- And?... and what Salar? Is the continued deaths/sabotage of Iranian military figures, scientists, nuclear facilities not a cause for concern?

No. It will be when it actually makes a difference in the geostrategic balance by causing a setback to Iran's regional position or to her domestic stability. Such thing has not happened.

What you're advocating is basically for Iran to multiply the risks and embark on an adventure which may end up like Saddam's invasion of Kuwait, even though the existing approach has continuously improved the strategic balance to Iran's advantage. Tell me if this is reasonable.

Inconsequential to who, you? Again, you seem to want to believe in an entirely different reality than the one that's currently playing out in Syria. Since I respect you, I will accept your position as being your interpretation of the situation but I don't agree with it at all.

Inconsequential to the geostrategic situation, and inconsequential to the objective zionists are pursuing with these attacks, as indicated multiple times. Please try to see what I'm conveying.

Men are dying, equipment is being destroyed, Iran keeps bringing in new ones in but those also get destroyed eventually.

Please provide evidence for Iranian equipment being destroyed in air strikes in Syria, apart from the T4 attack.

- Nope, completely irrational take on the matter. Bringing up the constant lack of equitable Iranian retaliation does not serve to smear Iranian decision makers. Only highlights their shortcomings.

Sorry to contradict you, but terms such as "corrupt IRI officials" and recurrent sarcastic phrases targeted at Iranian war heroes and the Leadership pretty much amount to smear in my book. You may not personally subscribe to those comments (I believe you don't), but I wasn't making anything up.

As for purported shortcomings, the question's been addressed throughout this discussion.

- It's not a fallacy-driven errancy whatsoever, and it is most definitely not in pursuit of some political agenda (please kindly avert from hollow accusations, I would appreciate it if you did not insinuate that I'm aiding Anti-Iranian notions through my posts).

That was not in reference to you, rest assured. If I may though, I still believe your take on this specific matter to be flawed (and I mean no disrespect whatsoever).
 
Last edited:
What i understand Iran has shown poor capability on intelligence, field coordination. They suffer loses, thats nor the fact, the fact is they didn't cause any damage. symbolic offense wont result in anything. so far countless damage revived by Iran in Syria but never did any to Israel and USA...just some fire works.. some times i wonder they way they killed and fight ISIS or any Sunni militias , they don't have much position against Israel...from 2014 i never witnessed any significant blow against Israel and America. For at least once.

Why don't send one missile from Syria to Israel as response....The only thing i witnessed Iran id achieve is spreading shia empire...Even though their shia neighbors are out of control.

I know enemy wants u to react badly to spread the the war... U better repose tactically vary tactically.
 
Last edited:
That's not how it works

You should always look at empty part of the glass :chilli:

CEO's and executives getting schooled by the President = good news. Glass is full. :tup:



from 2014 i never witnessed any significant blow against Israel and America. For at least once.

Islamic Iran's powerful ballistic missile strike which blew to smithereen's the Mossad operational center in Arbil, northern Iraq took place a year ago (in March 2022).


Less than a year prior, Islamic Iran annihilated a CIA base (let's cite zionist sources because some seem to find these more credible than Iranian ones):


No my friend, the Resistance didn't and will never stop as long as the Islamic Revolution is alive.

Do you know of any other government on the planet brave enough to directly hit American or Isra"el"i regime assets like that? Because I personally don't. Not even our respected partners in anti-imperial struggle, Russia and China, have mustered this much fortitude in recent times.

Let's not lose sight of proportions and context, Islamic Iran is the world leader in fighting the zio-American empire. Nobody comes near. Respect where due.

The only thing i witnessed Iran id achieve is spreading shia empire...Even though their shia neighbors are out of control.

This would beg the question whether the Palestinian Resistance which Iran hasn't ceased arming, is part of a Shia empire?
 
Last edited:

Latest posts

Back
Top Bottom