Iranian Chill Thread

[Taskforce]

Still waiting

On what?

 

[jauk]

Broad strategic situation report:

- Zionia has transitioned from an offensive stance to a defensive one. The trigger was the 36 day war
- The Resistance is transitioning from a hold and surround strategy to an offensive one. The war today is a critical part of that but not the only one.
- The Resistance continues to display an highly aggressive stance mixed with long term planning. The murder of Haj Ghassem and Mohandess threw a big tank of gasoline into that already burning strategic fire.
- Which feeds into the opponent’s strategy.: there will be retaliation by The Resistance perhaps not swift but deeply costly. Think deterrence
- The Resistance has clearly developed an integrated intelligence and operational capability. Akin to the current Five Eyes.
- Geopolitically, with the war in the breakaway province ongoing, the means to retaliate are extremely limited. Excellent and intentional timing by The Resistance


There are many more but this delivers the message.

 

[Xerxes22]

I wonder what’s going to happen next . I think the resistance factions are being more quiet than usual. Is that Because they are trying to goad the Israelis into a ground incursion of Gaza and then do an incursion into Israel from the north ?

Will be interesting to see that happens but I think enuf is enuf. I think there shud be a change in strategy. Either go through with strategic patience or go on the offensive to put an end to Zionists once and for all. Cuz In between all of this innocent defenceless Gazans are dying. So if u will attack, attack with the ultimate intention of total victory and not this tippy tappa bullocks anymore. Im tired of this.

 

[HGV]

Well, you would then be saying Hamas is lying.

That is correct. I repeat: Are you saying the Iranian mission to the UN is lying? You can't answer?

Broad strategic situation report:

- Zionia has transitioned from an offensive stance to a defensive one. The trigger was the 36 day war
- The Resistance is transitioning from a hold and surround strategy to an offensive one.

This delusional hopium will not age well.

 

[HGV]

https://twitter.com/x/status/1711383401985421753

 

[jauk]

That is correct. I repeat: Are you saying the Iranian mission to the UN is lying? You can't answer?


This delusional hopium will not age well.

Shhhh.

Coming to the conclusion you don’t mean well here. It’s clear to others as well. Just sayin’ son.

 

[HGV]

Shhhh.

Coming to the conclusion you don’t mean well here. It’s clear to others as well. Just sayin’ son.

You can continue to cry about it but no one with Anguilla flags trying to be a gatekeeper of who can post here is going to get very far.

Solid balanced Israeli analysis of Iran and Hezbollah's role in recent events in Gaza.

https://twitter.com/x/status/1711335860170342865

 

[jauk]

You can continue to cry about it but no one with Anguilla flags trying to be a gatekeeper of who can post here is going to get very far.

Solid balanced Israeli analysis of Iran and Hezbollah's role in recent events in Gaza.

https://twitter.com/x/status/1711335860170342865

Ahhh. Finally comes out. Your posts reeked from the beginning. You folks are so obvious. You won’t get anywhere much like your kin before you. Ironically your staying power continues to diminish. Now that everyone knows let’s see how long you’d like to waste your time. Long live Anguilla .Heh.

 

[HGV]

Ahhh. Finally comes out. Your posts reeked from the beginning. You folks are so obvious. You won’t get anywhere much like your kin before you. Ironically your staying power continues to diminish. Now that everyone knows let’s see how long you’d like to waste your time. Long live Anguilla .Heh.

I honestly have no idea what you're talking about, as usual. We all know Salar is crazy but at least he speaks in coherent sentences, you just babble incoherently.

 

[SalarHaqq]

That is correct. I repeat: Are you saying the Iranian mission to the UN is lying? You can't answer?

Mostly that your stance on this matter seems politically motivated, in keeping with similar comments posted before.

The statement attributed to the Iranian UN representation by a UK-based medium is formulated in classic diplomatic language and therefore subject to interpretation.

* “The decisions made by the Palestinian resistance are fiercely autonomous and unwaveringly aligned with the legitimate interests of the Palestinian people.” Obviously Iran never imposed decisions on the Palestinians. But this does not preclude any possible degree of mutual cooperation in the decision making process, let alone in other aspects such as prior training, armament, supply of intelligence for the express purpose of preparing the Palestinian Resistance for this very operation, all of which fall outside the scope of the quoted words.

* “We emphatically stand in unflinching support of Palestine; however, we are not involved in Palestine's response, as it is taken solely by Palestine itself.” Can simply mean Iran is not directly partaking in the fight, again an obvious fact which comes in handy assuming the aim is to establish plausible denial.

* “They are attempting to justify their failure and attribute it to Iran's intelligence power and operational planning.” Does not rule out actual Iranian contribution in the realms of intelligence and operational planning. What it does is to insist Tel Aviv has been trying to cover up glaring deficiencies in its security set up brought to light over the last days by invoking the Iranian bogeyman. Which isn't mutually exclusive with Iran actually assisting local Resistance forces.

As indicated Iran and the Resistance as a whole would have an interest in upholding plausible denial. Thus, given what's known about the nature of the relationship, the statement discussed above doesn't prove Iran had no role to play.

Furthermore, in the event that Iran was indeed uninformed of the move, the Palestinian Resistance would still owe to Iran a considerable portion of the capabilities which enabled this achievement. In other terms Iran has acted against the zionist occupation regime one way or another, although I still consider the previously mentioned scenario to be the valid one.

We all know Salar is crazy

Do we? "We all know" is a common fallacy, by the way.

 

[HGV]

Mostly that I have the impression your stance on this matter tends to be politically motivated, in keeping with similar comments posted before.

What post here is not politically motivated?

I have often defended Iran's policy of supporting the axis of resistance in the face of criticism, am I not permitted to question alleged Iranian means of retribution? It is NOT established fact that Iran led the recent operations by Hamas and I would like to see a direct response to the settler colonial entity assassinating our top scientists and heroes on our streets - if you deem this a crime, mea culpa.

The statement attributed to the Iranian UN representation by a UK-based medium is formulated in classic diplomatic language and therefore subject to interpretation.

* “The decisions made by the Palestinian resistance are fiercely autonomous and unwaveringly aligned with the legitimate interests of the Palestinian people.” Obviously Iran never imposed decisions on the Palestinians. But this does not preclude any possible degree of mutual cooperation in the decision making process, let alone in other aspects such as prior training, armament, supply of intelligence and so on, all of which fall outside the scope of the quoted words.

Agreed.

* “We emphatically stand in unflinching support of Palestine; however, we are not involved in Palestine's response, as it is taken solely by Palestine itself.” Can simply mean Iran is not directly partaking in the fight, again an obvious fact which comes in handy assuming the purpose is to establish plausible denial.

This is not the ordinary reading of "we are not involved in Palestine's response" when interpreted holistically with the rest of the statement and the context behind it, and you probably know that.

* “They are attempting to justify their failure and attribute it to Iran's intelligence power and operational planning.” Does not rule out actual Iranian contribution in the realms of intelligence and operational planning. What it does is to insist Tel Aviv has been trying to cover up glaring deficiencies in its security set up brought to light over the last days by invoking the Iranian bogeyman. Which isn't mutually exclusive with Iran actually assisting local Resistance forces.

Actually, most Israeli sources are downplaying the role of Iran in recent events (they declared war against Hamas, not Iran).

Furthermore, in the event that Iran was indeed uninformed of the move, the Palestinian Resistance would still owe to Iran a considerable portion of the capabilities which enabled it to achieve this. In this sense, Iran has acted against the zionist occupation regime one way or another, although I still consider the previously mentioned scenario to be the realistic one.

I agree. But this would make Iran's response rather indirect. Perhaps I am greedy, but I would like to see direct actions inside Iran reciprocated by direct actions inside Israel.

Do we? "We all know" is a common fallacy, by the way.

That was hyperbolic. I stand behind the gist of the message but it was nonetheless impolite of me to invoke your name like that.

 

[SalarHaqq]

What post here is not politically motivated?

So I must reformulate: politically biased in a way not too beneficial to Iran.

It is NOT established fact that Iran led the recent operations by Hamas and I would like to see a direct response to the settler colonial entity assassinating our top scientists and heroes on our streets - if you deem this a crime, mea culpa.

There are implicit rules to this type of confrontation. As long as the zionist entity is not openly claiming responsibility, neither will Iran.

This is not the ordinary reading of "we are not involved in Palestine's response" when interpreted holistically with the rest of the statement and the context behind it, and you probably know that.

It is typically the kind of statement a diplomat would issue if briefed to prioritize deniability.

Actually, most Israeli sources are downplaying the role of Iran in recent events (they declared war against Hamas, not Iran).

More reason not to take the Iranian diplomat's declaration in the literal sense then, because this is exactly what he suggested. If it doesn't appear to bear grounded in immediately observable facts, then we know it's essentially diplomatic talk warranting interpretation.

I agree. But this would make Iran's response rather indirect. Perhaps I am greedy, but I would like to see direct actions inside Iran reciprocated by direct actions inside Israel.

Considering the scope of the Palestinian blitz and the damage incurred by the apartheid regime, retaliation has been massive and in terms of impact it actually exceeded the sum of zionist destabilization attempts.

 

[Ich]

Me decided to follow this one:

No airfields destroyed -> no Iran involved.

 

[HGV]

https://twitter.com/x/status/1711429082410606832

 

[tsunset]

Me decided to follow this one:

No airfields destroyed -> no Iran involved.

Well Israeli outlet are downplaying the role of Iran in recent events

From a twitter post above

Does Hamas need Iranian permission to operate? No. Was there early coordination between Hamas, Iran, and Hezbollah? It's possible.

But, in the end, it is an action by Hamas based on it own interests arising from the Palestinian reality.

My assessment is also supported by the recent statement of the IDF spokesman who said, "Iran is a significant player, but we cannot say that it planned the operation or trained for it."