Blue In Green
SENIOR MEMBER
- Joined
- Nov 30, 2016
- Messages
- 2,359
- Reaction score
- 0
- Country
- Location
I never came across terms such as 'semi-deterrence' or 'quarter deterrence' in geopolitical and international relations literature so far.
This isn't the appropriate way of looking at geopolitical conflict. Wars are not fought to kill or destroy more than the opposite side, nor to humiliate an adversary, nor for prestige reasons... They are solely fought to attain a political objective, no more, no less. Since Clausewitz at most, this is a well demonstrated and universally accepted truth in academia.
The thing that's left for the US and zionist regimes, is to reach their basic objectives to start with: namely, to suppress Iran because of her Resistance policies first and foremost (and indeed, these policies are neither "bogus" nor "harmless", no matter the inanities that takfiris or individuals with a similar discourse will utter), and then because the regime in Tel Aviv cannot tolerate large any nation-state with considerable potentials in its neighborhood.
Military aggression is not the only possible means to carry through this agenda, by the way. But no matter how they tried, Iran's enemies have failed in implementing their program. In other terms, the enemy has not been successful in the least.
There's no justification for such a hypothesis. All arguments presented to this effect can be debunked.
* It was suggested that the enemy would try to "assassinate" the Supreme Leader if he orders to go ahead with manufacturing nuclear weapons. This scenario, however, is quite removed from reality. Hajj Qassem was martyred in an absolute surprise attack - there were no prior indications nor was there a particular reason to believe he would be targeted during that specific trip of his to Iraq. Plus, he was a soldier who went to the frontlines all the time - hence everyone in the system was aware of and accepted the risk that he could get martyred at any given moment. Thirdly, he was martyred outside Iran's borders in an entirely non-protected setting.
To compare this with the extreme levels of security enjoyed by the person of the Supreme Leader on Iranian soil is baseless. Underground facilities and air defence systems like those believed to be solid enough to protect the Iranian nuclear infrastructure from enemy strikes in case Iran decided to go for nuclear weapons, would be just as apt in protecting a key individual.
Furthermore, if the Supreme Leader ordered to build nuclear weapons and if this really entailed such a huge risk for his personal safety, then this risk would be known in advance, and would allow Iran to prepare accordingly - contrary to shahid Soleimani's case. And therefore, protective measures for the Supreme Leader would be enhanced to such a degree that it would make it impossible for the enemy's assassination teams to infiltrate the multiple, rock solid security layers set up for this specific occasion.
And let's not obfuscate the fact that these security measures would only need to last a couple of weeks - which is the time required for Iran to break out and assemble a nuclear device. After which, according to those who make the contentions under discussion, there'd be no more risk anymore for the Supreme Leader. Because, so they argue, nuclear weapons provide absolute deterrence against assassination of political and military figures. And yes, the Islamic Republic of Iran is perfectly capable of effectively shielding her Supreme Leader from any assassination attempts for a period of some weeks, even months or more if required.
Also, if the Democratic People's Republic of Korea was as much if not more of a threat to US hegemony, as claimed previously by the quoted user, and if the regime in Washington will proceed to assassinate leaders from rival states the moment they decide to go nuclear, why then was Kim Il-Sung spared?
No matter how one will look at it: the claim that Iran's Supreme Leader is being deterred from ordering to build nukes because of "fear for his life" does not hold water.
* The second argument presented in support of the claim, was that the US would strike and weaken the IRGC. And that this weakening was considered too high a price to pay in exchange for the acquisition of nuclear weapon. Weapons which, so the quoted user claims, provide absolute deterrence against any form of aggression. I hope everyone sees the self-contradicting nature of this reasoning: for if nukes make any act of aggression impossible, then what relevance does a temporary weakening of the IRGC have in such a context? Strictly none at all, given that only a few weeks after the hypothetical strikes, the IRGC would be armed with nukes. So this claim doesn't work either.
* This is all without mentioning that nuclear weapons do not deter against all sorts of armed attacks or military-grade operations, as proven by the 1982 Falklands war between the UK and Argentina, by the 1999 Kargil conflict between India and Pakistan, and by Islamic Iran's support for Resistance forces conducting armed attacks against the zionist military in Palestine and Lebanon, as well as against the US military in Iraq. So it is necessary to insist: nuclear weapons do not deter against any and all forms of hostile armed action.
Problem with this view is that the survival of the Islamic Republic and Iran's survival are inextricably linked and inseparable from each other, given the nature of the enemy's agenda.
Second problem is that if nuclear weapons strengthen a country's national defence, they strengthen the political system of that country even more against foreign military aggression.
The Leader of the nuclear-armed DPRK, Kim Jong-Un, also thought of giving concessions. He offered Trump to completely give up Korea's nuclear weapons, no less, in exchange for a lifting of US-imposed sanctions.
This relativization of the concept of deterrence is inoperative, insofar as military aggression serves a political objective, and nothing else. Does the aggressor achieve its political objective, then the defending side's deterrence has failed. Does the aggressor hold back from resorting to the means necessary for reaching its previously defined geostrategic goals - assuming that like the US, it does possess these means in theory, then it's the aggressor which was successfully deterred by the defender.
This is how the concept of deterrence plays out in practice.
- - - - -
When it comes to ordering the strike on shahid Soleimani, someone like Trump likely wouldn't have been deterred by Iranian nuclear weapons. Trump also threatened nuclear-armed North Korea with a military attack (his "fire and fury" Tweet in particular), and it worked fine: he got the meeting he wanted with Kim.
But, beyond the psy-ops, here's what really matters: how exactly did the cowardly attack on Hajj Qassem fulfill Washington's geostrategic aims vis a vis Iran? It didn't, and hence this is ultimately not relevant.
But the Argentinians declared war on the UK, landed troops on territory London claims sovereignty over, and turned several British warships into blazing fireballs. They did all this to the UK despite Britain's large nuclear weapons arsenal, arsenal which did not deter Buenos Aires in the least.
Indian and Pakistani nukes did not prevent the armies of the two countries from clashing repeatedly, from killing each others' troops, from humiliatingly parading POW's in front of the cameras, in contravention of international laws and regulations.
It's interesting that Russia was cited though. Once upon a time, there was a much more powerful, much more intimidating version of present day Russia, known as the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics. However, where's the USSR today? Dwelling in the trash can of History. Defeated, territorially dismantled. Having the world's most massive stockpile of nukes (45.000 units) did not save the Soviet Union from being defeated by its rival. Leading us once again to conclude: nukes do not offer a fool-proof guarantee for survival.
Iran's path to a second strike capability
The concept Interpretation of Irans new basing concept Non-nuclear states can have the highest conventional military capability but are alwa...patarames.blogspot.com
- - - - -
Could you name one government that will knowingly endanger its own survival when carrying out an act of military retaliation? Thus, I'm not sure how the Islamic Republic has erred in this respect. But if the IR is foregoing nukes for the time being, that's not out of a fear of US aggression, as demonstrated above.
Also, how many states do you know whose leading figures put their lives at risk as much as IR leaders have done? How many terrorist attacks and attempts on their lives have they been subjected to since 1979? How many of them fought on the war fronts, compared to other countries? Heck, how many states are there in the world, whose leadership is brave enough to stand up to and seriously challenge American imperial hegemony? Four, five out of a hundred and ninety five? Let's not even mention Resistance against zionism, as that would reduce the number even more. So definitely, the IR leadership is on the daring side here.
But moreover, if the Islamic Republic is gone, Iran will be gone. Any hiatus in the authority of the central state will be mercilessly exploited by Iran's enemies to turn the country into a nightmare worse than Iraq, Syria, Libya and Afghanistan combined.
Agreed 100% on this observation. The Taleban had practically stopped their attacks on US forces over the last three years of NATO occupation, and they were never seen intercepting American aircraft with surface to air missiles before. Then all of a sudden, shortly after shahid Soleimani's martyrdom, a US military or intelligence aircraft is downed over Afghanistan...
But here's the question, brother: where was US nuclear deterrence when Iran had that aircraft hit? Some say CIA mastermind Michael D'Andrea ("Ayatollah Mike") was on board - even if he wasn't, this was not an ordinary aircraft. Where was America's nuclear deterrence when Iran struck the CIA compound at Arbil airport, Kurdish Autonomous Region of Iraq? When Iran, in all probability, eliminated high-ranking US military officers in PGCC countries (like the one who supposedly lost his life while "lacing his boots", so their official statement)?
I think a very sobering reality is staring us right in the face Salar-jan. The United States of America isn't the same military/economic juggernaut it once was and it is beginning to really show at a practical level, let alone strategic or tactical. No wonder China, The Russian Federation, DPRK and the I.R.I. smell nothing but blood in the water. --- My sincerest of apologies, I should have responded to you earlier as I wanted to say that in full-light of what you said in response to my own rather unfounded presumptions about Iran's supposed lack of gumption to reciprocate/retaliate. It's now more than crystal clear that the IRGC has gone above and beyond the call of duty (not perfect, but damn impressive given the circumstances).
Here's what we know/can infer:
- Americans lost Afghanistan in an astonishingly embarrassing fashion (14 U.S. soldiers got blown up on the way out). Complete disaster of a "transfer of power" to American trained and funded authorities (lmfao) and security.
- USAF lost 1 of currently 4 E11-A BACN (highly specialized Data-warfare node aircraft) shortly after Shahid Hajj Qassem Soleimani's murder. This would be one of the most impressive aircraft ambushes in recent memory since each E11-A BACN is packed with expensive gear and Iran would be operating from undisclosed air-defense locations in Eastern Iran or within Afghanistan itself utilizing yet to be unveiled AA systems (or it could have been one we've seen before, Sevom Khordad, etc)
- U.S. Ain Al-Assad military base bombed (unknown casualties/material damage outside of one soldier who later committed suicide) Danish soldiers were, on record, filmed saying that "helicopters were cut in half, trucks smashed", etc... Sardar Hajizadeh still claims that the Americans are hiding the true extent of damage. A point he is ceaselessly adamant about. IRGC drone footage of the strike has yet to be released.
- Ain Al-Assad IRGC AEROSPACE strike operation broke the myth of American invincibility. THE AMERICANS DIDN'T RETALIATE, ALTHOUGH THEY SWORE TO HIGH HEAVEN THAT THEY WOULD HAVE. Greatly damaged America's image and credibility on the world-stage.
- Downing of RQ-4A advanced GLOBAL HAWK BAMS-D, circumventing its proprietary anti-AD systems and specialized construction material (honeycomb).
- Constant attacks on American logistics all over Iraq and Syria. Can't even begin to count how many trucks were destroyed carrying provisions and supplies for the Americans in
Iraq just in recent years alone.
- Apprehension of U.S. soldiers in the Persian Gulf (so much for all that uber-macho military bravado)
- Supplying weapons/training to Iraqi insurgents later PMU and official state paramilitary organizations.
- Direct cause of untold amounts of dead U.S. soldiers during the occupation of Iraq.
- The continued attack of American business interests in Saudi Arabia/U.A.E by Iranian supplied weapons to the Houthis.
- A U.S. Naval general was found dead in Bahrain (Vice Adm Scott. Stearney, 5th fleet admiral). I don't know if Iran was involved in this directly but that would be one hell of an operation if it was the IRGC. Although, suicide is pretty common in the American military, but not as common amongst the upper-brass.
- Father of Zionist nuclear program "dead in fire" (I can't even find the news article anymore, lol funny how that turned out). Happened during the latest round of conflict between Palestinian resistance groups and the Zionist enclave.
- Tit-for-tat escalation between Iran and the Zionist entity lead to a deadly final escalation on the high-seas. That being a retaliation attack by the IRGC which deliberately caused the deaths of 2-3 Israeli employed personnel on a Zionist cargo-vessel. Stopped attacks on Iranian vessels.
- IDF bungled their own anti-Iranian operations near their own coasts, causing wide-spread ecological damage to their own local marine life via oil-spill (so much for all that "Israeli excellence").
- Several other Israeli ships (worth billions) attacked in retaliatory operations.
- IRGC is now further entrenched in Syria with new reports of Iran supposedly operating out of Russian operated Khmeimim airbase. Unfettered transfer of weapons. IDF strikes amount to little or nothing.
- War of the tankers not too long ago. Multiple seized Tanker vessels by IRGC forces. Iran shows its willingness to respond in kind for illegal operations against juste economic interests.
- Continued transfer of much needed oil to Syria.
- Unabated support to Lebanon.
- Continued transfer of much needed oil to Venezuela. As well as expanding footprint in South America by helping Venezuela with their own domestic defense infrastructure.
- Unprecedented IRGC lead operation against the ARAMCO oil installations/facilities in Saudi Arabia. Shut down half their oil production overnight (literally). Skirting around and past literal BILLIONS of dollars worth of American defense equipment.
- Yemeni operations against U.A.E (IRGC support to some extent).
- Provided critical offensive measures to the Palestinian resistance groups in a fully surrounded Gaza. Same groups rained down untold amounts of rockets onto the small Zionist enclave that was virtually paralyzed for several weeks, revealing their inherent weakness as an entity that lacks strategic-depth. Subsequent cover-up of the extent of damage done in a vain attempt to preserve Israel's invincibility facade.
- Continued supply of advanced weaponry to the strongest/most effective non-state military organization in the world (Hezbollah).
- Two IDF pilots killed in Helicopter crash (possible sabotage by Iranian paid saboteurs within occupied Palestine).
- Israeli official jailed due to accusation of being a spy for Iran.
- Another Iranian spy ring was uncovered in Israel just recently for giving state secrets to Iran (not even kidding, just found out recently).
- (old news but still relevant) Disrupting RQ-170 signals and bringing the advanced CIA drone down in a controlled descent manner. Technology later reverse engineered and used to greatly boost Iran's indigenous drone program.
- USS Bonhomme Richard (LHD-6) was scuttled due a fire that was supposedly caused by some Naval personnel not following protocol. But there was an explosion of some sort identified. Repairs would have been 3.2 billion and the price to outright replace it would be around 4 billion. Currently undergoing scrapping process (lol).
- USN Submarine had a "collision" in the South China Sea. Sub was taken back to port, yet to be determined if it is salvageable. Also super expensive....
- F-35s falling out the sky left and right.
- Certain batches of the F-35 are suffering from severe "rust" problems. Found out that the very quality of materials used in their construction is bad (again, really sad and telling).
Whilst not every one of these events are attributed to Iran, a lot of them are and it shows that Iran is giving back what it receives in kind. The list is endless really..... I think the picture becomes quite clear Salar-jan.
I hope this puts a poignant end to the discussion of Iranian "inaction".
Last edited:
