Iranian Missiles | News and Discussions

[Arash1991]

I have already explained to you that Iran's 60%-enriched uranium is under 24/7 surveillance and continuous inspections by the IAEA. Not even a gram of it can be moved out of our nuclear facilities without the IAEA getting informed. And I have already explained to you that stockpiling 60%-enriched uranium is nothing to brag about without a clear strategy because it is nothing but an expensive burden that will be either handed over to Russia or diluted down to 3.5% after a deal is signed, rendering it a complete waste of money and energy. And Rouhani is already out, but we haven't seen much from Raeesi since August that shows a different path has been taken by the Iranian leadership. Even the parliament's resolution that was passed last year has not been implemented even by half and it was supposed to get fully implemented by the end of this year. The reconstruction of the IR-40 reactor has not even started yet and even the new administration does not intend to stick to the old design. I have already explained everything that there is to explain to someone like you, if you can't get it, then it's not my problem. This is the end of this discussion.

Please stop writing here. I visit this section every day to look at new super duper missiles but instead i have to read your negative depressive Posts.
By the way you wanted to continue the discussion on another topic. I have never seen such a bossy like person in this forum. Your opinion is far away from reality and unfortunately you become often personal when you lack of arguments. Please leave this section and never come back again.
Please Admins do something.

 

[QWECXZ]

Please stop writing here. I visit this section every day to look at new super duper missiles but instead i have to read your negative depressive Posts.
By the way you wanted to continue the discussion on another topic. I have never seen such a bossy like person in this forum. Your opinion is far away from reality and unfortunately you become often personal when you lack of arguments. Please leave this section and never come back again.
Please Admins do something.

You do not have the authority to tell me what to write, where to write, or where to post. In short, it's none of your business.
It is quite hypocritical of you actually, because I asked you to mention me in the Iranian Chill Thread and yet, you quoted me here instead while you could simply write your worthless, ad hominem comment there.

 

[SalarHaqq]

You are missing the whole point of this "price" theory, I guess. All of that is based on the assumption that your opponent is a rational player. And "price" is a relative concept. What will happen when an irrational player like Trump takes power and he finds billions of dollars of damage and thousands of dead US soldiers a reasonable price to pay for completely neutralizing Iran's threat for a foreseeable future? Or even worse: a psychopath like Pompeo becomes the next POTUS. I have said it and I will repeat it again that Trump is in fact an angel when it comes to psychopath scumbags like Pompeo. And you think it is totally impossible for someone like Pompeo to become the next US president?

For one, Trump was in charge for four full years already. During which he never dared launch military aggression on Iran.

Secondly, Trump isn't really one to trigger a large scale, open ended, extremely costly and lengthy conflict with an uncertain outcome - it would alienate his entire voter base. One of Trump's main campaigning themes was the need for the US to disengage from these sorts of conflicts started by his predecessors. He likes to contrast himself with warmongering neoconservatives.

Thirdly, the US president is not the ultimate decision maker when it comes to issues as strategic and far reaching as these: it is the regime's deep state which makes these decisions. If a president strays off course all too much, they will not hesitate to murder him, and in front of the cameras at that so as to bring the message across, e.g. John Fitzgerald Kennedy. Already, we have seen top Pentagon generals like Mark Milley publicly declare that they would have sabotaged the Trump administration, had it ordered risky military undertakings. A "madman" president, whether Trump or Pompeo (who in fact is an establishment figure much more than Trump), will only act in the strict framework defined by the deep state.

Iran hasn't expanded much in the last 10 years. Expanded in what sense exactly? Iran's economic growth has been halted since 2009. Our progress in science has been slowed down (partly due to the previous administration). One of our strategic allies in the region is in the middle of a civil war that seems endless and it cannot stand on its own feet yet. Our influence in Iraq surely has decreased, even though it remains very strong but it is nowhere near what it was before the assassination of Gen. Soleimani.

GDP growth only tells part of the story, and even this has meanwhile recovered, as Iran's economy gradually adjusted to the enhanced sanctions environment (such a process takes some time). Iran's progress in defense industries and military power has continued unabated. Development of infrastructures as well.

Thirty years ago, Iran only had two heavyweight strategic allies (Syrian state, Lebanon's Hezbollah party and armed wing). Today, it has four (the previous two plus the Iraqi PMU and Yemen's Ansarallah and allies). We might add the Palestinian Resistance to the list. Of course the enemy will try everything in its power to disrupt the Resistance Axis. But it's the end result which counts, not intermediate stages or kill ratios.

In Syria, the enemy failed in reaching its objectives, which had been announced unmistakably in the form of the oft repeated slogan "Assad must go". Iran is more entrenched in Syria than it used to be ten years ago. Whether or not Syria was subjected to war doesn't nullify the fact and it doesn't negatively affect Iran's position in the Levant. On the contrary: it is Iran which is filling the vacuum left by a relatively weaker Syrian central state in key areas, including on the border with occupied Golan.

In Iraq, the so-called civil society movements critical of Iran had already been kick started for a considerable time when shahid Soleimani was still among us. The current Iraqi prime minister too had been present back then. Shahid Soleimani's martyrdom did not lead to an Iranian retreat from Iraq.

I am surprised that a person like you is unaware of the US regime change plans.

I mentioned the US regime change policy in this very discussion, see my previous posts. I've often discussed it elsewhere as well.

The US is not seeking a military option with Iran because as I told you, there's no reason for that.

The Americans haven't resorted to the military option because Iran's deterrence power prevented them from doing so. Were it not for Iran's military prowess, brilliantly thought out defensive doctrine and astute policy making, Washington would have launched military operations against Iran a long time ago. That's where raising the cost of military action comes into play as a key vector of deterrence.

Iran is not an existential threat to the US and it cannot be anything like that for foreseeable future.

But Iraq was? Afghanistan? Libya? The US kills and destroys for much, much less than the damage Iran has inflicted upon its interests.

You can chant "Down with the US" all you want but you cannot do anything to the US territory as we all know it (or at least anyone with a functioning brain knows).

Iran doesn't need to. She only needs to survive and keep progressing. That alone would defeat openly declared US strategic goals and imply victory for Islamic Iran.

The US has chosen a different path. The US is using her media and cultural dominance to turn Iranians against their own country and they are focusing on civil disobedience, riots and ethnic tensions.

The goal matters. And it is nowhere in reach for Washington, even through the listed means. Naturally, the Americans will cause some disturbances in Iran. But these are irrelevant as long as they fail at bringing about a downfall of the Islamic Republic.

Meanwhile, US sanctions ensure that Iran's growth will be halted and Iran will never dominate the Middle East.

US sanctions have not prevented Iran from developing. They've been, in many respects, a blessing in disguise even, seeing how they forced Iran to invest in the expansion of domestic production and technology, and to steer the economy towards self-sufficiency as much as possible.

Domination in geopolitics is an imperial concept. Iran rather seeks to empower liberation and resistance movements as well as like-minded governments. And has never been as successful in this regard.

At the very same time, the US is stealing Iran's money under a unilateral sanction regime that is not even UN approved anymore but they have successfully convinced their allies to abide by them. It is not the US that should be dissatisfied with the status quo for sure.

As said: the US regime and the globalist oligarchy have no tolerance for independent states. They vassalize their own allies. A state which not only manages to successfully preserve its sovereignty but what is more, is steadily challenging imperial interests and thus setting a potential example for others to follow, is even more of a thorn in their side.

General McKenzie, the US CENTCOM's commander that oversaw the US assassination of Gen. Soleimani under the Trump administration continues to be here in our region. If you want to say that the previous administration is out and now it's OK to sit at the negotiating table with the Americans, then sorry, but that's really lame.

Some of the JCPOA limitations are still in place. What happened to kicking the IAEA inspectors out? I thought we had an ultimatum and we were supposed to reduce IAEA inspections? Even the new administration has not fully executed the parliament's nuclear resolution.lame.

It is what Iran meant when she said there will be no negotiations with the killers of shahid Soleimani. Iran held her promise.

Now, as to whether or not it is a sound idea to negotiate with the EU after Biden replaced Trump, I can only reference user Mohsen's post once again, which I quoted previously. Another great assessment was offered by user sanel1412 here: https://defence.pk/pdf/threads/iranian-chill-thread.283137/post-13553638

This time around, it is Iran which is having the upper hand.

What did Gen. Soleimani have to do with Iran's nuclear program? I never linked the two, I have no idea why you think his death must have an impact on our nuclear program.

Since shahid Soleimani's martyrdom was brought up as an argument for an alleged lack of deterrence on Iran's part, let's put it this way: the cowardly strike against shahid Soleimani didn't lead to any strategic setback for Iran in either one of the dossiers of concern to the US regime: be it the nuclear program which provides Iran with a potential breakout capability, or Iran's ballistic missiles, Iran's regional presence and so on.

 

[QWECXZ]

For one, Trump was already in charge for four full years. He never dared launch a military aggression against Iran.

Secondly, Trump is not one to trigger a large scale, open ended, extremely costly and years long conflict - it would go alienate his entire voter base. One of Trump's main campaigning themes was the need for the US to disengage from these sorts of conflicts started by his predecessors.

Thirdly, the US president is not the ultimate decision maker when it comes to issues as strategic and serious as these: the regime's deep state makes these decisions. If a president fails to toe the line, they will not hesitate to murder him, and in front of the cameras at that so as to bring the point across, e.g. John Fitzgerald Kennedy. Already, we have had top Pentagon generals such as Mark Milley publicly declare that they would have sabotaged the Trump administration, had it ordered risky military undertakings. A "madman" president, whether Trump or Pompeo - who is an establishment figure much more than Trump, by the way, will only act in the framework defined by the deep state.



GDP growth only tells part of the story, and even this has meanwhile recovered, as Iran's economy gradually adjusted to the enhanced sanctions environment (such a process takes some time). Iran's progress in defense industries and military power has continued unabated. Development of infrastructures as well.

Thirty years ago, Iran only had two heavyweight strategic allies (Syrian state, Lebanon's Hezbollah party and armed wing). Today, it has four (the previous ones plus the Iraqi PMU and Yemen's Ansarallah and allies). We might add the Palestinian Resistance. Of course the enemy will try everything in its power to disrupt the Resistance Axis. But it's the end result which counts, not intermediate stages or kill ratios.

In Syria, the enemy completely failed in reaching its objectives, which had been clearly announced in the form of the oft repeated slogan "Assad must go". Iran is more entrenched in Syria than it used to be 10 years ago. Whether or not Syria was subjected to war doesn't nullify this fact and it doesn't negatively affect Iran's position in the Levant. On the contrary: it is Iran which is filling the vacuum left by a relatively weaker Syrian central state in key areas, including on the border with occupied Golan.

In Iraq, the so-called civil society movements critical of Iran had been kick started while shahid Soleimani was here. The current Iraqi PM too had been present back then. Shahid Soleimani's martyrdom did not lead to any form Iranian retreat from Iraq.



I mentioned the US regime change policy in this very discussion. See my previous posts. Moreover, I've often comment it elsewhere.




The US has not resorted to the military option because Iran's deterrence power prevented them from doing so. Were it not for Iran's military prowess, incredibly well thought out defensive doctrine and astute policy making, Washington would have launched military operations against Iran. That's where raising the cost of military action comes into play as a key factor of deterrence.



But Iraq was? Afghanistan was? Libya as well?



Iran doesn't need to do anything of the sort. She only needs to survive and keep progressing. That alone would defeat openly declared US strategic goals and imply victory for Islamic Iran.



The goal matters. Only the goal. And it is nowher in reach for Washington, even through these means. Naturally, they will cause some disturbances. But these are irrelevant as long as they don't bring about a downfall of the Islamic Republic.



US sanctions have not prevented Iran from developing. They've been, in many respects, a blessing in disguise even, forcing Iran to invest in the expansion of domestic production and technology, and to steer the economy towards self-sufficiency as much as possible.

Iran doesn't aim to dominate. Domination in geopolitics is an imperial concept. Iran seeks to empower liberation and resistance movements and governments. And has never been as successful in this regard.



As said: the US regime and the globalist oligarchy have no tolerance for independent states. They vassalizes its own allies. A state that not only manages to successfully preserve its sovereignty but what is more, is steadily challenging imperial interests and thus setting a potential example to follow for others, is even more of a thorn in their side.




It is what Iran meant when she said that there will be no negotiations with the killers of shahid Soleimani. Iran held her promise.

Now, as to whether or not it is a sound idea to negotiate with the EU after Biden replaced Trump, I can only reference user Mohsen's post once again, which I quoted previously. Another great assessment was offered by user sanel1412 here: https://defence.pk/pdf/threads/iranian-chill-thread.283137/post-13553638

This time around, it is Iran which has the upper hand.



Since shahid Soleimani's martyrdom was brought up as an argument for an alleged lack of deterrence on Iran's part, let's put it this way: the cowardly strike against shahid Soleimani didn't cause any strategic setback for Iran in either of the dossiers of concern for the US regime: be it the nuclear program which provides Iran with a potential breakout capability, or Iran's ballistic missiles, Iran's regional presence and so on.

You seem to have a different standard of what is considered a military aggression. Assassinating a country's 2nd most important person by firing from a military helicopter and officially accepting responsibility for it is an act of aggression and it is a casus belli. World War I started over the assassination of Franz Ferdinand in fact. Many wars in history have started over less.

The POTUS has advisors, but at the end, he makes the calls. Many of Trump's advisors did not agree with the assassination of Gen. Soleimani, but hawks around him said that Iran would not respond to it militarily and it will not escalate to a full scale war. That's why Trump authorized the assassination of Gen. Soleimani, completely contradicting your imaginary deterrence that you keep bragging about.

Anyway, mention me in the Iranian Chill Thread if you want to continue the discussion.

 

[Daylamite Warrior]

Anyway, mention me in the Iranian Chill Thread if you want to continue the discussion.

Also you: "You do not have the authority to tell me what to write, where to write, or where to post."

 

[SalarHaqq]

You seem to have a different standard of what is considered a military aggression. Assassinating a country's 2nd most important person by firing from a military helicopter and officially accepting responsibility for it is an act of aggression and it is a casus belli. World War I started over the assassination of Franz Ferdinand in fact. Many wars in history have started over less.

Assassinating an individual will never defeat a system. One needs to look at the actual outcome: the US gained nothing from it, quite the contrary. As American think tank experts will gladly admit.

Also, there are historic cases of nuclear weapons failing to deter against acts of casus belli, Argentina's attack on the UK in the Falklands offering a prime example. America's nuclear weapons did not prevent Iran from supporting Iraqi Resistance groups that eliminated 600+ US occupation troops either. And so on.

The POTUS has advisors, but at the end, he makes the calls. Many of Trump's advisors did not agree with the assassination of Gen. Soleimani, but hawks around him said that Iran would not respond to it militarily and it will not escalate to a full scale war.

The deep state makes the calls on the most crucial strategic decisions. But Shahid Soleimani's assassination did not fall under that category.

That's why Trump authorized the assassination of Gen. Soleimani, completely contradicting your imaginary deterrence that you keep bragging about.

Iran's deterrence power would have been imaginary if assassinations of this kind entailed game changing strategic benefits. They don't.

Iran has deterred the US from any and all military measures which actually make a difference.

 

[Arash1991]

You do not have the authority to tell me what to write, where to write, or where to post. In short, it's none of your business.
It is quite hypocritical of you actually, because I asked you to mention me in the Iranian Chill Thread and yet, you quoted me here instead while you could simply write your worthless, ad hominem comment there.

I can tell you whatever I want. Its up to you what you do with it.
I never agreeed continue the discussion in the chill threat. My suggestion for you goes further. As I said: I recomend you to delete xour account and never write a line again here.

 

[QWECXZ]

Also you: "You do not have the authority to tell me what to write, where to write, or where to post."

It's the right thing to do. This is off-topic discussion and we have a thread for it.

Assassinating an individual will never defeat a system. One needs to look at the actual outcome: the US gained nothing from it, quite the contrary. As American think tank experts will gladly admit.

Also, there are historic cases of nuclear weapons failing to deter against acts of casus belli, Argentina's attack on the UK in the Falklands offering a prime example. America's nuclear weapons did not prevent Iran from supporting Iraqi Resistance groups that eliminated 600+ US occupation troops either. And so on.



The deep state makes the calls on the most crucial strategic decisions. But Shahid Soleimani's assassination did not fall under that category.



Iran's deterrence power would have been imaginary if assassinations of this kind entailed game changing strategic benefits. They don't.

Iran has deterred the US from any and all military measures which actually make a difference.

The US did gain a lot. First of all, it demoralized Iranians and our allies to the point that even months after that, I remember how everyone felt here on PDF. Secondly, Khamenei lost one of the people he trusted the most. For a person like Khamenei that is living with so many enemies all around him, having his most trusted friend assassinated was a great pain. Khamenei maintained a close personal friendship with Soleimani that can never be replaced. It was painful enough for him to cry in front of TV cameras. Thirdly, Soleimani was a great strategist that is hard to replace as a person. Sure, it's possible to replace his title. It's possible to replace geniuses, but there's no guarantee that they will be just as good. And the US gained all of this at a quite cheap price: a few ballistic missiles on Ain Al-Assad that killed not even a single low-rank US soldier. 0 deaths of US soldiers for 2 respected commanders! The consequences of this came later when multiple attacks on our national security were committed by Israel. So, yeah. The US did gain a lot.

Assassination of one person does not defeat a system, but having nearly every person in the new generation turned against the system does. But again, you are hypocritically avoiding an honest discussion. The point was that the assassination of a high ranking authority is a casus belli and has historically led to war. You somehow attempted to change the point, but it stands there intact.

In both cases, the UK and the US were invading forces in Argentina and Iraq respectively. So, both of your examples are quite irrelevant. Neither Argentina nor Iraq have assassinated high ranking authorities of the invading force and the US and the UK territory were never attacked either.

That's your conspiracy theory which by the way contradicts your initial claim.

Well, Iran's power in Iraq has been on the decline ever after the assassination of Gen. Soleimani and Abu Mahdi al-Muhandis.

I can tell you whatever I want. Its up to you what you do with it.
I never agreeed continue the discussion in the chill threat. My suggestion for you goes further. As I said: I recomend you to delete xour account and never write a line again here.

And I pee all over your suggestion/recommendation as you're a nobody.

 

[SalarHaqq]

The US did gain a lot. First of all, it demoralized Iranians and our allies to the point that even months after that, I remember how everyone felt here on PDF.

Lowered morale is only decisive when it is followed by concrete advancements on the ground. But this did not take place.

Also, to characterize the sentiment consecutive to shahid Soleimaini's martyrdom as demoralization would be inaccurate: in fact, it raised the readiness and willingness for revenge and self-sacrifice among Iranians and their allies. It has had a strong mobilizing effect on Resistance forces.

Secondly, Khamenei lost one of the people he trusted the most. For a person like Khamenei that is living with so many enemies all around him, having his most trusted friend assassinated was a great pain. Khamenei maintained a close personal friendship with Soleimani that can never be replaced. It was painful enough for him to cry in front of TV cameras.

What difference does that make in terms of geostrategic ground realities?

Thirdly, Soleimani was a great strategist that is hard to replace as a person. Sure, it's possible to replace his title. It's possible to replace geniuses, but there's no guarantee that they will be just as good.

The role previously fulfilled by one person will then be fulfilled by several others as well as by institutions. It only takes a transition period for the system to adjust and redistribute roles and responsibilities. But it does not affect the overall efficiency of the system.

And the US gained all of this at a quite cheap price: a few ballistic missiles on Ain Al-Assad that killed not even a single low-rank US soldier. 0 deaths of US soldiers for 1 respected strategist. The consequences of this came later when multiple attacks on our national security were committed by Israel. So, yeah. The US did gain a lot.

The zionists got tit for tat retaliation. And US assets were also struck several times. I don't think I need need to rehash the list of operations conducted against both zionists and Americans, they were nicely summarized by user BlueInGreen a few pages back in this thread.

I must ask again: what are those alleged lots of things the US gained in geostrategic in terms? I can't see any.

In both cases, the UK and the US were invading forces in Argentina and Iraq respectively.

The UK had taken the Falklands some 150 years earlier, and the two countries were not in a state of war when Argentina attacked in 1982.

What has being an invading or defending force to do with anything? The examples show beyond the shadow of a doubt that nuclear weapons do not deter against any and all forms of military-type action.

Neither Argentina nor Iraq have assassinated high ranking authorities of the invading force and the US and the UK territory were never attacked either.

Argentina did much more than assassinating a high ranking UK authority: it attacked UK territory (yes, the UK annexed the Falklands and is considering it full fledged British territory), struck several British warships, had its ground forces engage in regular firefights with British infantry and so on.

Also, eliminating 600+ enemy troops is more significant and impactful an action than conducting a targeted assassination of a single general.

That's your conspiracy theory which by the way contradicts your initial claim.

And Kennedy was shot by some mentally unstable nobody... everyone's free to believe it.

Well, Iran's power in Iraq has been on the decline ever after the assassination of Gen. Soleimani.

Not really. This is simply the perception being peddled by mainstream media. If we were to buy into their narratives, then Iran's power in the region has been on the decline for the past 43 years non-stop.

 

[QWECXZ]

Lowered morale is only decisive when it is followed with concrete advancement on the ground. But this did not happen.

Also, to characterize the sentiment consecutive to shahid Soleimaini's martyrdom as demoralization would be inaccurate: in fact, it raised the readiness and willingness for revenge and self-sacrifice of Iranians and their allies. It has had a strong mobilizing effect on Resistance forces.

What difference does that make in terms of geostrategic ground realities?

The role previously fulfilled by a single person will then be fulfilled by several ones as well as by institutions. It only takes a short time for the system to adjust and redistribute roles and responsibilities. But it does not affect the overall efficiency of the system.

The zionists got tit for tat retaliation. And US assets were also struck several times. I don't think I need need to rehash the list of operations conducted against both zionists and Americans, they were nicely summarized by user BlueInGreen a few pages back in this thread.

I must ask again: what are those alleged lots of things the US gained in geostrategic in terms? I can't see any.

The UK had taken the Falklands some 150 years earlier, and the two countries were not in a state of war when Argentina attacked in 1982.

What has being an invading or defending force to do with anything? The examples show beyond the shadow of a doubt that nuclear weapons do *not* deter against any and all conceivable use of military means.

Argentina did much more than assassinating a high ranking UK authority: it attacked UK territory (yes, the UK annexed the Falklands and is considering it full fledged British territory), struck several British warships, had its ground forces engage in regular firefights with British infantry and so on.

Also, eliminating 600+ enemy troops is more significant and impactful an action than conducting a targeted assassination of a single general.

And Kennedy was shot by some mentally unstable nobody. Sure.

Not really. This is simply the perception being peddled by mainstream media. If we were to buy their narratives, then Iran's power in the region has been on the decline for the past 43 years non-stop.

So, you are now claiming that lowered morale does not matter? LOL This just keeps getting better.

You're right. A series of unfortunate incidents in Iran that damaged Iran's strategic assets like the ICAC and led to the assassination of a top nuclear scientist like Fakhrizadeh do not matter. Why should they?

I have already explained to you the geostrategic realities. You can read them again until you understand them. I have written them in full detail and you have never been able to refute them or come up with a counter-argument so far.

No, the Falklands were occupied by the Spanish prior to 1833. Argentina claimed its independence from Spain in 1816. The reason that Argentina claims that the Falklands belong to them is based on Uti possidetis juris. The very same concept that Iran uses to justify our administration and military occupation of the three islands in the Persian Gulf. By your logic, we hold no claim over most of our islands in the south. The Argentinians had every right to act and take back those islands and the British were the invaders. Again, by your logic, Iran under the rule of Shah attacked British territory and we even defeated the British! How ridiculous. You can do better than this.

What 600+ troops exactly? 600+ US troops have died in Iraq since the assassination of Gen. Soleimani? I call bullshit on that unless you can prove it. So, prove it.

 

[Abid123]

What 600+ troops exactly? 600+ US troops have died in Iraq since the assassination of Gen. Soleimani? I call bullshit on that unless you can prove it. So, prove it.

He is talking about this:

Report: Iran Killed 600 U.S. Soldiers in the Iraq War

Here's how we know Iran is responsible.

nationalinterest.org

 

[QWECXZ]

He is talking about this:

Report: Iran Killed 600 U.S. Soldiers in the Iraq War

Here's how we know Iran is responsible.

nationalinterest.org

Yes, but that's from 2003 to 2011. What has happened after the assassination of Gen. Soleimani and Al-Muhandis? That's what matters. Meanwhile, these are part of war casualties after invading Iraq. It's quite different from the US barracks bombings, for example. Can Iran do the same to US personnel in Qatar, for example?

 

[SalarHaqq]

So, you are now claiming that lowered morale does not matter? LOL This just keeps getting better.

I am claiming that:

1) There was no such thing as lowered morale.
2) Even if it was the case, lowered morale counts when you're in the middle of a hot war. Not when it doesn't have any consequence on the ground.

You're right. A series of unfortunate incidents in Iran that damaged Iran's strategic assets like the ICAC and led to the assassination of a top nuclear scientist like Fakhrizadeh do not matter.

None of these required shahid Soleimani to be martyred in order to be carried out.

I have already explained to you the geostrategic realities. You can read them again until you understand them. I have written them in full detail and you have never been able to refute them or come up with a counter-argument so far.

Sorry, but no. You did not mention any concrete geostrategic setback experienced by Iran as a result of shahid Soleimani's martyrdom. Because there haven't been any. Except in the parallel universe painted by BBC Persian, Manoto, Saudi International and company.

No, the Falklands were occupied by the Spanish prior to 1833. Argentina claimed its independence from Spain in 1816. The reason that Argentina claims that the Falklands belong to them is based on Uti possidetis juris. The very same concept that Iran uses to justify our administration and military occupation of the three islands in the Persian Gulf. By your logic, we hold no claim over most of our islands in the south. The Argentinians had every right to act and take back those islands and the British were the invaders. Again, by your logic, Iran under the rule of Shah attacked British territory and we defeated the British. How ridiculous. You can do better than this.

You tend to portray nuclear weapons as the ultimate, absolute and fool-proof deterrent against even the lowest grade use of military means. The Falklands war definitely proves this assertion wrong.

Whether Argentina had every right to try and reconquer the isles or not, has strictly nothing to do with the question at hand about nuclear deterrence. Basically, what your argument has now muted into, is that nuclear weapons lose their deterrence power if the state armed with them is not on the right side of international law... Which is quite absurd.

What 600+ troops exactly? 600+ US troops have died in Iraq since the assassination of Gen. Soleimani? I call bullshit on that unless you can prove it. So, prove it.

More than 600 US occupation troops were eliminated by Iranian-backed Iraqi Resistance forces after 2003. American nuclear weapons blatantly failed to prevent it. And, this is far more significant in terms of real impact on the ground, than the assassination of one single general which you believe an Iranian nuclear arsenal would have deterred against.

 

[QWECXZ]

I am claiming that:

1) There was no such thing as lowered morale.
2) Lowered morale counts when you're in war. Not when it has zero consequence on the ground.



They were not made possible by shahid Soleimani's martyrdom. Let's not mix up different topics.



Sorry but no. You failed to mention a single geostrategic setback experienced by Iran as a result of shahid Soleimani's martyrdom. Because there haven't been any. Except in the propagandistic parallel world painted by BBC Persian, Manoto, Saudi International and company.



You portrayed nuclear weapons as the ultimate, absolute deterrent even against lower grade use of military force. The Falklands war proves this assertion completely wrong.

Whether Argentina had every right to try and reconquer the isles or not, has strictly nothing to do with this discussion. Basically, what your argument has now muted into, is that nuclear weapons lose their deterrence power if the state armed with them violates international law... That's just absurd.



More than 600 US occupation troops were eliminated by Iranian-backed Iraqi Resistance forces after 2003. American nuclear weapons blatantly failed to prevent this. And, this is much more significant in terms in real impact on the ground, than the assassination of one single general which you believe an Iranian nuclear arsenal would have deterred against.

The only person that is mixing the topics is you honestly. We were talking about nuclear deterrence at first.

There was a lowered morale. Its evidence continues to exist on PDF and all it takes is that someone goes to just 2 years ago and sees our posts back then. If you want to continue to live in denial, that's your problem.

Well, let's see: Iran is losing tens of billions of dollars in oil and gas revenue every year. The US is blocking Iranian money internationally. Iraq, which happens to be under our influence, owes us several billion dollars and at the same time is reducing her energy dependence on us. China which is supposed to be our partner owes us billions of dollars and does not intend to pay back. South Korea owes us billions of dollars but refuses to pay and the IRGC's tactic of seizing their tanker didn't work. Saudi Arabia is making fortunes selling oil at $95 per barrel while we are left alone with China's mercy for buying our oil in token amounts at a discounted price and with overdue payments. I can add to the list in Persian. It's a very humiliating one actually.

I portrayed nuclear weapons exactly as what they are: the best deterrence that exists today. If you do not believe in this theory, or if dumb Iranian leadership does not believe in this theory, then they should all be hanged for treason and for wasting over hundred billion dollars of people's money over some useless program that is an embarrassment in every aspect. The only reason that justifies keeping this nuclear program alive is that it can be used for nuclear weapons. Otherwise, Iran's nuclear program is a complete and utter joke from a civilian aspect.

No, it doesn't because the Falklands war was not an attack on the British sovereignty. For the same reason that the British did not respond to Iran's attack on their claimed territories in the Persian Gulf, the British did not take their dispute with Argentina as an aggression on their territory because well, everyone knows that they are in the wrong. Nuclear weapons are not for expansionism. You don't get the difference between deterrence and expansionism. Just like you don't get the difference between deterrence and maintaining a bad status quo.

Only 600 US troops? And all of them before 2011? So, in other words, you are confirming that after the assassination of Gen. Soleimani, the Islamic Republic has not had the balls to hurt even 10 low rank American soldiers? I mean Salami himself said that he had mercy on the American soldiers because they should not be punished for the actions of their superiors (the most ridiculous thing to say) and that came after bragging over and over again about 200 deaths at Ain Al-Assad. LOL

And honestly, your comments are reaching a new low. You expect nuclear weapons to be used against militia attacks on an invading force? You're being ridiculous. It just shows that you don't know what nuclear weapons are used for and why global powers continue to produce them and maintain them in large numbers.

 

[Blue In Green]

You are missing the whole point of this "price" theory, I guess. All of that is based on the assumption that your opponent is a rational player. And "price" is a relative concept. What will happen when an irrational player like Trump takes power and he finds billions of dollars of damage and thousands of dead US soldiers a reasonable price to pay for completely neutralizing Iran's threat for a foreseeable future? Or even worse: a psychopath like Pompeo becomes the next POTUS. I have said it and I will repeat it again that Trump is in fact an angel when it comes to psychopath scumbags like Pompeo. And you think it is totally impossible for someone like Pompeo to become the next US president?

Iran hasn't expanded much in the last 10 years. Expanded in what sense exactly? Iran's economic growth has been halted since 2009. Our progress in science has been slowed down (partly due to the previous administration). One of our strategic allies in the region is in the middle of a civil war that seems endless and it cannot stand on its own feet yet. Our influence in Iraq surely has decreased, even though it remains very strong but it is nowhere near what it was before the assassination of Gen. Soleimani.

I am surprised that a person like you is unaware of the US regime change plans. The US is not seeking a military option with Iran because as I told you, there's no reason for that. Iran is a country of 85 million people that can defend itself to the point of inflicting hundred billions of dollars of damage to US assets and interests and a ground invasion of Iran is out of question. Iran is not an existential threat to the US and it cannot be anything like that for foreseeable future. You can chant "Down with the US" all you want but you cannot do anything to the US territory as we all know it (or at least anyone with a functioning brain knows). The US has chosen a different path. The US is using her media and cultural dominance to turn Iranians against their own country and they are focusing on civil disobedience, riots and ethnic tensions. Meanwhile, US sanctions ensure that Iran's growth will be halted and Iran will never dominate the Middle East. At the very same time, the US is stealing Iran's money under a unilateral sanction regime that is not even UN approved anymore but they have successfully convinced their allies to abide by them. It is not the US that should be dissatisfied with the status quo for sure.

General McKenzie, the US CENTCOM's commander that oversaw the US assassination of Gen. Soleimani under the Trump administration continues to be here in our region. If you want to say that the previous administration is out and now it's OK to sit at the negotiating table with the Americans, then sorry, but that's really lame.

Some of the JCPOA limitations are still in place. What happened to kicking the IAEA inspectors out? I thought we had an ultimatum and we were supposed to reduce IAEA inspections? Even the new administration has not fully executed the parliament's nuclear resolution.

What did Gen. Soleimani have to do with Iran's nuclear program? I never linked the two, I have no idea why you think his death must have an impact on our nuclear program.

@Arash1991 @Mata Elang @SalarHaqq We're off topic here. If you want to continue this discussion, mention me in the Iranian Chill Threa

The only person that is mixing the topics is you honestly. We were talking about nuclear deterrence at first.

There was a lowered morale. Its evidence continues to exist on PDF and all it takes is that someone goes to just 2 years ago and sees our posts back then. If you want to continue to live in denial, that's your problem.

Well, let's see: Iran is losing tens of billions of dollars in oil and gas revenue every year. The US is blocking Iranian money internationally. Iraq, which happens to be under our influence, owes us several billion dollars and at the same time is reducing her energy dependence on us. China which is supposed to be our partner owes us billions of dollars and does not intend to pay back. South Korea owes us billions of dollars but refuses to pay and the IRGC's tactic of seizing their tanker didn't work. Saudi Arabia is making fortunes selling oil at $95 per barrel while we are left alone with China's mercy for buying our oil in token amounts at a discounted price and with overdue payments. I can add to the list in Persian. It's a very humiliating one actually.

I portrayed nuclear weapons exactly as what they are: the best deterrence that exists today. If you do not believe in this theory, or if dumb Iranian leadership does not believe in this theory, then they should all be hanged for treason and wasting over 100 billion dollars of people's money over some useless program that is an embarrassment in every aspect. The only reason that justifies keeping this nuclear program alive is that it can be used for nuclear weapons. Otherwise, Iran's nuclear program is a complete and utter joke from a civilian aspect.

No, it doesn't because the Falklands war was not an attack on the British sovereignty. For the same reason that the British did not respond to Iran's attack on their claimed territories in the Persian Gulf, the British did not take their dispute with Argentina as an aggression on their territory because well, everyone knows that they are in the wrong. Nuclear weapons are not for expansionism. You don't get the difference between deterrence and expansionism. Just like you don't get the difference between deterrence and maintaining a bad status quo.

Only 600 US troops? And all of them before 2011? So, in other words, you are confirming that after the assassination of Gen. Soleimani, the Islamic Republic has not had the balls to hurt even 10 low rank American soldiers?
And honestly, your comments are reaching a new low. You expect nuclear weapons to be used against militia attacks on an invading force? You're being ridiculous. It just shows that you don't know what nuclear weapons are used for and why global powers continue to produce them and maintain them in large numbers.

I'd say that, if you're willing to believe the IRGC shot down 1 of only 4 current E11-A BACN aircraft over Afghanistan: An event which itself took place shortly after Shahid Soleimani's death. Then one can say that Iran got 'blood' revenge for Hajj-Qassem, albeit covertly. And the overt conventional military strike against Ayn Al-Assad was the operation meant to re-established relative deterrence and save-face as it were.

Valli, dovereh, rust-migi. Aslan hichkasi nist ke Iran bokosheh that would amount to Hajj-Qassem.

To me it looks like an AD missile exploded around the top of the airacraft, hurling it down to the ground where it burned out. The first images of this down USAF plane were circulated through FARS news (probable indication that this was an IRGC covert operation).