Long-Planned and Bigger Than Thought: Strike on Iran’s Nuclear Program

[LeGenD]

Being selective with how one quotes/relies/cites on news sources whilst questioning their veracity when the subject matter doesn't fit their narrative is evidence of a disingenuous if not a little bit delusion person (just saying this in general, not calling anyone out). Over the years I've grown to accept more and more sources who's credibility has been proven even though the topic-matter being discussed within the articles goes counter to what I hold most dear and would essentially destroy or severely hurt how I had previously viewed things. These are simple realities that must be taken seriously no matter how much we might want to disagree with them... God, I hope I don't lose people on here who might label me as some sort of "enemy" or "anti-Iranian" troll for saying this but it is true.

Along that same vein, I remember how feverishly you tried to explain things to me with facts and evidence giving real-world data and examples only for me to totally dismiss them without nary a competent rebuttal outside of childish insults (you didn't deserve) and unjust harassment on my part (sorry again for those previous posts LeGenD). We have.... we must accept certain realities that we don't agree with or else we're no better than the uneducated masses that bumble around life thinking they know everything when in reality they posses very little knowledge about how the world really works.

To anyone here who casts doubt over what the NY Times has said, I say this. Fair enough, it's absolutely okay to do so but don't completely dismiss them as doing so might create an atmosphere in which future events could catch you off-guard and hurt you emotionally more so then if you had just accepted some simple deductions coming from professional-sources that have connections within the field they are reporting on.

P.S.: To anyone who might be thinking that I'm kissing LeGenD's behind here who is a mod just know this. Both me and him had a troubled past for quite some and we recently, before he became a mod, buried the hatchet some two months before he had obtained his moderation position. So this ins't me trying to win any sort of "kuddos" or "brownie-points" due to him being an important PDF member. Just thought I would put that out there lol, hopefully this doesn't come the wrong way.

Thank you, mate.

This is very serious developments "in my view." If Natanz was mine, I would be pissed.

Think about the matter in this way: if this can happen to Iran, it can happen to another regional power as well.

You think WE are not concerned? You bet... Any distant observer should be.

Iranian defenses are not a joke (I have to come to understand these better by now), but USA and Israel are what I term as "technological supremacists." They will figure things out which many are unable to because their respective R&D sectors are very well developed and agencies well-funded. Their organizations focus much on the 'technology' aspect of things; how to adapt; how to exploit.

And as I pointed out, if this is not a significant development to Iranians by large, then Iranian leaders do not have much intensive to respond or escalate.

The art of evaluating information is not everybody's forte. This is a kind of grasp which comes through understanding research and 'content analysis' in particular.

Western sources usually get things right but they are into narrative-building as well. Media and narrative-building go hand-in-hand anywhere in the world. I have watched TV shows of reputed anchors at times (I do not bother normally), and I can easily tell when somebody is on the payroll, and not evaluating things in fairness.

Russians are master of the art - nobody can touch them. My honest view.

Last; my contributions in the Iranian section are good-intentioned just like in other sections. My apologies if some of my posts came across as being negative. Given the difference in our respective backgrounds, our take of things can diverge.

My 2 cents.

 

[Blue In Green]

Thank you, mate.

This is very serious developments "in my view." If Natanz was mine, I would be pissed.

Think about the matter in this way: if this can happen to Iran, it can happen to another regional power as well.

You think WE are not concerned? You bet... Any distant observer should be.

Iranian defenses are not a joke (I have to come to understand these better by now), but USA and Israel are what I term as "technological supremacists." They will figure things out which many are unable to because their respective R&D sectors are very well developed and agencies well-funded. Their organizations focus much on the 'technology' aspect of things; how to adapt; how to exploit.

And as I pointed out, if this is not a significant development to Iranians by large, then Iranian leaders do not have much intensive to respond or escalate.

The art of evaluating information is not everybody's forte. This is a kind of grasp which comes through understanding research and 'content analysis' in particular.

Western sources usually get things right but they are into narrative-building as well. Media and narrative-building go hand-in-hand anywhere in the world. I have watched TV shows of reputed anchors at times (I do not bother normally), and I can easily tell when somebody is on the payroll, and not evaluating things in fairness.

Russians are master of the art - nobody can touch them. My honest view.

Last; my contributions in the Iranian section are good-intentioned just like in other sections. My apologies if some of my posts came across as being negative. Given the difference in our respective backgrounds, our take of things can diverge.

My 2 cents.

The fault lies with me LeGenD, I never should have treated you as if you were some sort of enemy (really dumb on my part lol). I didn't have the right nor cause to do so especially since your posts were mainly centered around scholarly assessments backed up with hard data, analysis, constructive criticism and feedbacks regarding various Iranian defense milestones, how they would fair against the U.S. and Israel and what they would mean in relation to the grander-scheme of things. You should post more often tbh, we need more people like you giving highly detailed information like PeeD, Philosopher, and AmirPatriot (and many others!!) who are also good in this regard. So don't feel dissuaded at all!!

Yeah man... idk what to say honestly. I always knew in the back of my head that Iran going up against the U.S. and Israel was going to be an extremely difficult uphill battle no matter how you cut it. Israel and the United States are exceptionally talented and resource stacked in the fields of high-technology with emphasis on military related applications.

The single thing that really brought me down is the fact that I couldn't ascertain earlier (as I was younger) just how nuanced and delicate Iran's position really is. Iran cannot afford to just start launching thousands of missiles, yelling "go long!!" and just hope for a touchdown. Geopolitics does indeed require shrewd long term decision making that very well could not turn out in your favor. Life has always been about give and take...always...

So on that note, LeGenD sincerely speaking, thank you for all your worthwhile and truly much needed contributions!!

 

[SalarHaqq]

let’s not act like Iran attacking US is like man attacking God. Problem with your way of thinking is you put the enemy on a pedestal as if they are the Gods of Athens. When you assume your inferior to the enemy it starts trickling down into the entire organization.

This is the same country that killed over 250 US marines in 1980’s, but cannot defend its honor in 2020.

I expect Iran will eventually get through somewhere and hurt Israel.

The issue is times have changed and Iran can No longer be the Revolutionary Iran of 1980’s that would do mass attacks all around the world and get away with it. Thus it has to be more calculated and cunning.

And the schizo game keeps going on...

First, they scold Iran for supposedly being too "passive" in the face of aggression, illustrating their rant with an out-of-context comparison to a particular event from the 80's attributed to Iran.

But then, they themselves provide an explanation for that supposed difference in Iranian policies between the 80's and today. Which takes away any and all justification for the rebuking tone displayed in their first posting.

Time elapsed between the two comments: hardly two days.

What first class comedy!

We Aussies know English much better than some indian wannabe 2nd class yank. So keep your 'English' lesson yourself.

Not an Indian, bro. Actually, our Chinese friends proved smarter than our Iranian brothers in identifying the game played by that subject here, and where his obvious issues with Iran stem from:

 

[zartosht]

This paragraph depicts how Iran Lost deterrence after Soleimani killing

While some American officials expressed fears that the killing of General Suleimani would lead Iran to initiate a war against the United States, the C.I.A. director, Gina Haspel, reassured them that the Iranians would settle on limited missile attacks against American targets in Iraq — which so far has turned out to be correct. Iran’s limited response could be an incentive for further operations against it.

i strongly disagree.

While Irans retaliation did not satisfy the natural emotional need of "blood for blood" type revenge. I think it substantially increased Iranian detterence.

-First off Iran showed off that it openly fire at the american military in peace time if red lines are crossed. (something no nation has done since japan did it in ww2)
-secondly Iran demonstrated the extreme lethality of its missiles
-Iran exposed severe weaknesses in american defenses
-Iran also made clear that this was its 'minimum response' and a further american retaliation would invite deadlier Iranian retaliation and almost certain war.

it was a matter of sheer luck, that even despite Iranian warnings that no americans died. this would have almost Forced trumps hand and started a war.

an absolutely devastating war that would easily send 10s of thousands of americans back home into body bags, destruction of american bases, 5th fleet, and prestige was BARELY avoided

Irans message was sent. cross this red line again, and we will not give warning next time and kill dozens of american troops in addition to firing on your bases.

I HIGHLY doubt that even someone as stupid as Trump is going to pull another stunt like that again.

Iranian detterence increased as a result of a miscalculated cheap shot by the Americans.

 

[Saddam Hussein]

i strongly disagree.

While Irans retaliation did not satisfy the natural emotional need of "blood for blood" type revenge. I think it substantially increased Iranian detterence.

-First off Iran showed off that it openly fire at the american military in peace time if red lines are crossed. (something no nation has done since japan did it in ww2)
-secondly Iran demonstrated the extreme lethality of its missiles
-Iran exposed severe weaknesses in american defenses
-Iran also made clear that this was its 'minimum response' and a further american retaliation would invite deadlier Iranian retaliation and almost certain war.

it was a matter of sheer luck, that even despite Iranian warnings that no americans died. this would have almost Forced trumps hand and started a war.

an absolutely devastating war that would easily send 10s of thousands of americans back home into body bags, destruction of american bases, 5th fleet, and prestige was BARELY avoided

Irans message was sent. cross this red line again, and we will not give warning next time and kill dozens of american troops in addition to firing on your bases.

I HIGHLY doubt that even someone as stupid as Trump is going to pull another stunt like that again.

Iranian detterence increased as a result of a miscalculated cheap shot by the Americans.

They could do it again and Iran's leadership would once again give a warning because the power balance is not in Iran's favor.

What happens to Iran after that deadly strike you explained in detail.. that's the reason this wasn't the last warning. Many more warnings in IRGC's pocket.

 

[R Wing]

Salala incident was a case of friendly fire. You don't start attacking each other in a friendly fire incident. Did United States bombed Israel after a friendly fire incident?

Every single army officer involved in ops on that side and in investigations after the fact felt that it was a premeditated attack on a post that the Americans were well aware was manned by the PA inside PA territory.

But, of course, it's more convenient to think that the angelic Americans made an honest mistake.

We can't even maintain an insurgency in Occupied Kashmir properly despite having a nuclear deterrent. We have more complaints about our economy and we aren't even under crippling sanctions.

Did I already say that we have a nuclear deterrent and still act insanely defensively? Because it needs to be repeated 100x.

 

[Sineva]

i strongly disagree.

While Irans retaliation did not satisfy the natural emotional need of "blood for blood" type revenge. I think it substantially increased Iranian detterence.

-First off Iran showed off that it openly fire at the american military in peace time if red lines are crossed. (something no nation has done since japan did it in ww2)
-secondly Iran demonstrated the extreme lethality of its missiles
-Iran exposed severe weaknesses in american defenses
-Iran also made clear that this was its 'minimum response' and a further american retaliation would invite deadlier Iranian retaliation and almost certain war.

it was a matter of sheer luck, that even despite Iranian warnings that no americans died. this would have almost Forced trumps hand and started a war.

an absolutely devastating war that would easily send 10s of thousands of americans back home into body bags, destruction of american bases, 5th fleet, and prestige was BARELY avoided

Irans message was sent. cross this red line again, and we will not give warning next time and kill dozens of american troops in addition to firing on your bases.

I HIGHLY doubt that even someone as stupid as Trump is going to pull another stunt like that again.

Iranian detterence increased as a result of a miscalculated cheap shot by the Americans.

Agreed!.
Well said,I couldnt have put it any better myself.

 

[Philosopher]

If this is truly the strategic depth of the west and their allies than I have to say this is disappointing. If they actually believe that by paying saboteurs to plant explosives here and there that this would deter Iran then once again they are in for a surprise. You always have to focus on the long term bigger picture. If you derive satisfaction by some transient attacks like this but fail to realise that in the long term these are going to have the opposite effect then this shows the short-sightedness and desperation of Iran's adversaries. The west and their allies understand fully well that Iran's nuclear program is not stoppable, thus the only wise steps would to please Iran and keep its overt nuclear program at the low latency level via a quid pro quo approach. But instead they are playing right into Iran's hand by giving it the excuse to make its program more robust and large. This level of ineptitude is quite embarrassing to say the least.