Iran - Israel/US War: Israel-US declare war on Iran, Iran responds

Bharatah said:
ATTENTION : Read - Important Aid from China to Iran*

Alistair Crook, British diplomat and former MI6 officer: Before the 12-day war, Iran used Google's navigation system, but after the war, it completely migrated to China's Beidou navigation system. Tracking or interfering with this system is virtually impossible or extremely difficult.

China has deployed its largest intelligence and espionage ship in the Gulf of Oman, and this ship transmits real-time information about the enemy to Iran. This means that Iranian missiles no longer rely on GPS and cannot be neutralized by disabling the GPS signal.

China has also provided Iran with radars capable of detecting enemy stealth aircraft at a distance of 600 kilometers.

Furthermore, China has provided Iran with the same advanced navigation system that played a crucial role in Pakistan's superiority over India, this time on a broader and more comprehensive scale.

NOTE: Iran is now stronger than at any time in history and already possesses technologies that only the US and Israel had. Even using American GPS, Iran managed to hit Israel, but using its own GPS, Israel managed to shoot down some missiles. Without GPS, it becomes even more complicated to shoot down Iranian missiles. Iran can hit any base or country, even with missiles whose technology is 30 years old.
Click to expand...

The unknown is how many of Irans missiles have been converted to Beidou right now. This transition will take time to "roll out " to all operationally deployed weapons and systems, tested/verified and all components of the defence network from intelligence gathering, targeting, and missile firing to switch over to the new system and people trained for it.

This is a significant undertaking.
 
Last edited:
TruthSeeker said:

www.theamericanconservative.com

War on Iran Is the Opposite of ‘Realism’

Don’t do it, Mr. President.
www.theamericanconservative.com www.theamericanconservative.com

War on Iran Is the Opposite of ‘Realism’​

Don’t do it, Mr. President.

No one really knows what goes on inside the mind of President Donald Trump.

But judging by the significant, ongoing U.S. military buildup in the Middle East, one can make an informed guess: He thinks a big war with Iran is a good idea.

If that’s the case, he’s wrong—dangerously so—and he needs a dose of realism.

This administration already claims to be guided by a “flexible realism” in foreign policy. But no variant of realism, however flexible, recommends a U.S. war on the Islamic Republic at this juncture.

Realism holds that geography and the relative distribution of military power among states determine national interests. Iran, being a middling power on the other side of the world, does not pose a military threat to America, the world’s leading superpower.

An implication of realism’s emphasis on power and geography is that realists don’t focus much on what kind of regime a state has. The Islamic Republic is a theocracy with a bad human rights record, but that’s nigh irrelevant from a realist perspective. The purpose of U.S. foreign policy is to promote the safety and prosperity of Americans, not to turn faraway states into liberal democracies, which we’re not good at doing anyway.

America does have an interest in preventing states from developing nuclear weapons, but that’s not necessarily an interest worth going to war over. Tehran’s previous compliance with the defunct 2015 Iran nuclear deal and its present willingness to negotiate shows that, in the case of Iran, this interest can be achieved diplomatically.

From a realist perspective, a U.S. war with Iran seems not merely unnecessary, but obviously foolish. Realists believe that the U.S. should—and does—intervene abroad when necessary to prevent the rise of a “regional hegemon.” We don’t want any foreign state to dominate its neighborhood and project power into other neighborhoods, especially ours.

So, what’s all this got to do with Iran? Really: What the hell does this have to do with Iran?

Iran is not a regional hegemon nor on the verge of becoming one. Indeed, it can barely claim a sphere of influence within its own borders; Israel, with relative ease, established air superiority over Iran in the 12-Day War last June. Iran certainly isn’t poised to dominate the Middle East, a region that includes zero close Iranian allies and multiple rivals of comparable or superior military might.

But the Middle East does feature an aspiring regional hegemon—and this is where America’s belligerence vis-à-vis Iran starts to look foolish.

The region’s aspiring hegemon is Israel, America’s very “special” ally. Israel deems Iran a big obstacle in its quest for regional hegemony. If the Islamic Republic is replaced with a pro-Israel regime, or if the Iranian state collapses, Israel would not only be rid of a chief adversary—it would be freed up to exert power across a region that is vital to the global economy.

In other words, the U.S. appears poised to create a regional hegemon, not prevent one, in the Middle East. That wouldn’t be a good example of “realism,” flexible or otherwise.

Some U.S. officials have argued that taking out the Islamic Republic would enable Washington to retrench from the Middle East, since it would no longer need to check Iran. A realist would advise something like the opposite: Washington should withdraw U.S. forces and assets from the region to allow a natural equilibrium to emerge. Iran, Turkey, and Arab states have grown sufficiently concerned about Israel’s regional designs that they may set their differences aside and collectively balance against it. That’s the best-case scenario from the realist American perspective.

Unfortunately, we’re instead careering toward a big war that, if it “succeeds,” will harm America’s geopolitical interests. And if the war is a failure, things might get very ugly indeed.

Analysts have warned that Iran intends to launch a ferocious retaliation if the U.S. strikes, to restore deterrence. The Trump administration appears to have taken those warnings seriously—but that doesn’t mean it’s backing off. Quite the contrary. In my assessment, the U.S. is preparing a massive attack meant to overwhelm Iran’s defenses and decapitate its leadership to prevent the kind of retaliation envisioned by nervous analysts.

After last year’s U.S. strikes on key Iranian nuclear facilities, Iran hawks mocked antiwar conservatives for predicting a catastrophic war involving mass casualties. That mockery was unfair in the case of The American Conservative. As I showed in a column defending our coverage, TAC had drawn attention to the possibility of a limited engagement.

But a limited engagement is more difficult to imagine now. The U.S. is planning a huge strike, and Iran is planning a huge retaliation; consequently, a huge war seems very much worth worrying about. Plus, it’s not clear what targeted strikes would look like this time around, because it’s not clear which targets it makes sense for Trump to strike.

And we shouldn’t let the Iran hawks intimidate us into declining to warn about worst-case scenarios. If Iran shuts down the Strait of Hormuz, a chokepoint for global trade, an oil crisis could set off global economic contraction.

Nor is that the absolute worst case. Iran might manage to strike a U.S. warship, perhaps even bombard an aircraft carrier, jeopardizing fighter jets in the process. Even worse, Iranian ballistic missiles could kill U.S. troops, who are sitting ducks in the region. Iran’s supreme leader has threatened an all-out regional war.

There’s no telling how Trump would react to the loss of U.S. troops, and I’d prefer not to find out.

Nuclear escalation isn’t out of the question, even if the U.S. itself is unlikely to push the big red button. Iran might choose to direct its ferocious retaliation against Israel, raining ballistic missiles down on the small country. In such a scenario, Israel could conceivably launch a nuclear attack out of desperation.

The U.S. simply has no interests at stake that justify courting such risks. And even if America’s military buildup in the Middle East is intended to enhance its bargaining position in negotiations with Iran, it raises the chances of war. The U.S. got dragged into war with Iran by Israel last June, and to avoid a repeat, Trump needs to convey to Israel that he wouldn’t provide backup this time around. But sending a third of America’s navy to the region sends the opposite signal.

Among staff writers at TAC, I’ve probably been the most positive about Trump’s foreign policy. But contemplating a war with Iran fills me with a nauseating dread. President Trump must be urged to listen to reason, and to realism.

Andrew Day​

Andrew Day is the senior editor of The American Conservative. He has a PhD in political science from Northwestern University.
Click to expand...
Another stupid american who realized he is just useful goy, for those who does not have time to read whole text.
 
Persian Gulf said:
To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.


USA using Sultan Air Base in Saudi Arabia
Click to expand...

30% of the entire USAF AWACs fleet deployed to the middle east? what in the world are they trying to achieve.
thats assuming the entire fleet is operational
 
Persian Gulf said:
To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.


USA using Sultan Air Base in Saudi Arabia
Click to expand...


The question arises, that if Iran does attack this airbase to try and destroy American equipment in the event of a war, what happens to the "mutual defence treaty" between Pakistan and Saudi Arabia ? What will Saudi Arabia do in this case?
 
Reichsmarschall said:
To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.
Click to expand...

It is a very good time for Russia to equal some of their debt with Americans by sinking some of their carriers by using Iranian. It will reduce their presence in sea if they manage to damage few carriers groups. And Chinese have chance as well to settle down with Americans if they want to be superpower in future
 
جوبا said:
30% of the entire USAF AWACs fleet deployed to the middle east? what in the world are they trying to achieve.
thats assuming the entire fleet is operational
Click to expand...
Because they're expecting very big retaliation because this is the last hurdle they have to completely occupy Middle East. After that there will be no one left to stop greater Israel will be a reality
 
Ali_Baba said:
The question arises, that if Iran does attack this airbase to try and destroy American equipment in the event of a war, what happens to the "mutual defence treaty" between Pakistan and Saudi Arabia ? What will Saudi Arabia do in this case?
Click to expand...
Its very perplexing after saying they will not allow their territory to be used to attack Iran, they are allowing stationing of large forces which inevitably will attack Iran.

However remember before the attack or Fordow their main base on Qatar was cleared and empty so I am leaning towards that happening again. If not, Iran is within its right to attack this base and SA IMO would condemn it but not look for an escalation.
 
lightning f57 said:
Its very perplexing after saying they will not allow their territory to be used to attack Iran, they are allowing stationing of large forces which inevitably will attack Iran.

However remember before the attack or Fordow their main base on Qatar was cleared and empty so I am leaning towards that happening again. If not, Iran is within its right to attack this base and SA IMO would condemn it but not look for an escalation.
Click to expand...
At the moment they brought this much force to gain privilege in negotiation
 
lightning f57 said:
Its very perplexing after saying they will not allow their territory to be used to attack Iran, they are allowing stationing of large forces which inevitably will attack Iran.

However remember before the attack or Fordow their main base on Qatar was cleared and empty so I am leaning towards that happening again. If not, Iran is within its right to attack this base and SA IMO would condemn it but not look for an escalation.
Click to expand...
They do not have any choice. Occupied nations lack leverage, having surrendered their sovereignty long ago. In old times, if hostile nations' soldiers are stationed in your country, that means it is occupation.So apply this formula and see where these soldiers are stationed in Arab world, which clearly shows they not free Nations
If you listen American ambassador to Israel hetells you everything what is coming in future for coming generations in Arab and Muslims world
To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.
 
Last edited:
Ali_Baba said:
The question arises, that if Iran does attack this airbase to try and destroy American equipment in the event of a war, what happens to the "mutual defence treaty" between Pakistan and Saudi Arabia ? What will Saudi Arabia do in this case?
Click to expand...
It depends , if it's preemptive strike by Iran then it gives causes belle to Saudis to retaliate and invoke defence pact with Pakistan....if Iran retaliates after attack was launched form the base then it's justified from the legal perspective...who cares about law and morality , might is right.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

  • ... and 2 more.
    • Total: 224 (members: 12, guests: 212)

    Pakistan Defence Latest

    Country Watch Latest

    Latest Posts

    Share this page

    Back
    Top