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

[Persian Gulf]

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

Accept third party cookies

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

Accept third party cookies

The Ministry of Defense of the Saudi backed regime in Yemen announced the death of Saghir bin Aziz, the head of the joint staff of the Saudi mercenaries, in the recent missile attacks by the Yemeni armed forces.

 

[Ali_Baba]

Here's the truth: While some people in Pakistan, mainly civilians and sometimes people in your parliament, are friendly towards Iran, the bulk of the Pakistani system is pro-Saudi and you cannot be pro-Saudi and friendly towards Iran at the same time. Period.

I think it is possible to be both Pro-Saudi, and Pro-Iran at the same time. Pakistan has done well to navigate this as best it can.

If we are really to get into "this conversation", then we really would have to start talking about Iran's support for India, its basing of terrorist groups that attack Pakistan under Indian sponsorship, allowing RAW to operate freely in areas next to Pakistan, launching of ballistic missiles into Pakistani, etc. The list of Iranian infractions against Pakistan are long, very long. That is a separate conversation entirely. You start your statement from a false premise unfortunately and is outside the scope of this thread.

 

[ShapurII]

I think it is possible to be both Pro-Saudi, and Pro-Iran at the same time. Pakistan has done well to navigate this as best it can.

Then it is possible to be both Pro-India and Pro-Pakistan and Iran has done well to navigate this as best it can.

It is also possible to be both Pro-Palestine and Pro-Israel and the United States has done well to navigate this as best it can.

If we are really to get into "this conversation", then we really would have to start talking about Iran's support for India, its basing of terrorist groups that attack Pakistan under Indian sponsorship, allowing RAW to operate freely in areas next to Pakistan, launching of ballistic missiles into Pakistani, etc. That is a separate conversation entirely. You start your statement from a false premise unfortunately.

Pakistan has long been a safe haven for terrorism inside Iran since at least 90s, at the request of Saudi Arabia. If it weren't for Imran Khan, we would still have these regular Baluch insurgency issues with Pakistan.

 

[shapurzolaktaf]

This statement by you is an outright lie ... Prove there was two different versions.


Both Saudi and Kuwait alongside Qatar, UAE and Bahrain have been stupid enough to allow Americans to setup actual American bases in their countries which have attacked Iran, yes. And Iran has rightly attacked those specific bases and has the legal right to continue to attack those bases.

And yes, Saudi and Kuwait alongside Qatar, UAE and Bahrain were all collectively stupid to spend tens to hundreds of billions of dollars to defend the Americans.

However, the treaty does not cover this "use case", Iran is still free to attack the military American presence in those countries.

And once this war is over, Saudi and Kuwait alongside Qatar, UAE and Bahrain will have to rethink and ideally close down all these American bases and join the new Makkah accords. This is in the strategic interest of Iran to have no American presence in the region.

This ill-conceived Makka Accord appears to have been deliberately introduced at an extremely sensitive moment. The region is already engulfed in war: Iran is demanding compensation for U.S.-Israeli aggression against Iran, while Israel is pushing for the destruction of Iranian infrastructure.

At the same time, Pakistan and Turkey have stated that an attack on Saudi Arabia would be considered an attack against all of them.

In this context, the treaty appears to align closely with regional American objectives: Iran must be weakened or even destroyed, but it should be prevented from retaliating against those responsible for the aggression through the threat of invoking the Makka Accord.

The reality is Iran will not care about the concerns of some energy-starved regional countries. We are fighting a hyperpower.

The GCC states have a substantial bill to settle, accumulated from the 1980s to the present. Iran will not allow anyone to intervene while we pursue what we are owed. What a foolish accord and timing.

 

[Oldenwisdom...قول بزرگ]

Oh, yes. The target is "Zion". That's why this agreement was signed just 2 months after Israel attacked Gaza. I mean if you are going to lie that ridiculously, don't hold back. Say that this agreement was signed after the Israeli aggression on Gaza.

And the initial pact between Saudi and Pak was signed after zionist attack on Qatar... haha

Analysis • New Middle East pact seen in Israel as sign of waning U.S. influence

The Saudi Arabia-Turkey-Pakistan defense pact holds significant economic-political importance and won't likely yield military action against Iran, but sources in Jerusalem see it as mostly negative for Israel as relations with Ankara continue to sour

www.haaretz.com

Saudi-Pakistan Mutual Defence Pact: Implications for India, IMEC, and US Influence in the Gulf | ISPI

Saudi Arabia and Pakistan’s mutual defence pact marks a turning point in Gulf and Asian security: it binds financial and nuclear power, fuels the US–China rivalry, unsettles India and IMEC, and may trigger a wave of new alignments as Israel’s campaigns heighten the regional race for deterrence.

www.ispionline.it

You're running through the main character syndrome phase right now... calm down shapur!

 

[ShapurII]

And the initial pact between Saudi and Pak was signed after zionist attack on Qatar... haha

Analysis • New Middle East pact seen in Israel as sign of waning U.S. influence

The Saudi Arabia-Turkey-Pakistan defense pact holds significant economic-political importance and won't likely yield military action against Iran, but sources in Jerusalem see it as mostly negative for Israel as relations with Ankara continue to sour

www.haaretz.com

Saudi-Pakistan Mutual Defence Pact: Implications for India, IMEC, and US Influence in the Gulf | ISPI

Saudi Arabia and Pakistan’s mutual defence pact marks a turning point in Gulf and Asian security: it binds financial and nuclear power, fuels the US–China rivalry, unsettles India and IMEC, and may trigger a wave of new alignments as Israel’s campaigns heighten the regional race for deterrence.

www.ispionline.it

You're running through the main character syndrome phase right now... calm down shapur!

Why did you need a second pact then now that Arabs are in active war with Iran? Haha What a joke.

 

[tsunset]

Ship pirated by IRGC Navy in strait of Hormuz

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

Accept third party cookies

 

[Oldenwisdom...قول بزرگ]

Why did you need a second pact then? Haha What a shaper!

Are you going to dictate who Pakistan can and cannot have a defense pact with?

Pakistan was in similar negotiations with Qatar simultaneously... and to expand your happiness... Qatar may yet be added later.

Oh Iran is doomed... the doom and gloom shapur running with the main character syndrome.

 

[ShapurII]

Are you going to dictate who Pakistan can and cannot have a defense pact with?

Pakistan was in similar negotiations with Qatar simultaneously... and to expand your happiness... Qatar may yet be added later.

Oh Iran is doomed... the doom and gloom shapur running with the main character syndrome.

Are you trying to deflect the question because I got you? You're not smart.
So, I'm going to ask it again. What did you need a second security pact for if Israel was already covered in your "initial" pact?

You have "oldenwisdom" syndrome. That's the only legit use for "Oldenwisdom".

 

[Oldenwisdom...قول بزرگ]

Are you trying to deflect the question because I got you? You're not smart.
So, I'm going to ask it again. What did you need a second security pact for if Israel was already covered in your "initial" pact?

You have "oldenwisdom" syndrome. That's the only legit use for "Oldenwisdom".

So you're missing context as well... i didn't know I'm running a school here as well...
Turkiye was about to be added since the initial pact was signed with Saudis. In fact, it may have happened much earlier...

Why Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, and Turkey just signed a defense pact

Each country pledged to defend the others, but each country also has its own motivations for joining the pact.

www.atlanticcouncil.org

And as I said ongoing negotiations may conclude with having Qatar join in later as well.

Oh, and read the links I shared ... main character syndrome shapur!

 

[ShapurII]

So you're missing context as well... i didn't know I'm running a school here as well...
Turkiye was about to be added since the initial pact was signed with Saudis. In fact, it may have happened much earlier...

Why Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, and Turkey just signed a defense pact

Each country pledged to defend the others, but each country also has its own motivations for joining the pact.

www.atlanticcouncil.org

And as I said ongoing negotiations may conclude with having Qatar join in later as well.

Oh, and read the links I shared ... main character syndrome shapur!

So, Turkey is now going to fight Israel? It keeps getting better lol

If you think that way, you don't need education, you need a functioning brain, which considering your ridiculous username, it is impossible to happen.

 

[Persian Gulf]

Stop the personal attacks and put your points across in a civil manner or you will be removed

 

[Oldenwisdom...قول بزرگ]

So, Turkey is now going to fight Israel? It keeps getting better lol

If you think that way, you don't need education, you need a functioning brain, which considering your ridiculous username, it is impossible to happen.

Hmm... I see that the impact is very much partial and partisan...

Again, to assist you further... as your post wasn't deleted

Beyond Gaza: The Strategic Fault Lines in Turkey–Israel Relations

Turkey–Israel relations have entered one of their most tense periods in years, triggered by a series of regional developments that have transformed the two countries’ post-Gaza diplomatic crisis into a full-blown geopolitical confrontation. Turkey has condemned the humanitarian tragedy and...

arabcenterdc.org

Not everyone is that dim to get the premise through... some are... but if you're running with something, have some depth.

 

[Ali_Baba]

This ill-conceived Makka Accord appears to have been deliberately introduced at an extremely sensitive moment. The region is already engulfed in war: Iran is demanding compensation for U.S.-Israeli aggression against Iran, while Israel is pushing for the destruction of Iranian infrastructure.

At the same time, Pakistan and Turkey have stated that an attack on Saudi Arabia would be considered an attack against all of them.

The Pakistan-Saudi treaty was in place between Pakistan and Saudi before this war started. Pakistan has deployed forces to Saudi as part of this treaty already. Pakistan has not worked to stop Iranian attacks on American bases in Saudi from Iran, only Saudi infrastructure to date. What is wrong with Pakistan honouring a treaty it signed before the war started ?

Claim all the compensation from the USA and Israel you want, but you will have a hard time thinking anyone in the GCC owes any compensation to Iran for a war that the USA and Israel have waged on Iran.

Israel has been pushing for the destruction of Iranian infrastructure, but when Iran had the opportunity to go after Israeli infrastructure, it declined to do so and instead it focussed mostly on evacuated buildings in Tel Aviv. Why was that? Why is Iran keen to destroy infrastructure in the GCC but not in Israel ????? Did the GCC really commit a "bigger sin" than Israel ?

In this context, the treaty appears to align closely with regional American objectives: Iran must be weakened or even destroyed, but it should be prevented from retaliating against those responsible for the aggression through the threat of invoking the Makka Accord.

Saudi's (and other GCC states) have certainly allowed American bases to be used against Iran ( to which Iran has rightly attacked back and in some cases destroyed) but has there been any active action by Saudi Armed forces(or any of the Arab countries) against Iranian targets? Any attacks? I have seen some references to Saudi air refuellers, but were they refuelling American aircraft, or were they refuelling Saudi Airforce who were monitoring and defending Saudi infrastructure ?

The reality is Iran will not care about the concerns of some energy-starved regional countries. We are fighting a hyperpower.

Yes, please go and fight the country that killed the Supreme Leader and many of the senior leadership in Iran and caused hundreds of billions of dollars of damage ie Israel. Extract your vengence from those who have caused all the harm from USA and Israel.

Surely you want and need to "settle the bill with Israel first" who those who actively attacked you ?? Rather than the countries who simply could not say no to the USA in not allowing American bases to be used against Iran ? Who has the greatest sin here? The country that killed your entire leadership multiple times over and still continues to try to if given the chance, and has also caused the greatest amount of damage and loss of life? Or, the cowards in the GCC who could not say no to a hyper power in allowing bases in their country to be used ?

I don't think many here will object to the Iranians going after American bases either. But, maybe this is where people here are struggling with the "Iranian viewpoint and Iranian logic". ie Have any of the countries of Saudi, UAE, Qatar, Bahrain, Kuwait used their own armed forces to attack Iran in this war ? Is not being able to say no to the "hyperpower" of the USA to use American bases in their country a direct act hostility of that country ? Is that the bigger sin here? Is that hostility more or less than what Israel has done??

Is that the issue, or is the real issue that Iran can't lash out at the USA more than it has so far, and it can't or won't go after Israel anymore ? Is this "vengeance" really just Iranian frustration of their limitations of their military power ?

 

[MS Sandhu]

This statement by you is an outright lie ... Prove there was two different versions. There were no 2 versions, Trump as usual did not honour his side of the bargain made in the MoU.



Saudi and Kuwait alongside Qatar, UAE and Bahrain, Jordan have all been stupid enough to allow Americans to setup actual American bases in their countries which have been used to attack Iran, yes. And Iran has rightly attacked those specific bases and has the legal right to continue to attack those bases.

And yes, Saudi and Kuwait alongside Qatar, UAE and Bahrain, Jordan were all collectively stupid to spend tens to hundreds of billions of dollars to defend the Americans.

However, the new treaty does not cover this "use case", Iran is still free to attack the military American presence in those countries.

And once this war is over, Saudi and Kuwait alongside Qatar, UAE and Bahrain, Jordan will have to rethink and ideally close down all these American bases and join the new Makkah accords. This is in the strategic interest of Iran to have no American presence in the region. This serves Iranian interests.

Americans aren't going to leave this region even if Iran is fully defeated.
They have very deep interests in this region.They will give space to anyone else to have influence over middle east.