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

[Falcon29]

Way.

Are you counting drones and cruise missiles ? I'm only referring to ballistic missiles that can reach Israel from Iran.

I did look at some figures from Russia-Ukraine war. At the time this article was written, Ukraine claims Russia fired 3700 Shahed drones which are provided by Iran or Iran gave know how and created production facilities to produce these drones.

https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/russia-has-fired-7400-missiles-3700-shahed-drones-war-so-far-kyiv-says-2023-12-21/

That is a impressive number. Iran helped Russia in late 2022 to prepare manufacturing facility to produce 6,000 of them by 2025.

Makes me wonder how many can Iran produce. And how many it has been producing already.

Though that is drones and not long range ballistic missiles. I'll try finding some info on that.

No way.

Let's see. I don't see it either. And I don't see US resorting to some immediate military action.

 

[Falcon29]

I'm curious what Iran gets back from Russia. Unless it's money as a military sale. Western media doesn't classify them as sales.

From looks of it, Iran is providing batches of hundreds of short range bm's to Russia at a time. Probably 3-4 batches from 2023-2025. It can produce tens of thousands of these likely.

Which means US estimate of long range ballistic missiles in the thousands is probably accurate.

 

[Falcon29]

Next round of talks are slated for next week

There's no deadline contrary to initial US rhetoric

If they don't anywhere, US will try new methods to enforce sanctions on Iran oil sales.

Which won't change anything. Imo, US won't strike Iran. It benefits mostly from the Iranian-Gulf Arab feud and wants that to continue. Both Iran and Gulf Arabs suffer from the feud. But Iran does better navigating through it. Gulf Arabs are stunting themselves and not evolving well. Their recent victories have been ceasefire in Yemen, Ansarallah developing into a anti-Israel force, and the most obvious one being Syria. Depending if they can solidify gains in Syria in the long term. Which is yet to be seen. Promises of removing sanctions haven't translated into real lifting of sanctions yet. Which would be announced by US Department of Treasury.

 

[Falcon29]

Next round of talks are slated for next week

There's no deadline contrary to initial US rhetoric

If they don't anywhere, US will try new methods to enforce sanctions on Iran oil sales.

Which won't change anything. Imo, US won't strike Iran. It benefits mostly from the Iranian-Gulf Arab feud and wants that to continue. Both Iran and Gulf Arabs suffer from the feud. But Iran does better navigating through it. Gulf Arabs are stunting themselves and not evolving well. Their recent victories have been ceasefire in Yemen, Ansarallah developing into a anti-Israel force, and the most obvious one being Syria. Depending if they can solidify gains in Syria in the long term. Which is yet to be seen. Promises of removing sanctions haven't translated into real lifting of sanctions yet. Which would be announced by US Department of Treasury.

Iran is in a good position. It doesn't need Hamas or Hezbollah anymore. Hamas's strength lies in soft power, which Iran no longer needs.

Hezbollah struggles to be a effective military deterrent against Israel.

Iran's real only loss since Oct 7 is Syria. Which gave it leverage over Arabs/Turks. It's a slightly weaker position due to that. However it invests heavily into Iraq. To make Iraq a vassal state of Iran.

US/Israel want Arab-Iran feud to continue for years to come. The talks every 4 years with new administration is same cycle repeated. Slightly reworked deals. Gulf Arabs give US tons of money. Nothing achieved for them except stability/promises of security.

Arabs have challenges ahead of them. Iran, besides on domestic level, really doesn't.

Too bad Arab leadership is so naive and behind on everything. Change has to come from within for Arabs.

US Iran talks will fizzle out or same exact clauses will be announced as new 'deal' once again.

 

[Persian Gulf]

When Israel goes to war, it doesn't go slowly or to set redlines, it goes all out to overwhelm and DEFEAT the enemy before it has a chance to organise itself

Iran must prepare to sustain multiple unexpected blows simultaneously

missile cities must be decentralised with contingency measures for loss of contact with leadership and unexpected forms of sabotage

EO seeker enables < 10m accuracy but makes missile easier to intercept in late stages

--> use old stockpile of 1000+ Shahab-3 / Ghadr / Rezvan aimed at counter value targets (cities) to deplete ABM interceptor stockpile. no point aiming at empty air fields as Israel will opt to preserve interceptors to protect cities. force them to use their interceptors or sustain huge losses. these missiles have large warheads (500kg+) and high impact velocity and can do serious damage at the right sites even with low CEP.

--> once ABM inventory has been sufficiently degraded, fire 200-300 KS/HQ missiles with EO seekers per day to do real damage and devastate their military industry (IAI, Elbit, MoD, Mossad, IDF HQ, etc), and air bases (100 accurate hits can do SERIOUS damage to even a large air base like Nevatim). can use missiles with penetrator warhead (we saw a model of this recently) and EO seeker to try to take out the hardened F-35 shelters.

--> follow up with strikes against electricity and desalination plants (these are heavily concentrated and large sites and there are not many of them - even with <500m CEP, Sejjil and Emad can be effective against these large targets)

the goal must be to overwhelm Israel with non-stop and well-executed sequential missile barrages to keep them in disarray. ideally all of this would happen in < 7 days before they can bring in reinforcements or get organised.

at the same time, 60% HEU stockpile must be immediately distributed across a number of secret underground sites and weaponised immediately to prevent Israel from resorting to nuclear strikes

 

[Persian Gulf]

US/Israel want Arab-Iran feud to continue for years to come. The talks every 4 years with new administration is same cycle repeated. Slightly reworked deals. Gulf Arabs give US tons of money. Nothing achieved for them except stability/promises of security.

the difference this time compared to first Trump term is that Iran and Arab states have made serious improvements in relations, particularly thanks to detente with Saudi Arabia. we are moving towards detente with Bahrain too (which is somehow more radically anti-Iran than Saudi Arabia lol but getting there). obviously good relations with Oman and UAE.

Iran is also cordial with Azerbaijan (joint military drills ongoing right now) and has a strong relationship with Turkey which usually supports us internationally (despite our fights online)

Iran also came to Qatar's aid (along with Turkey) when the PGCC tried to blockade them, and now that is paying dividends as the Emir of Qatar is advocating strongly against war with Iran to Trump personally (Trump mentioned recently Iran is 'lucky' to have a good friend like the Emir)

we have constructive relations with Afghanistan (hosting mediations etc and invest in Afghanistan), invest a lot in Iraq (even the sectarian anti-Iran haters acknowledge Iran provides them with jobs), and also have good relations with Pakistan and Armenia

we don't have great relations with Jordan or Egypt but they are mostly hopeless vassal states to begin with. Syria too but they are not really a functioning country.

 

[Watandar]

the difference this time compared to first Trump term is that Iran and Arab states have made serious improvements in relations, particularly thanks to detente with Saudi Arabia. we are moving towards detente with Bahrain too (which is somehow more radically anti-Iran than Saudi Arabia lol but getting there). obviously good relations with Oman and UAE.

Iran is also cordial with Azerbaijan (joint military drills ongoing right now) and has a strong relationship with Turkey which usually supports us internationally (despite our fights online)

Iran also came to Qatar's aid (along with Turkey) when the PGCC tried to blockade them, and now that is paying dividends as the Emir of Qatar is advocating strongly against war with Iran to Trump personally (Trump mentioned recently Iran is 'lucky' to have a good friend like the Emir)

we have constructive relations with Afghanistan (hosting mediations etc and invest in Afghanistan), invest a lot in Iraq (even the sectarian anti-Iran haters acknowledge Iran provides them with jobs), and also have good relations with Pakistan and Armenia

we don't have great relations with Jordan or Egypt but they are mostly hopeless vassal states to begin with. Syria too but they are not really a functioning country.

Iran above all needs the sanctions to go away. Iran's economy could absolutely be double its current size if there were no sanctions. Iran could also be a huge tourism place like Turkey/Egypt and what Saudi/UAE are trying to be if Western enmity and propaganda against it can go away.

Iran also needs to invest heavily in Iraq. Its hard-win victory there in expelling the US occupation and later Daesh has so far not been leveraged. The new Syrian regime will create trouble for Iran in a few years time, thats not only their Wahhabi orientation but also the deal they have made with the West/GCC, for which they are getting all that $$ and sanctions relief. You have seen already how Syria never responds to Israel/Turkish attacks or occupation but fired rockets at Lebanese Shia some months back when there was a bit of a flareup on the Syria-Lebanon border. A strong Iraq can be Iran's shield against this new Wahhabi Syria.

 

[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

negotiations are clearly a waste of time with the US pursuing Bibi's Libya model.

build a nuclear warhead then negotiate about ICBMs in exchange for sanctions relief.

 

[shapurzolaktaf]

The problem is they are only capable of reaction, no capability to be proactive or plan ahead. We will withdraw from NPT if you bomb us. We will rethink nuclear weapons if you activate snapback mechanism. They are letting their enemies dictate the battlefield and reacting. They are paralyzed by fear and will never make the decision to proactively go for nukes. Their decision making is not logical.

I understand what you're saying, they're not pro-active, but run behind the facts and are only responsive to enemy moves. But I think at the same time, Iran is powerfull in diplomacy and is trying to gain the most with the least costs. But if it will be necessary, we've to gain the most with military tools, I think that's the last scenario. It's a delicate move and timing is important, but if it needs to be done, i hope it will be done decisively.

 

[hyperman]

Realistically, to what extent can Iran damage Israel? Their missile program is meant to develop nuclear capable missiles in the long term. Not for conventional punch. There's no way they have tens of thousands long range missiles to reach Israel.

A US attack on Iran would only be for nuclear program, to bring it back several years.

A US attack on Iranian regime/military capabilities won't happen. It will benefit Gulf Arabs only and Gulf Arabs will buy less weapons from the US in that case. And it helps normalization process with Israel. US will thus not do regime change in Iran.

It's likely Iran will agree to zero enrichment or won't and US just places more sanctions. In very rare scenario will they attack nuclear program. Because Zionists that rule US don't want a distraction from their Gaza ethnic cleansing project, right now.

They have a breakout capability for 10 warheads within a week.

 

[hyperman]

I don't even believe in Iran will respond in a big way to a attack on its nuclear program.

It has to, its life or death.

 

[Persian Gulf]

stay on topic

 

[Persian Gulf]

I am perplexed by Rubio and Witkoff's push for zero enrichment. It is a non-starter that will close the window of opportunity that currently exists with few prospects of reopening it.

Even if this is a negotiating strategy and the real red line is different, then that should be handled at the negotiating table rather than in public. Negotiating in public is not conducive to success.

Iran has never agreed to completely end enrichment, even temporarily. They know that restarting the enrichment will be extremely costly politically, even if the agreement is broken by the US. This would amount to them giving up their main leverage in return for a promise of a reward down the road.

Not only are they starting with zero trust in the US, they also saw what happened to Hamas. Netanyahu broke the ceasefire agreement after Phase I and faced no consequences from the US for sabotaging Phase II and III. The release of the American hostages was reportedly made in return for promises by the US to press Netanyahu for a ceasefire afterward, but that does not seem to be happening. Instead, Netanyahu is launching a major ground offensive into Gaza.

So the idea that the Iranians would give up their main leverage in the hope that there will be reciprocity down the road assumes a degree of Iranian trust and confidence in the US that frankly has not existed for the past 45 years. Promises of primary sanctions relief do not sufficiently change that picture.

Bottom line - the zero enrichment goal was Bolton and Pompeo's objective precisely because they knew it would lead to war. That remains true today.

Source: Trita Parsi

 

[hyperman]

Even if this is a negotiating strategy and the real red line is different, then that should be handled at the negotiating table rather than in public. Negotiating in public is not conducive to success.

They are doing it to set up their own casus belli.

 

[Kyussis]

I am perplexed by Rubio and Witkoff's push for zero enrichment. It is a non-starter that will close the window of opportunity that currently exists with few prospects of reopening it.

Even if this is a negotiating strategy and the real red line is different, then that should be handled at the negotiating table rather than in public. Negotiating in public is not conducive to success.

Iran has never agreed to completely end enrichment, even temporarily. They know that restarting the enrichment will be extremely costly politically, even if the agreement is broken by the US. This would amount to them giving up their main leverage in return for a promise of a reward down the road.

Not only are they starting with zero trust in the US, they also saw what happened to Hamas. Netanyahu broke the ceasefire agreement after Phase I and faced no consequences from the US for sabotaging Phase II and III. The release of the American hostages was reportedly made in return for promises by the US to press Netanyahu for a ceasefire afterward, but that does not seem to be happening. Instead, Netanyahu is launching a major ground offensive into Gaza.

So the idea that the Iranians would give up their main leverage in the hope that there will be reciprocity down the road assumes a degree of Iranian trust and confidence in the US that frankly has not existed for the past 45 years. Promises of primary sanctions relief do not sufficiently change that picture.

Bottom line - the zero enrichment goal was Bolton and Pompeo's objective precisely because they knew it would lead to war. That remains true today.

Source: Trita Parsi

They don't want a deal. They want to give the impression that they were willing to negotiate but Iran would not be reasonable leaving the U.S no choice but to have to attack militarily. This is all laid out in the Brookings institute paper, "which path to Persia" published in 2009.