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

[Sipahsalar]

Who lost who won? The way to analyse that is through military objectives of each side. So here’s my analysis:

Israel’s objectives:
1.) dismantle irans nuclear program - partial success

2.) regime change - failed

3.) Drag USA into a war with Iran - failed

Iran’s objectives:
1.) protect the sovereignty of Iran’s territory and airspace - failed
2.) protect Irans nuclear program - partial failure
3.) Avoid war with USA - success.

 

[kastor ville]

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

Good lord....the naivete of these people is astounding.

 

[kastor ville]

Hello Gents,

Just my two cents below...

HOW DO YOU DEFINE MILITARY VICTORY ?

- Attaining military goals​

- Attaining political goals​

- Maintaining good capabilities after war (not being ruined / exposed)​

- Gaining political leverage over the enemy​

You are free to add your criteria of course..........

TO SUMMARIZE ALL THAT SEE BELOW

SIDE	GOAL	PRIORITY	RESULT
ISRAEL / U.S.	Iran nuclear capabilities destruction	Top	Partial (unknown)
	Iran missile capabilities destruction	Top	Failure
	Iran conventional military capabilities damaging	Optional	Failure
	Iran regime decapitation (for regime change)	Optional	Weak
	Mass protests triggering (for regime change)	Top	Failure
	U.S. intervention triggering (boots on ground)	Top	Failure
IRAN	Regime survival / legitimacy	Top	Success
	Israel's attrition / kickback	Optional	Success
	Military assets preservation	Optional	Partial
	Infrastructure preservation	Top	Partial

Either way, they attacked Iran and flew back home and had pizza for dinner....this should not happen, the cost of attacking Iran needs to be brought up....it needs to paid back 3x fold. We need to send a message, we are keeping a tab and the tab will be paid.

 

[kastor ville]

Well, I gotta say I don't trust guys like Scott Ritter, Gen Mac whatever, John whatever, and all the other guys who are regularly on the YouTube-show of this Iranian guy Nima....they are all "controlled opposition"!
The US establishment knows that many people don't trust mainstream media anymore, so these guys are sent to YouTube to influence peoples opinions....these guys appear anti-establishment, and many things they say are probably true, but they also mix in misinformation, which the viewers then also consider as truthfull....

You always have to be extremely sceptical with EVERYTHING you read or hear, especially with these guys who had important positions in the state, military, intelligence....such people don't suddenly switch sides and become critical of their own country, they are all controlled opposition:

Urban Dictionary: Controlled opposition

Controlled opposition: A controlled opposition is a protest movement that is actually being led by government agents. Nearly all governments in history...

www.urbandictionary.com

But yes, at least here we have real persons who are qualified, whatever their motivation is, and that is definitely better than Twitter bullssshhhh...

NOPE!...there are plenty of Western analysts that don't play the game of their governments. They're experienced and they should be taken seriously.....as always you should trust but verify any info you're gleaning from outside sources.

 

[kastor ville]

I do not know what was destroyed. "Rohani and Zarif are the representatives of Western interests in Iran." I agree. It is well known. Even regime supporters like Ali Alizadeh have called them out.
The problem is that you have personnel with limited education and questionable degrees and doctorates, making decisions for a country that has a large skilled labor force and enormous potential. Jumping with two feet into the US camp is not the answer either. The future is with China. Going to war with world Jewry is very stupid when they have captured one of the world's great powers.

I don't agree about Rohani and Zarif, every country, every party has difference of opinions on how an issue should be handled or approached. Rouhani and Zarif are pragmatists, they're not reactionaries, and yes, they're not the Margh bar Amerika type, this is a good thing, what the fuk have those slogans gotten us in the last 40 yrs, except providing news footage for Western TV to sell the narrative that Iran is an enemy to the whole of the Western world? But, the second part of your post is 100% true, we have people in powerful positions that don't know shit from Shinola, and that needs to be fixed. No more clergy types in powerful positions, let them stay in their lane for spiritual guidance and matters, thank you very much.

 

[kastor ville]

Scott Ritter was convicted of sexual activities involving an underage child for the first time in 2001 and for a second time in 2009

Yes....you're correct, I looked it up, actually 3 times in total. Shame on him, foolish man. He has 2 daughters, I have no sympathy for these type of people. Unfortunately I've enjoyed his commentary so far, but that's it, I will unfollow him on X.

 

[BigMela2onin]

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

Let us hope this is a sign of positive changes to come.

 

[Sarhang]

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

 

[Bharatah]

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

Let us hope this is a sign of positive changes to come.

In my opinion, it's a huge risk to do this. There's a saying in Brazil that goes "TIME QUE ESTÁ GANHANDO NÃO SE MECHE" (It means that if a football team is winning games, the team (tactical system of the football game) and the players should not be changed.). In English, it would be something like "Never change a winning formula" or "If it ain't broke, don't fix it."

Iran fought Iraq (a US puppet), the CIA, the Mossad, color revolutions, US/Israeli/NATO attacks, terrorist attacks (all without anyone's support). It's a formula that has worked for the past few decades.

I hope I'm wrong, but in my opinion: it's Israel and the US who are behind these "reforms." The goal would be to create a more fragile system, and when there's a future attack or color revolution, the government will fall (this happened in Ukraine in 2013, where the pro-Russian government was infested with NATO agents and fell... then Zelensky took over) and It's also happened in several other places such as Syria: where after the 2017 agreement, there were "reforms," and these reforms created the political system that handed over the government to Israel/NATO in 2025
. If I'm right, the people being singled out as the managers
are themselves the foreign agents.

 

[Hassan Al-Somal]

Who lost who won? The way to analyse that is through military objectives of each side. So here’s my analysis:

Israel’s objectives:
1.) dismantle irans nuclear program - partial success

2.) regime change - failed

3.) Drag USA into a war with Iran - failed

Iran’s objectives:
1.) protect the sovereignty of Iran’s territory and airspace - failed
2.) protect Irans nuclear program - partial failure
3.) Avoid war with USA - success.

Iran’s objectives:
1.) protect the sovereignty of Iran’s territory and airspace - failed
2.) protect Irans nuclear program - partial failure
3.) Avoid war with USA - success.
4) Hit Israel very hard after Iran was attacked --- success
5) Force Israel to run to its major backer --- success
6) Force Israel and US request a ceasefire through Qatar --- success
7) Defeat Israeli and Western air defense shield on Israel in just 12 days -- success
8) Iranian intelligence preventing the major infiltration of Mossad agents in Iran - failure
9) Avoid tools (i.e., Whatsup, GPS, etc) that Israel used to harm Iranian scientists and IRGC commanders ---- Failure
10) Defeating the Mossad menace inside Iran ---- partially successful
11) Going nuclear after Iran was unjustly attacked --- Failure

 

[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

 

[Hassan Al-Somal]

Scott Ritter did an hour analysis on the war. He brought the receipts. He called it a draw and a mistake by Iran to accept a ceasefire. He said one more week of missile salvos would have been devastating for Israel. He also said most of the strikes on the TELs were decoys and doctored.

It was not a draw; Iran rebelled the regime change operation, and while its nuclear facilities were damaged and its air defense network failed to detect any Israeli manned fighter intrusion, Iran offset these shortcomings by taking the battle to Israel and hit all Israeli military, nuclear, and critical infrastructure facilities. Iran also forced Israel to request a ceasefire - which itself is an admission of a Israel's defeat.

I also differ Scott Ritter on Iran making a mistake by accepting the ceasefire. Iran needed the ceasefire. You can't wage war on adversary like Israel backed Western powers while you have 1000s of Mossad agents roaming the country, deploying drones, ATGMs, and providing critical intelligence to Israeli drones, and attacking Iranian missile launchers and air defense networks. Iran needed the ceasefire to defeat this terrorist menace.

That being said, the internal security in Iran needs an overhaul. This major failure can't be overlooked.

 

[vmro]

It's obvious that many Iranians want to make a clear distinction between the Iranian nation and the actual government's apparatus in general, regardless of branches...

And the level of presented unity in critical condition is a very important part and rarely seen to be compared...

This is understandable under these circumstances... A grotesque outcome could be if the Prince interprets that circumstances as a call from the Iranian nation to rule the nation in an imperial manner, ruling the nation as the people's last hope...

Practically AIPAC will be in charge via their proxy...

 

[tsunset]

It's obvious that many Iranians want to make a clear distinction between the Iranian nation and the actual government's apparatus in general, regardless of branches...

And the level of presented unity in critical condition is a very important part and rarely seen to be compared...

This is understandable under these circumstances... A grotesque outcome could be if the Prince interprets that circumstances as a call from the Iranian nation to rule the nation in an imperial manner, ruling the nation as the people's last hope...

Practically AIPAC will be in charge via their proxy...

The opposition is a joke so are the people supporting them

 

[vmro]

In my opinion, it's a huge risk to do this. There's a saying in Brazil that goes "TIME QUE ESTÁ GANHANDO NÃO SE MECHE" (It means that if a football team is winning games, the team (tactical system of the football game) and the players should not be changed.). In English, it would be something like "Never change a winning formula" or "If it ain't broke, don't fix it."

Iran fought Iraq (a US puppet), the CIA, the Mossad, color revolutions, US/Israeli/NATO attacks, and terrorist attacks (all without anyone's support). It's a formula that has worked for the past few decades.

I hope I'm wrong, but in my opinion: it's Israel and the US who are behind these "reforms." The goal would be to create a more fragile system, and when there's a future attack or color revolution, the government will fall (this happened in Ukraine in 2013, where the pro-Russian government was infested with NATO agents and fell... then Zelensky took over) and It's also happened in several other places such as Syria: where after the 2017 agreement, there were "reforms," and these reforms created the political system that handed over the government to Israel/NATO in 2025
. If I'm right, the people being singled out as the managers
are themselves the foreign agents.

The situation of the Ukrainian state is incomparable with Iran, incomparable with anything outside of the Soviet Union, an eternally divided state inside and forced on unity from outside... opposite of the Iranian case...

Edit:
If you want to figure out Soviet style, just look states and boundaries of Armenia and Azerbaijan...