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

[Ali_Baba]

Very Rusty and Poor Quality - Aircraft Carrier travelled during 20 months including Iran

Thailand huh ? lol ....

 

[Pakistan First]

Very Rusty and Poor Quality - Aircraft Carrier travelled during 20 months including Iran

Just needs a paint job. That's all. It effectively did combat operations for 6 months. No other Navy has such capability. Not even China (No nuclear powered carrier yet).

Secondly, I think crew is heading for Thailand as a reward / relaxation / vacations.

 

[RocketLaw]

If it was so rusty and poor quality, then why did Iran not manage to hit the carrier in 6 months of war?

Salt water rusts ships. Cant avoid chemistry. Doesn’t mean anything.

I don't know why - maybe Iran doesn't want to attack or they don't have technology yet.

Probably they focus on small countries (Israel, Kuwait, Qatar, UAE, Jordan, Bahrain, Oman, etc) last 6 months.

September 1st, 2026

 

[Immortals]

 

[Hayabusa]

No, my argument is not that this was the strongest leverage Iran could ever theoretically obtain. It is that Iran had usable leverage at that moment and failed to convert it into gains. Since then, its oil exports have collapsed, its tankers are being intercepted and the US is operating around Hormuz while Iran largely watches. That is a measurable loss of leverage, not an assumption.

Let's use your assumption as an argument that they agree to this and Iran has the strongest leverage. Then come back to the question? What guarantee do you have that US will honour this agreement?

You have not been able to answer this and let me tell you the answer. A very very small chance. With Nethanyahu at the helm, it will be a matter of time that he will tear this apart.

So does that point of time matter? No it doesn't because no amount of leverage is going to stop US from attacking Iran. I don't understand what is so hard to understand this. US decision making to strike Iran is not equivalent to Iran losing leverage over strait of Hormuz. The leverage has always been there.

The Strait allows Iran to hurt the world, but closing it also cuts Iran’s own economic lifeline. Geography is permanent, usable leverage is not.

Iran has land routes. It's not the end of its economic lifeline. It is why US is desperate asking Iran's neighbours to close all trading routes which obviously fail. Geography is permanent, and that allows Iran to use it as a leverage to be able to carry out not just attacks on US but also allow minimal economic activity.

I never said signing the MoU showed weakness. I said it proves Iran itself considers agreements and negotiations useful.

From how you are trying to question Iran's return to negotiations, you are subconsciously framing it as weakness. Even if you are not, which I will take it, I have been claiming from the start that Iran is balancing both diplomacy and deterrence and both tools are needed to end the conflict in its favour. They are being smart utilising both tools to advance their interests in the end and will be stupid if they left one out.

Iran may still eventually secure a favorable outcome, but “it has not surrendered” is not proof that it has lost nothing. Survival, leverage and victory are three different things.

I did not claim at all that Iran has lost nothing. Iran has definitely suffered and lost Khamenei, and even being pro-Iranian myself, doesn't mean they are free from criticism. But to just say they are surviving is just half of the facts. They are still able to adapt and counter attack even until last night (6 months into the war)into US bases within the region. That is not survival, that is leveraging on its geography to engage US military targets and letting them know they are not safe even if they are a 1000km away. Iran's objective of victory is very simple and victory tend to naturally favour the defender. Survive the initial onslaught, counter attack and deny enemy from achieving its objective. That itself opens the pathway for victory.

 

[BananaRepublic]

Erm!

Because they don’t want to escalate the war?

Their strategy is timing out Trump?

Escalation will definitely lead to US using nukes.

 

[SecularNationalist]

South America is totally anti-Iran now. US has installed puppets all over the place and maybe somethings wrong with their people as well. Look how happily Venezuelan accepted that their leader was kidnapped by US.

So many South American nations are now totally under zionists influence recently.

1. Declared the IRGC a Terrorist Organization

• • Argentina (March/April 2026): Under President Javier Milei, Argentina officially designated the IRGC as a terrorist organization. The presidential office directly linked the IRGC to the financing and support of Hezbollah, which Argentina holds responsible for the 1994 AMIA Jewish community center bombing in Buenos Aires.
  • Ecuador (September 2025): President Daniel Noboa signed a decree blacklisting the IRGC alongside Hamas and Hezbollah. The decree cited intelligence reports regarding the group's presence in South America and potential ties to domestic organized crime.
  • Paraguay (April 2025): Under President Santiago Peña, Paraguay formally added the IRGC to its terror list and expanded designations on Iranian proxy networks to target both their operational and political wings.

2. Ended Diplomatic Relations with Iran

• • Peru (September 2026): Peru completely severed formal diplomatic relations with Iran. The Peruvian Foreign Ministry cited a stark "deterioration of democratic values" within Iran, its domestic human rights violations, its obstruction of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), and Iran's disruption of international maritime trade in the Strait of Hormuz. Consular-only ties were preserved through a concurrent mission in Ecuador to protect nationals
  
  
  Apart from these, Venezuela, Columbia and maybe few others recently installed with pro-US / pro-Israel leaders (puppets).
  
  A continent of slaves.

Yes definitely they just installed puppet government in south America. For US and Isreal benefits.
Public of those Latin countries is largely anti US and Isreal. I experienced Latin people as very happy,friendly and family oriented. And they didn't like US.

 

[SecularNationalist]

Escalation will definitely lead to US using nukes.

Well that's definitely a possibility.
From recent attacks it's obvious the US and isreali establishment can't take this humiliation of defeat. Trump can't back off even if he wants to.
Trump today said a very large attack on Iran is coming and after that large part of Iran won't exist. That's definitely point towards a nuclear attack.
Well considering the mental health of trump we should not take it seriously but the thing is it's a possibility. Isreali lobby in the US won't hesitate to use nuke.
Isreal is in a very bad state now and Iran is the only country standing in their path towards greater isreal. Forget greater isreal , Iran made isreal weaker in it's current state.

 

[F.O.X]

Let's use your assumption as an argument that they agree to this and Iran has the strongest leverage. Then come back to the question? What guarantee do you have that US will honour this agreement?

You have not been able to answer this and let me tell you the answer. A very very small chance. With Nethanyahu at the helm, it will be a matter of time that he will tear this apart.

So does that point of time matter? No it doesn't because no amount of leverage is going to stop US from attacking Iran. I don't understand what is so hard to understand this. US decision making to strike Iran is not equivalent to Iran losing leverage over strait of Hormuz. The leverage has always been there.



Iran has land routes. It's not the end of its economic lifeline. It is why US is desperate asking Iran's neighbours to close all trading routes which obviously fail. Geography is permanent, and that allows Iran to use it as a leverage to be able to carry out not just attacks on US but also allow minimal economic activity.







From how you are trying to question Iran's return to negotiations, you are subconsciously framing it as weakness. Even if you are not, which I will take it, I have been claiming from the start that Iran is balancing both diplomacy and deterrence and both tools are needed to end the conflict in its favour. They are being smart utilising both tools to advance their interests in the end and will be stupid if they left one out.



I did not claim at all that Iran has lost nothing. Iran has definitely suffered and lost Khamenei, and even being pro-Iranian myself, doesn't mean they are free from criticism. But to just say they are surviving is just half of the facts. They are still able to adapt and counter attack even until last night (6 months into the war)into US bases within the region. That is not survival, that is leveraging on its geography to engage US military targets and letting them know they are not safe even if they are a 1000km away. Iran's objective of victory is very simple and victory tend to naturally favour the defender. Survive the initial onslaught, counter attack and deny enemy from achieving its objective. That itself opens the pathway for victory.

You are still treating “Iran has not surrendered” as meaning “Iran has not lost leverage.” Those are not the same thing.

No agreement comes with a guarantee. That is why hostile states use phased implementation, verification and reciprocal steps. If American bad faith makes negotiations pointless, then why are you praising Iran for combining diplomacy with deterrence? Either negotiations can protect Iranian interests or they are meaningless. You cannot argue both.

Land routes may keep some essential trade moving, but they cannot replace maritime oil exports. Iranian crude loadings have fallen from roughly 2 million barrels per day in March to around 220,000 - 255,000 in August. even iranians are saying that replacing the capacity of a single cargo ship would require around 2,500 trucks. That is damage control and downward shift of leverage.

https://www.reuters.com/business/energy/blockade-succeeds-where-sanctions-failed-iran-oil-exports-stall-2026-09-01/

Iran attacking US bases proves that it retains retaliatory capability. It does not prove that its overall position has not deteriorated. The US is still striking Iran, restricting its oil exports and operating around Hormuz. Deterrence that cannot deter those actions is clearly not the unlimited leverage you are presenting it as.

Iran may still deny regime change and eventually secure an acceptable outcome. But merely surviving while losing leadership, infrastructure, exports and bargaining space is not yet victory in my books atleast. My argument remains that Iran had better leverage earlier and failed to cash it in. What it might achieve later does not erase that mistake.

 

[Master Chief]

You are arguing about morality when my point was about strategy. The US and Israel can be the aggressors ( they are ), their attacks can be illegal (they are) and Iran can still make serious strategic mistakes in its response. These things are not mutually exclusive.

Iran had every right to defend itself. The question is whether the IRGC used that right intelligently or overestimated its position and continued escalating after Iran had already created enough leverage for a political settlement. Being the victim of aggression does not make every decision you take afterwards wise.

Russia did not formally declare war on Ukraine either. Putin announced a “special military operation” as the invasion began, just like trumpy.

Condemn the US and Israel by all means, I have no disagreement there. But turning this into a morality lecture does not answer my argument: Iran had a chance to convert survival into a political win, and the IRGC squandered it by mistaking leverage for superiority.

That's actually a rather well made point. I hope it is not lost in the ether.

To address this...

I suppose it comes down to Iran feeling that their hand was forced.

The alternative was abandoning their allies in Lebanon to their fate at the hands of the infernal machine steamrolling through their country. Now we can discuss whether Iran having such widely dispersed and strategically vulnerable allies is in itself a risky strategy, which it probably always has been, but given Iran was in that situation (wherein terms of the MoU were broken firstly by Israel), what else could Iran do? To back down and save itself from harm by sacrificing Hezbollah would have rendered every political stance taken by Iran from 1979 onwards pointless (in the sense that, if Iran was prepared to let Israel have its way in order to preserve Iran's safety, why even antagonise Israel to begin with?). To accept that would effectively have been a strategic defeat for Iran.

 

[Flotilla]

No agreement comes with a guarantee.

Specially with Trump. So what is the point to reach nothing with US. They don't have honor for any agreement.

 

[Immortals]

 

[F.O.X]

That's actually a rather well made point. I hope it is not lost in the ether.

To address this...

I suppose it comes down to Iran feeling that their hand was forced.

The alternative was abandoning their allies in Lebanon to their fate at the hands of the infernal machine steamrolling through their country. Now we can discuss whether Iran having such widely dispersed and strategically vulnerable allies is in itself a risky strategy, which it probably always has been, but given Iran was in that situation (wherein terms of the MoU were broken firstly by Israel), what else could Iran do? To back down and save itself from harm by sacrificing Hezbollah would have rendered every political stance taken by Iran from 1979 onwards pointless (in the sense that, if Iran was prepared to let Israel have its way in order to preserve Iran's safety, why even antagonise Israel to begin with?). To accept that would effectively have been a strategic defeat for Iran.

That is a fair point, and probably the strongest justification for iran’s decision. Abandoning Hezbollah would have damaged Iran’s credibility, weakened its entire regional . I can understand to an extent why tehran felt that its hand was forced.

But I do not think the only choices were complete abandonment or unlimited escalation. Iran could have supported Hezbollah while still using negotiations to limit the conflict and preserve its own position. Strategy is also about deciding how much you are prepared to sacrifice for an ally.

If preserving Hezbollah requires Iran to accept the destruction of its leadership, economy and military infrastructure, then the alliance has stopped being a strategic asset and become a liability.

Backing down would certainly have carried a political and reputational cost. But accepting a much larger strategic defeat simply to avoid admitting that the previous strategy had failed is not necessarily the wiser choice. Ultimately, Iran’s first responsibility is to preserve Iran.

 

[Hayabusa]

You are still treating “Iran has not surrendered” as meaning “Iran has not lost leverage.” Those are not the same thing.

The main leverage they have is controlling the output of oil in the strait of Hormuz. Oil exports have definitely dropped. That is leverage and they definitely have not lost it.

If you think US is the only one who can circumvent through this, then so can Iran. So is not exactly losing leverage because Iran is adapting as well.

No agreement comes with a guarantee. That is why hostile states use phased implementation, verification and reciprocal steps. If American bad faith makes negotiations pointless, then why are you praising Iran for combining diplomacy with deterrence? Either negotiations can protect Iranian interests or they are meaningless. You cannot argue both.

You focus on black or white scenario yet casually ignoring the grey region that exist. "American bad faith" as you put is actually negotiations to buy time. Iran has already experienced this last year, and even way before that when they tore up the JCPOA. Of course Iran is not going to be stupid to fall for that same trap again and they know where exactly US interest lies.

Land routes may keep some essential trade moving, but they cannot replace maritime oil exports. Iranian crude loadings have fallen from roughly 2 million barrels per day in March to around 220,000 - 255,000 in August. even iranians are saying that replacing the capacity of a single cargo ship would require around 2,500 trucks. That is damage control and downward shift of leverage.

https://www.reuters.com/business/energy/blockade-succeeds-where-sanctions-failed-iran-oil-exports-stall-2026-09-01/

Which is why I mentioned minimal economic activity. No doubt a super tanker will be the optimal scenario. But that doesn't mean they cannot adapt and sell its oil. There is always a way and Iran is still far from cracking yet. US itself has a very big problem of maintaining that blockade on a longer term. Like I mention, Iran has time on itself and US doesn't.

Iran attacking US bases proves that it retains retaliatory capability. It does not prove that its overall position has not deteriorated. The US is still striking Iran, restricting its oil exports and operating around Hormuz. Deterrence that cannot deter those actions is clearly not the unlimited leverage you are presenting it as.

Don't put words in my mouth. I did not claim unlimited leverage. They have a very strong leverage and it's geography is already extremely advantageous to it. It's not going to be removed unless Iran specifically decides to surrender.

If you claim Iran's strikes are just retaliatory, then the same can be same about US. They are unable to deter Iran from launching its counter-attacks either on the exporting ships or its bases.

And yes, it's overall position is declining as well because they have completely no answers to Iran's capability, which has been thought out for decades.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2026/08/28/friday-marks-six-months-since-trump-launched-war-iran-now-he-stuck/

Iran may still deny regime change and eventually secure an acceptable outcome. But merely surviving while losing leadership, infrastructure, exports and bargaining space is not yet victory in my books atleast. My argument remains that Iran had better leverage earlier and failed to cash it in. What it might achieve later does not erase that mistake.

You are entitled to your opinion and that's fair enough. However, my argument to you is this? Even if Iran had cash in on those terms, what makes you think that agreement would prevent US from ripping it up and proceeding to attack Iran again in a distant future? Jun'25 only emboldened Trump to go for Feb'26. To frame it as a mistake, is actually enveloped with a lack of foresight. There was nothing that could have guaranteed peace. Iran's strategy right now is to hold out till the next president takes charge.

 

[Oldenwisdom...قول بزرگ]

That's actually a rather well made point. I hope it is not lost in the ether.

To address this...

I suppose it comes down to Iran feeling that their hand was forced.

The alternative was abandoning their allies in Lebanon to their fate at the hands of the infernal machine steamrolling through their country. Now we can discuss whether Iran having such widely dispersed and strategically vulnerable allies is in itself a risky strategy, which it probably always has been, but given Iran was in that situation (wherein terms of the MoU were broken firstly by Israel), what else could Iran do? To back down and save itself from harm by sacrificing Hezbollah would have rendered every political stance taken by Iran from 1979 onwards pointless (in the sense that, if Iran was prepared to let Israel have its way in order to preserve Iran's safety, why even antagonise Israel to begin with?). To accept that would effectively have been a strategic defeat for Iran.

The MoU was pushed to control the escalation and flow of events, a release valve. That is it... it had no other utility for orange.

To assume otherwise is to assume that this war of naked aggression is a rational act. Both times, in 2025 during the first round... Mileikowsky initiated an attack while US was feigning negotiations. The second time they repeated the same... we are not going to rewrite the history here... a deranged pathological liar acting on behalf of zion while dillydallying with his realtor negotiators is not a serious actor with sound faculties... it is a drone fixated on a target and set forth to do just that... it is the rational minds across the table who start playing mind games and start rationalizing the irrational. They assume good faith by default.

Anyone who brings an argument of missed opportunity isn't working with full set... catering and over compensating for orange follies.
As it stands US is racing towards the next debt ceiling most likely reached around November or December. Bessent is buying own bonds to save the yields as no buyers want less. Ones who own them are one step from panic selling as to not be left holding the bag... the SPR is depleting. The stocks are over inflated by a margin... space x, a loss maker sold as the most expensive IPO in the history to off load on pensioners. The military is running with behemoths, relics of the past... so expensive that they have to limit their engagements for fear of loss...fighting a war where Mileikowsky says so blatantly and outloud while Americans listen bemused and bummed out!

Iran, if anything hasn't scoped the depth... their response still assumes a rational conclusion. Forgetting the fates of those faced with the same in Iraq, Libya, Syria or elsewhere... and I'm not talking about the fate of their leaders but the masses... and diminished carcasses left in their wake! People already start forgetting Gaza where a genocide is still being perpetrated and wise guy @Solomon2 still playing optics for zion.

Iran has no other way... ones sitting across the table see past them... they openly talk about killing the diplomats and leaders they're negotiating with... they do decapitation strikes on those they're talking to...
We're living the dark ages... Orange clowns and all... these times will be noted as craven, merciless death, destruction, mayhem, gore, deceit and exploitation!!!