Really, no much risk for Indians to be allowed in Iran................. We want our country to remain clean as much as possible...
Iran - Israel/US War: Israel-US declare war on Iran, Iran responds
- Thread starter Khorasan Black Flags
- Start date
Really, no much risk for Indians to be allowed in Iran................. We want our country to remain clean as much as possible...
Mr Iran Eye
Registered Member
I like Iran's silence on the imminent future attack by Israel and the USA
Ali_Baba
VIP Member
Well if Iran is attacked again, let’s hope they don’t wait to tell the UN session how they have been attacked and how they have a right to defend themselves before doing anything
instead they should learn to respond immediately.. hopefully lesson have been learned and acted on.
Mr Iran Eye
Registered Member
If I understand correctly from the statements of the last few weeks, something will happen in Israel before their attack. Let's see...
StrategicBear
Registered Member
I want Iran to sink US Aircraft Carrier, so fight seriously this time!
National Security of Asian Nations mustn't be at the mercy of White European-descent Colonizers from America! Take the fight back at them in their homelands too if they bomb Iran!
National Security of Asian Nations mustn't be at the mercy of White European-descent Colonizers from America! Take the fight back at them in their homelands too if they bomb Iran!
StrategicBear
Registered Member
I'd shoot them down if I were Iran. No mercy to Colonizer Races!
ety
Trusted Member
Medvedev's original message to Iran: Deterring the US isn't about Su-35s and J-10s; only nuclear weapons can protect the nation!
2026-01-06 10:05 Source: Inertial World
Published in: Shanxi Province
In today's globalized world, the existence of nuclear weapons is not merely a symbol of military power, but also a crucial bargaining chip in international political maneuvering. The power struggles among the United States, Russia, Iran, and other countries in this domain reflect how the post-Cold War world order is being reshaped. Given the recent developments in nuclear weapons by various nations, we are compelled to consider: behind the proliferation of nuclear weapons lies a yearning for security, or a sense of helplessness in the face of hegemony?
In the early Cold War of the 1950s, the nuclear arms race between the United States and the Soviet Union provided a tremendous impetus for the expansion of power by the two superpowers. This vicious cycle seems to continue today. The US nuclear strategy has always been centered on deterrence, while with Russia's comprehensive military upgrades in recent years, especially after Putin came to power, nuclear forces have once again become the focus of its security policy. The recent advice given to Iran by Dmitry Medvedev, Deputy Chairman of the Russian Security Council, is evidence of this. He stated that deterring the United States requires not Su-35 and J-10 fighter jets, but nuclear weapons. This is according to a report by the US media outlet *Military Watch* on January 4, 2026, in which Medvedev pointed Iran in the right direction: develop nuclear weapons. He stated, "Only a nuclear arsenal can provide the maximum strengthening and guarantee reliable protection for the country!"
With the outbreak of the war in Ukraine, Russia's nuclear strategy has become more apparent. Under the framework of the "State Armaments Program 2027-2036," Russia has prioritized the modernization of its nuclear forces and air defense systems. This means that Russia will continue to strengthen its nuclear arsenal in the future to maintain strategic balance with the United States. In this context, the Iranian nuclear issue appears particularly complex.
Relations between Iran and Western countries have remained tense. Although the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) has confirmed that Iran has not developed nuclear weapons, continued pressure from the United States and Israel has forced Iran to repeatedly discuss the issue. In this process, Medvedev's remarks may have offered Iran a new perspective: nuclear weapons are not only a last resort for defense, but also a tool for confronting powerful nations.
Since the Cold War, the United States has established a comprehensive nuclear deterrence theory, emphasizing that only a very small number of countries would be considered enemies simply for possessing nuclear weapons—this is the "security" guarantee provided by nuclear weapons. However, this concept appears increasingly fragile today. The "absolute advantage" demonstrated by the United States has revealed its vulnerabilities in the counterattacks of several countries. We have seen North Korea's change in attitude after acquiring nuclear capabilities, forcing the United States to adjust its strategy. The North Korea-US summit held during Trump's administration is a case in point.
Compared to past threats and sanctions, North Korea has, to some extent, gained access to dialogue with the United States. This phenomenon indicates a significant enhancement in the dialogue rights and autonomy of nuclear-weapon states. Therefore, Medvedev's assertion is not merely directed at Iran, but rather represents a challenge to the global nuclear order.
Iran's nuclear technology has now advanced to near weapons-grade levels, and whether it truly pursues nuclear weapons will depend on its assessment of the international situation. Medvedev's advice undoubtedly offers insights for countries facing external pressure: in the international community, compromise by the weak often results in greater oppression. Under this logic, possessing nuclear weapons becomes an "inevitable path" to confront powerful nations.
Of course, developing nuclear weapons could provoke a strong backlash from the international community, and Iran would have to make a difficult choice between security and morality. Historically, countless countries have paid a heavy price for pursuing nuclear capabilities; therefore, it is worth being wary of whether Iran is willing to take this step in the face of potential consequences.
Whether it's the geopolitical shifts brought about by the Russia-Ukraine war or Medvedev's remarks about Iran, both reveal a truth: in the face of American hegemony, confrontation between nations is inevitable. The core strategy of the United States is to maintain its dominant position to contain the rise of potential rivals, but as the lessons of the Cold War have shown, this approach is destined to trigger a new round of conflict and confrontation.
Especially after Venezuelan President Maduro was captured by US special forces, we see that the US intervention policy in Latin America remains imbued with a stubborn hegemonic attitude. This incident not only made people aware of the US's hardline stance once again, but also prompted other countries to reassess their own security policies.
Faced with an increasingly complex international situation, nuclear weapons, as a symbol of security, are playing an increasingly important role. The competition between nations is no longer just a simple military confrontation, but a comprehensive contest involving multiple levels such as economy, technology, and culture. In this process, only those with sufficient strategic vision and flexible response capabilities can remain invincible on the ever-changing international stage.
2026-01-06 10:05 Source: Inertial World
Published in: Shanxi Province
In today's globalized world, the existence of nuclear weapons is not merely a symbol of military power, but also a crucial bargaining chip in international political maneuvering. The power struggles among the United States, Russia, Iran, and other countries in this domain reflect how the post-Cold War world order is being reshaped. Given the recent developments in nuclear weapons by various nations, we are compelled to consider: behind the proliferation of nuclear weapons lies a yearning for security, or a sense of helplessness in the face of hegemony?
In the early Cold War of the 1950s, the nuclear arms race between the United States and the Soviet Union provided a tremendous impetus for the expansion of power by the two superpowers. This vicious cycle seems to continue today. The US nuclear strategy has always been centered on deterrence, while with Russia's comprehensive military upgrades in recent years, especially after Putin came to power, nuclear forces have once again become the focus of its security policy. The recent advice given to Iran by Dmitry Medvedev, Deputy Chairman of the Russian Security Council, is evidence of this. He stated that deterring the United States requires not Su-35 and J-10 fighter jets, but nuclear weapons. This is according to a report by the US media outlet *Military Watch* on January 4, 2026, in which Medvedev pointed Iran in the right direction: develop nuclear weapons. He stated, "Only a nuclear arsenal can provide the maximum strengthening and guarantee reliable protection for the country!"
With the outbreak of the war in Ukraine, Russia's nuclear strategy has become more apparent. Under the framework of the "State Armaments Program 2027-2036," Russia has prioritized the modernization of its nuclear forces and air defense systems. This means that Russia will continue to strengthen its nuclear arsenal in the future to maintain strategic balance with the United States. In this context, the Iranian nuclear issue appears particularly complex.
Relations between Iran and Western countries have remained tense. Although the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) has confirmed that Iran has not developed nuclear weapons, continued pressure from the United States and Israel has forced Iran to repeatedly discuss the issue. In this process, Medvedev's remarks may have offered Iran a new perspective: nuclear weapons are not only a last resort for defense, but also a tool for confronting powerful nations.
Since the Cold War, the United States has established a comprehensive nuclear deterrence theory, emphasizing that only a very small number of countries would be considered enemies simply for possessing nuclear weapons—this is the "security" guarantee provided by nuclear weapons. However, this concept appears increasingly fragile today. The "absolute advantage" demonstrated by the United States has revealed its vulnerabilities in the counterattacks of several countries. We have seen North Korea's change in attitude after acquiring nuclear capabilities, forcing the United States to adjust its strategy. The North Korea-US summit held during Trump's administration is a case in point.
Compared to past threats and sanctions, North Korea has, to some extent, gained access to dialogue with the United States. This phenomenon indicates a significant enhancement in the dialogue rights and autonomy of nuclear-weapon states. Therefore, Medvedev's assertion is not merely directed at Iran, but rather represents a challenge to the global nuclear order.
Iran's nuclear technology has now advanced to near weapons-grade levels, and whether it truly pursues nuclear weapons will depend on its assessment of the international situation. Medvedev's advice undoubtedly offers insights for countries facing external pressure: in the international community, compromise by the weak often results in greater oppression. Under this logic, possessing nuclear weapons becomes an "inevitable path" to confront powerful nations.
Of course, developing nuclear weapons could provoke a strong backlash from the international community, and Iran would have to make a difficult choice between security and morality. Historically, countless countries have paid a heavy price for pursuing nuclear capabilities; therefore, it is worth being wary of whether Iran is willing to take this step in the face of potential consequences.
Whether it's the geopolitical shifts brought about by the Russia-Ukraine war or Medvedev's remarks about Iran, both reveal a truth: in the face of American hegemony, confrontation between nations is inevitable. The core strategy of the United States is to maintain its dominant position to contain the rise of potential rivals, but as the lessons of the Cold War have shown, this approach is destined to trigger a new round of conflict and confrontation.
Especially after Venezuelan President Maduro was captured by US special forces, we see that the US intervention policy in Latin America remains imbued with a stubborn hegemonic attitude. This incident not only made people aware of the US's hardline stance once again, but also prompted other countries to reassess their own security policies.
Faced with an increasingly complex international situation, nuclear weapons, as a symbol of security, are playing an increasingly important role. The competition between nations is no longer just a simple military confrontation, but a comprehensive contest involving multiple levels such as economy, technology, and culture. In this process, only those with sufficient strategic vision and flexible response capabilities can remain invincible on the ever-changing international stage.
Last edited:
That the u.s. mught strike Iran is a real possibility, but ground invasion, kidnapping, large scale attack, long term war exchanges are probably too much for them to handle.... Yooyoo can brag for hours on his intents but Israel isn't going to be able to decide much for Iran's defence !
tsunset
The Legend
Dude the riots are ridiculous compared to 2022 (which itself was very low intensity, less than 20K rioters at its peak), now they are at 3000 rioters at its peak which is very low
And the number of rioters is declining since 3 days
Users who are viewing this thread
Pakistan Defence Latest
Country Watch Latest
-
-
Iran - Israel/US War: Israel-US declare war on Iran, Iran responds (174 Viewers)
- Latest: Pakistan First
-
-
-
