Iran - Israel/US War: Israel-US declare war on Iran, Iran responds
- Thread starter Khorasan Black Flags
- Start date
Persian Gulf
INT'L MOD
Pak-Warrior
Registered Member
Iran should not waste its missile here anymore. This base is way too heavily defended now. Go straight for the head (Israel).
lamdacore
Registered Member
U.S. Interceptors Are Depleted, Making Iran Decision Difficult - JINSA
As the Trump administration weighs strikes on Iran following the regime’s brutal killing of protestors, it must reckon with a hard lesson from last June: in just 12 days of Israel–Iran fighting, U.S. and Israeli munitions fell to dangerously low levels. The Pentagon’s move to boost Patriot PAC-3...
jinsa.org
To be honest, id this is the end of the current Iranian government... then they need to make a last stand and unleash each and every weapon in their arsenal...its going to get destroyed anyway...so might as well use it.
The US, even with victory, should have a navy limping back to ports. The same goes for israel.
VCheng
THINK TANK: CONSULTANT
So if I understand you correctly, the brave Iranian people are not much affected by the value of the IRR. Thank you for the explanation. Then it seems that the economic sanctions are not having any effect at all.
Shags101
Trusted Member
No first wave of old rockets go in second wave of old rockets than third wave by than no matter what all interceptors would be out no time to even try to reload and as we have noticed they try to play interceptor before they arrive in Israel even if Israel’s own interceptors have been depleted they have sent back up from America.
Whatever happens if they are attacked and they have nothing to lose I do agree just go ape
teach everyone a lesson
mangekyo
Trusted Member
If this is what he believes, it means the US millitary also believes it. Because it’s his millitary advisors who have told him that.
Bharatah
Registered Member
Every day I come here, the same Zionist fake news is posted with the same content: Iran will be destroyed, war is imminent, 24 hours will be attacked, Israel won, etc.
All of this is disinformation about HYBRID WARFARE. There will be no open war because Iran today is 1000 times stronger than it was 20 years ago (when the US already considered war risky) and much stronger than Iraq in the 90s (which, with open war, took 12 years to overthrow the government, starting in 1991 and ending in 2003). Even today, the US doesn't control Iraq; just look at the fact that the new Iraqi head of state is an ally of Iran...
At most, what will happen is a media stunt, like the kidnapping of Maduro. For Trump to do jingoistic Twitter posts.
All of this is disinformation about HYBRID WARFARE. There will be no open war because Iran today is 1000 times stronger than it was 20 years ago (when the US already considered war risky) and much stronger than Iraq in the 90s (which, with open war, took 12 years to overthrow the government, starting in 1991 and ending in 2003). Even today, the US doesn't control Iraq; just look at the fact that the new Iraqi head of state is an ally of Iran...
At most, what will happen is a media stunt, like the kidnapping of Maduro. For Trump to do jingoistic Twitter posts.
shapurzolaktaf
Trusted Member
Trump dropped 3 out of the 4 demands:
Donald Trump has warned Iran it must do “two things” to avoid US military action, as US forces continue to build in the Middle East.
"Number one, no nuclear. And number two, stop killing protesters," the US president said, adding that there are “lot of very big, very powerful ships sailing to Iran right now”.
Donald Trump has warned Iran it must do “two things” to avoid US military action, as US forces continue to build in the Middle East.
"Number one, no nuclear. And number two, stop killing protesters," the US president said, adding that there are “lot of very big, very powerful ships sailing to Iran right now”.
StrategicBear
Registered Member
Yes, if Iran has nothing to lose anyway, might as well "use it or lose it" with all missiles that can be used to sink ships.
And this time I hope IRGC won't hesitate killing US soldiers just like Israel didn't hesitate killing 1000 Iranians in the last 12-day war. Show them no mercy, for they won't show Iran any. Just keep hunting them down until their naval capabilities are degraded. Iran may find it hard to shoot down B-2s or destroy Nuclear Attack Subs(SSN)s, but sinking USN surface ships is totally inside Iranian capabilities.
And this time I hope IRGC won't hesitate killing US soldiers just like Israel didn't hesitate killing 1000 Iranians in the last 12-day war. Show them no mercy, for they won't show Iran any. Just keep hunting them down until their naval capabilities are degraded. Iran may find it hard to shoot down B-2s or destroy Nuclear Attack Subs(SSN)s, but sinking USN surface ships is totally inside Iranian capabilities.
Yasser76
Elite Member
Interesting analysis by BBC
Image source,Mike Blake/Reuters
Image caption,
A naval strike group led by the USS Abraham Lincoln has arrived in the Middle East, reports say
ByAmir Azimi
BBC News Persian
Coming amid the most extensive and violent crackdown on protests in Iran in recent memory, the deployment underscores how close Washington and Tehran may now be to a direct showdown, closer than at any point in recent years.
Iranian leaders find themselves squeezed between a protest movement increasingly demanding the removal of the regime itself and a US president who has kept his intentions deliberately opaque, fuelling anxiety not only in Tehran but across an already volatile region.
Iran's response to a potential US military strike may not follow the familiar, carefully calibrated pattern seen in earlier confrontations with Washington.
President Donald Trump's recent threats, made in the context of Iran's violent suppression of domestic unrest, come at a moment of exceptional internal strain for the Islamic Republic. As a result, any US attack now carries a significantly higher risk of rapid escalation, both regionally and inside Iran.
In recent years, Tehran has shown a preference for delayed and limited retaliation.
After US strikes on Iranian nuclear facilities on 21-22 June 2025, Iran responded with a missile attack on the US-operated Al Udeid Air Base in Qatar the following day.
According to President Trump, Iran had given advance warning of the strike, allowing air defences to intercept most of the missiles. No casualties were reported. The exchange was widely interpreted as a deliberate attempt by Iran to signal resolve while avoiding a wider war.
A similar pattern emerged in January 2020, during Trump's first presidency. Following the US assassination of Quds Force commander, Qassem Soleimani near Baghdad airport on 3 January, Iran retaliated five days later by firing missiles at the US Ain al-Asad airbase in Iraq.
Again, advance warning was provided. While no US personnel were killed, dozens later reported traumatic brain injuries. The episode reinforced the perception that Tehran sought to manage escalation rather than provoke it.
Image source,Reuters
Image caption,
Trump threatened to attack Iran if protesters were killed
The present moment, however, is markedly different.
Iran is emerging from one of the most serious waves of domestic unrest since the establishment of the Islamic Republic in 1979.
Protests that erupted in late December and early January were met with a severe violent crackdown. Human rights organisations and medical workers inside the country report that several thousand people have been killed, with many more injured or detained.
The exact numbers cannot be verified due to a lack of access and an internet blackout which has continued for more than two weeks. Iranian authorities have not accepted responsibility for the deaths, instead blaming what they describe as "terrorist groups" and accusing Israel of fomenting the unrest.
That narrative has been echoed at the highest levels of the state. Iran's secretary of the Supreme National Security Council said recently that the protests should be seen as a continuation of last summer's 12-day war with Israel, a framing that offers insight into the authorities' security-first response and that might have been used as an excuse to justify the scale and intensity of the crackdown.
Although the scale of street protests has since diminished, they have not ended. The grievances remain unresolved, and the divide between large parts of society and the ruling system has rarely appeared so wide.
On 8 and 9 January, security forces reportedly lost control of parts of several towns and neighbourhoods in major cities before reasserting authority through overwhelming force.
That brief loss of control appears to have deeply unsettled the authorities. The calm that followed has been imposed rather than negotiated, leaving the situation highly combustible.
A limited attack may allow Washington to claim military success while avoiding immediate regional war, but it could also provide Iranian authorities with a pretext for another round of internal repression.
Such a scenario risks fresh crackdowns, mass arrests and a new wave of harsh sentences, including death penalties, for protesters already in detention.
The sudden collapse of central authority in a country of more than 90 million people would be unlikely to produce a clean or rapid transition. Instead, it could trigger prolonged instability, factional violence, and spillover effects across the region, with consequences that may take years to contain.
These risks help explain the increasingly uncompromising rhetoric from Tehran.
Senior commanders in both the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps and the regular armed forces, along with senior political officials, have warned that any US attack-regardless of scale-would be treated as an act of war.
Such declarations have unsettled Iran's neighbours, particularly Gulf states hosting US forces. A rapid Iranian response would place those countries - and Israel - at immediate risk, regardless of their direct involvement, and raises the prospect of a conflict spreading far beyond Iran and the United States.
Washington, too, faces constraints. Trump has repeatedly warned Iranian authorities against using violence against protesters and, at the height of the unrest, told Iranians that "help is coming". Those remarks were widely circulated inside Iran and raised expectations among protesters.
Image source,Maxar Technologies/EPA
Image caption,
The US attacked Iranian nuclear sites during Iran's war with Israel in June 2025
Both sides are aware of the broader strategic picture.
Trump knows Iran is militarily weaker than it was before last summer's 12-day war, and Tehran is aware that he has little appetite for a full-scale, open-ended conflict.
That mutual awareness may provide some reassurance, but it could also create dangerous misperceptions, with each side potentially overestimating its leverage or misreading the opponent's intentions.
For Trump, finding a balance, whatever that might be, is crucial. He needs an outcome he can present as a victory, without tipping Iran into either a renewed cycle of repression or a descent into chaos.
For Iranian leaders, the danger lies in timing and perception. Iran's previous model of delayed, symbolic retaliation may no longer be sufficient if leaders believe speed is essential to reassert deterrence on the outside and control inside of the country that was shaken by the scale of the recent unrests.
Yet, a rapid response would sharply increase the risk of miscalculation, drawing regional actors into a conflict few can afford.
With both sides under intense pressure and little room to manoeuvre, a long-running game of brinkmanship may be approaching its most dangerous moment, one in which the cost of getting the balance wrong would be borne not only by governments, but by millions of ordinary Iranians and the wider region beyond.
www.bbc.co.uk
Why Iran's response to a US attack could be different this time
Image caption,
A naval strike group led by the USS Abraham Lincoln has arrived in the Middle East, reports say
ByAmir Azimi
BBC News Persian
- Published
4 hours ago
- Published
Coming amid the most extensive and violent crackdown on protests in Iran in recent memory, the deployment underscores how close Washington and Tehran may now be to a direct showdown, closer than at any point in recent years.
Iranian leaders find themselves squeezed between a protest movement increasingly demanding the removal of the regime itself and a US president who has kept his intentions deliberately opaque, fuelling anxiety not only in Tehran but across an already volatile region.
Iran's response to a potential US military strike may not follow the familiar, carefully calibrated pattern seen in earlier confrontations with Washington.
President Donald Trump's recent threats, made in the context of Iran's violent suppression of domestic unrest, come at a moment of exceptional internal strain for the Islamic Republic. As a result, any US attack now carries a significantly higher risk of rapid escalation, both regionally and inside Iran.
In recent years, Tehran has shown a preference for delayed and limited retaliation.
After US strikes on Iranian nuclear facilities on 21-22 June 2025, Iran responded with a missile attack on the US-operated Al Udeid Air Base in Qatar the following day.
According to President Trump, Iran had given advance warning of the strike, allowing air defences to intercept most of the missiles. No casualties were reported. The exchange was widely interpreted as a deliberate attempt by Iran to signal resolve while avoiding a wider war.
A similar pattern emerged in January 2020, during Trump's first presidency. Following the US assassination of Quds Force commander, Qassem Soleimani near Baghdad airport on 3 January, Iran retaliated five days later by firing missiles at the US Ain al-Asad airbase in Iraq.
Again, advance warning was provided. While no US personnel were killed, dozens later reported traumatic brain injuries. The episode reinforced the perception that Tehran sought to manage escalation rather than provoke it.
Image caption,
Trump threatened to attack Iran if protesters were killed
The present moment, however, is markedly different.
Iran is emerging from one of the most serious waves of domestic unrest since the establishment of the Islamic Republic in 1979.
Protests that erupted in late December and early January were met with a severe violent crackdown. Human rights organisations and medical workers inside the country report that several thousand people have been killed, with many more injured or detained.
The exact numbers cannot be verified due to a lack of access and an internet blackout which has continued for more than two weeks. Iranian authorities have not accepted responsibility for the deaths, instead blaming what they describe as "terrorist groups" and accusing Israel of fomenting the unrest.
That narrative has been echoed at the highest levels of the state. Iran's secretary of the Supreme National Security Council said recently that the protests should be seen as a continuation of last summer's 12-day war with Israel, a framing that offers insight into the authorities' security-first response and that might have been used as an excuse to justify the scale and intensity of the crackdown.
Although the scale of street protests has since diminished, they have not ended. The grievances remain unresolved, and the divide between large parts of society and the ruling system has rarely appeared so wide.
On 8 and 9 January, security forces reportedly lost control of parts of several towns and neighbourhoods in major cities before reasserting authority through overwhelming force.
That brief loss of control appears to have deeply unsettled the authorities. The calm that followed has been imposed rather than negotiated, leaving the situation highly combustible.
Uncompromising rhetoric
Against this backdrop, the nature of any US strike becomes critical.A limited attack may allow Washington to claim military success while avoiding immediate regional war, but it could also provide Iranian authorities with a pretext for another round of internal repression.
Such a scenario risks fresh crackdowns, mass arrests and a new wave of harsh sentences, including death penalties, for protesters already in detention.
- Is the US preparing to strike Iran again?
- Published
1 day ago
- Published
- Published
1 day ago
- Published
The sudden collapse of central authority in a country of more than 90 million people would be unlikely to produce a clean or rapid transition. Instead, it could trigger prolonged instability, factional violence, and spillover effects across the region, with consequences that may take years to contain.
These risks help explain the increasingly uncompromising rhetoric from Tehran.
Senior commanders in both the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps and the regular armed forces, along with senior political officials, have warned that any US attack-regardless of scale-would be treated as an act of war.
Such declarations have unsettled Iran's neighbours, particularly Gulf states hosting US forces. A rapid Iranian response would place those countries - and Israel - at immediate risk, regardless of their direct involvement, and raises the prospect of a conflict spreading far beyond Iran and the United States.
Washington, too, faces constraints. Trump has repeatedly warned Iranian authorities against using violence against protesters and, at the height of the unrest, told Iranians that "help is coming". Those remarks were widely circulated inside Iran and raised expectations among protesters.
Image caption,
The US attacked Iranian nuclear sites during Iran's war with Israel in June 2025
Both sides are aware of the broader strategic picture.
Trump knows Iran is militarily weaker than it was before last summer's 12-day war, and Tehran is aware that he has little appetite for a full-scale, open-ended conflict.
That mutual awareness may provide some reassurance, but it could also create dangerous misperceptions, with each side potentially overestimating its leverage or misreading the opponent's intentions.
For Trump, finding a balance, whatever that might be, is crucial. He needs an outcome he can present as a victory, without tipping Iran into either a renewed cycle of repression or a descent into chaos.
For Iranian leaders, the danger lies in timing and perception. Iran's previous model of delayed, symbolic retaliation may no longer be sufficient if leaders believe speed is essential to reassert deterrence on the outside and control inside of the country that was shaken by the scale of the recent unrests.
Yet, a rapid response would sharply increase the risk of miscalculation, drawing regional actors into a conflict few can afford.
With both sides under intense pressure and little room to manoeuvre, a long-running game of brinkmanship may be approaching its most dangerous moment, one in which the cost of getting the balance wrong would be borne not only by governments, but by millions of ordinary Iranians and the wider region beyond.
Why Iran's response to a US attack could be different this time
Tehran has threatened to treat an attack by the US as part of last summer's war, and its response could be more dramatic.
www.bbc.co.uk
Yasser76
Elite Member
Yes, Trump's unpredicatbility os the curve ball in all of this for sure.
I think so, too. This would be beneficial for Iran, the US, Turkey, and all others in the region and beyond, except for the Netanyahu regime. So, we know it won't happen.
I don't believe that the Turkish government has the influence to persuade Trump to call off the attack on Iran but it's worth a shot.
Homajon
Registered Member
Aren't you the guy who after the war 7 months ago excitedly and happily acted like a major Kurdish secessionist uprising was currently taking place in Iran and central authority lost all control over Kurdish regions?
Meengla
Elite Member
I don't think Netanyahu--who is the prime driver of what's going on--will settle for anything less than Iran's long range missile capability eroded as long as Trump is the President. Remember he said 'Unique Opportunity' after Assad govt fell in Syria. So if not now then by the time Trump leaves the office--which is sadly still about 3 years away--a major, frontal war on Iran is very likely.
The only places Americans would put significant 'boots on the ground, like done in case of Afghanistan (2001) and Iraq (2003) will be places like Greenland, Panama... There is no appetite in this country for casualties.
Users who are viewing this thread
Country Watch Latest
Latest Posts
-
-
The Forgotten Muslim Victims of Partition: What Happened in East Punjab, Delhi and Jammu in 1947 (10 Viewers)- Latest: PakistanLVR
-
-
-
