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

damn u guys have that curse too .

You have it too? I thought it had started with us first?

Outside of the South Asian languages, Persian is the most dominant part of Urdu language. Recently saw a video where youngens from several Islamic countries were comparing shared words; I think the countries were: Iran, Turkey, Egypt, Uzbekistan, Pakistan and 1-2 more and the Pakistani guy and the Iranianian lady had more words shared with each other than with others.
 
1000% agree with this assessment. Relying on only 1 domain is militarily flawed. Iran needs an effective air force, and IADS to protect the missile bases and their entrances so that the missiles can then be used for offensive operations.

But how can Iran have this air force if no one - especially Russia and China - is willing to sell their latest fighter jets to Iran? Russia under Putin cares more about Israel than Iran and drags its feet to sell its latest fighter jets and ADS to Iran. You virtually have a guy (Putin) who has stated in the past that he will help the effort to "rebuild the Solomon Temple" in Jerusalem. Do you seriously expect that man to come to Iran's aid against Israel?

China from foreign policy perspective is good at supporting Iran, but it is most likely the sanctions, imposed on Iran by the West, are what keeps Chinese firms from committing significant arms purchases with Iran.

Another thing that worries the Chinese is the Iranian system where one of the factions (the Reformist camp) in the political establishment is viewed as pro-Western. It is kind of a difficult to fully back a country who is 4 or 5 years down the road could be supporting your adversary. Nevertheless, China buys 90% of Iranian oil, keeps the Iranian economy afloat, and is beating the sanctions by bypassing the US dollar and the SWIFT system when buying Iranian oil.

Bottom line, it is not easy for Iran to acquire this air force that people keep emphasizing. First, the crippling sanctions handicap Iran from committing significant resources to buying expensive fighter jets. Second, they used to have solid indigenous fighter jet development program, but this program has been under the Iranian air force, and most of the funding has been going to IRGC-led asymmetric programs such as missiles, drones, and air defense. And as the 12-day war has shown, the IRGC has done well with that limited funding.


We saw how freely Israel was able to progressively take down the entrances to these bases, and thereby reducing firing rates of missiles near the end of the 12 day war.

Had Iran had a proper air force, the rate at which Israel would have been able to reduce the firing capability of Iran itself would have been reduced too, thereby providing more offensive power for longer, and for damage on Israel. Iran may well have been able to go after the air refuelling tankers over Iraq, pushing back the logistics chain and force Israel to have to devote more aircraft to protect the air-refuellers, which would have reduced how many aircraft could be used for offensive actions. The fact that the Israeli aircraft flew to attack Iran with no air-air missiles because they had no threat to face, shows the folly of Iran's approach.

Any modern country needs an effective IADS, an effective air force, and then an effective offensive capability. The offensive capability itself needs active protection so that it can be utilised for it's required military outcomes.

Having an IADS and air force, are also complimentary and balanced. The fact that Iran has started to procure Su-35s shows that they have finally realised the error of their ways in relying solely on missiles as a defence policy, and we can assume that Iran will rebuild its air force over the years.
 
Last edited:
So, Iran can turn this into a nightmare by not stopping at 14 days,

Max Blumenthal is a very credible analyst and I pay attention to every word he says, just like I pay attention to Trita Parsi.
Per Max, Trump would like to wrap up very quickly (I think he used, 'Sugar High' from the Venezuela success grabbing Maduro) and for that, per Max, tactical nukes to subdue Iran could be used to wrap up in first two days of the conflict.
I don't rule that out at all. Not at all.
 
Max Blumenthal is a very credible analyst and I pay attention to every word he says, just like I pay attention to Trita Parsi.
Per Max, Trump would like to wrap up very quickly (I think he used, 'Sugar High' from the Venezuela success grabbing Maduro) and for that, per Max, tactical nukes to subdue Iran could be used to wrap up in first two days of the conflict.
I don't rule that out at all. Not at all.
If US uses tactical nukes on Iran then Iran would have the moral justification and obligation to develop nukes. You really have no idea of Iranian resolve in the face WMDs, because that would be a massive assumption on your part if you think Iran would stop fighting if US used tactical nukes in two days. US would have to wipe Iran off the map for a nuke strategy to work which is a can of worms that even Trump wouldn't open.
 
Outside of the South Asian languages, Persian is the most dominant part of Urdu language. Recently saw a video where youngens from several Islamic countries were comparing shared words; I think the countries were: Iran, Turkey, Egypt, Uzbekistan, Pakistan and 1-2 more and the Pakistani guy and the Iranianian lady had more words shared with each other than with others.
Many Pakistanis here fail to understand that a powerful, prosperous, secular Iran is in fact pretty good for Pakistan as well. Most Pakistanis are focusing on Iran's current threats against Israel, but first of all, these threats have never been materialized in action, and secondly, it has enabled Israel to normalize its relations with Arabs and Turks while a secular Iran would most likely impact Arab-Israel relations negatively.

First of all, there is no doubt that Pakistanis are closer to Iranians than Turkish or Saudi people. An average Pakistani would fit right in in many provinces of Iran and Urdu and Pashto are both Iranic languages.

Secondly, a secular Iran means that Pakistan, by extension, would get rid of religious superstitions through cultural exchange. Iranian music used to be quite famous in neighboring countries during the time of the Shah. Our cinema after the Islamic Republic also produced some really good movies like The Children of Heaven, The Color of Paradise, etc. If Iran becomes secular, surely it will have an impact on our neighboring countries as well, particularly other Iranic people.

Thirdly, a prosperous Iran means that Pakistanis can come to Iran to work with good salaries. Unlike the Emirates or Arab countries where Arab citizens and Europeans are offered the most prestigious jobs with the highest salaries, while people from Southern Asia are usually offered low salaries only to survive, there has never been such discrimination in Iran even during the time of the Shah or the Islamic Republic.

Fourthly, Iran can guarantee Pakistan's energy needs. If the Iran-Pakistan-India pipeline had been launched in 2015, not only Pakistan would've had access to cheap energy a decade ago, but India would've been reliant on Pakistan for energy, effectively reducing India-Pakistan tensions due to energy reliance.

So, it's not just black and white. A secular Iran is definitely a positive development for our neighbors that share similar culture with us.
 
If US uses tactical nukes on Iran then Iran would have the moral justification and obligation to develop nukes. You really have no idea of Iranian resolve in the face WMDs, because that would be a massive assumption on your part if you think Iran would stop fighting if US used tactical nukes in two days. US would have to wipe Iran off the map for a nuke strategy to work which is a can of worms that even Trump wouldn't open.
If the US uses tactical nukes on Iran, you won't be given a chance to develop nukes to retaliate.

Japan was nuked twice with weapons that were considered strategic at the time. Look at Japan now. Did they ever even think of retaliation against the US? No.
 
If US uses tactical nukes on Iran then Iran would have the moral justification and obligation to develop nukes. You really have no idea of Iranian resolve in the face WMDs, because that would be a massive assumption on your part if you think Iran would stop fighting if US used tactical nukes in two days. US would have to wipe Iran off the map for a nuke strategy to work which is a can of worms that even Trump wouldn't open.

It is not my assumption or even Max's; he is saying that Trump would like to wrap up in two days by using tactical nukes.
BTW, the impact of nukes--the psychological impact, that is--is not be underestimated; they would not be just nukes destroying some military targets but as 'warning' to escalate such strikes further; study Hiroshima and Nagasaki for that. And who is going to stop Trump from doing so?? It is a jungle out there!

Many Pakistanis here fail to understand that a powerful, prosperous, secular Iran is in fact pretty good for Pakistan as well. Most Pakistanis are focusing on Iran's current threats against Israel, but first of all, these threats have never been materialized in action, and secondly, it has enabled Israel to normalize its relations with Arabs and Turks while a secular Iran would most likely impact Arab-Israel relations negatively.

I don't think Pakistanis care who rules Iran as long as it is not too much in India or Israel's orbit. There were good relations between Pakistan and Iran under Shah and even since 1979, relations have not been too bad and Pakistan's border posture on Iran tells that.
 
Max Blumenthal is a very credible analyst and I pay attention to every word he says, just like I pay attention to Trita Parsi.
Per Max, Trump would like to wrap up very quickly (I think he used, 'Sugar High' from the Venezuela success grabbing Maduro) and for that, per Max, tactical nukes to subdue Iran could be used to wrap up in first two days of the conflict.
I don't rule that out at all. Not at all.

Donald Trump is most certainly stupid enough to order a tactical nuclear strike on some of the heavily defended missile bases, but the problem for the USA is that if he does, then that gives the green light to Russia to start using them in Ukraine.
 
Donald Trump is most certainly stupid enough to order a tactical nuclear strike on some of the heavily defended missile bases, but the problem for the USA is that if he does, then that gives the green light to Russia to start using them in Ukraine.

Right but do the Americans care for the Ukrainian dead?? No.
 
Here is the Max video I keep referring to above.

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.
 
And the Trita Parsi video I have been referring to above:

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.


And this shocking video of Rubio betraying the brain behind Trump's world vision. Not only colonialism of the past is justified but also betrays the disdain for the brown/black people of this world and in that mindset, what are a few million dead from nukes??

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.
 
Your baseline argument is wrong because you are talking about generic mini conflict scenario between two similar countries. Fine. But we are not facing some rando 3rd world country with few jets or tracking radars here and there. We are facing Israelis+US+NATO, not even RuAF can face them alone. Even when we fire a missile from Iranian territory, US AD assets on ground, sea, air, space, pick it from its ignition on TEL, search n track it, transfer real time data to Israeli layered ABM/AD shields who just have to shoot the exo+endo atmospheric interceptors for it (They failed against Fattah-1, Kheybar Shikan, Ghadr-F etc). IRGC had to strap in EW patches to MRBMs to escape bidcourse jamming by US sats after True Promise II . In this extreme hostile environment good luck sending a 4th or 4+ generation imported fighter to enemy territory or in proximity to such first world enemy with worlds largest defence budget and tech in its hand. That jet will be facing Massive EW attacks, Search-Track-Detect-Attack from TPY2, SPY-2 slaved THAAD, Iron Dome, PAC-3, hundreds of F-22, F-15E/I, F-18E/G, F-35I/B, all integrated. Back home its airbase cant stop volleys of 1000 Tomahawks or hundreds of separating warhead lofted apogee ALBMs no matter which AD battery you park near it. I have not even counted the internal quadcopter or ATGM terrorism they can cause because they have the money and means to use your own disgruntled population against you. 50-100 Million USD per airframe can turn into rubble on ground against such enemy. Also the same enemy, because they are diplomatically and financially controlling the most of the globe can cause hurdle in much needed spare parts for such planes. Even with ToT you need critical replacement parts to keep the fleet alive because outside superpowers nobody makes those parts. We saw what happened to our Shah bought worlds 4th largets fleet during war against Arabs when 450 fighters had no regular parts supply. You see the dilemma of launching fighters against such foe ? IRGCASF does not face any such hindrance, they have underground bases so they are not vulnurable and they can attack enemy with variety of missiles without fear of losing aircraft or people in air, a moral degrader. Hence its better to fund them instead of making mistakes that Baathist Iraq comitted of launching few Mig-21/23 against 500 F-16/18/15. IRIAF needs to be built but underground airbases are a must for us and so far we barely have 1-2 that can house 2-3 squadrons at most. The money and resources required to create 6 more such bases to house 8-10 squadrons of SU-35S will give IRGCASF 4-5 underground missiles bases that can launch hundreds of K-4 Post Boost Phase submunition IRBM to Fattah Hypersonic to Soumar Long range LACM. Even with this amount of money, the MIG-29 SMT, YAK-130, SU-30SM, SU-24MK fleet will still be sitting naked above surface.

What you are describing is true if we fight a regional enemy or enemies then yes but it wont work against US+NATO+Israel.



So far following missiles have hit enemy targets without getting shot, despite being fired in high numbers (last 5 years).

Fattah-1 Hypersonic MaRV-MRBM
Kheybar Shekan-1/2 high supersonic/pseudo-hypersonic MaRV MRBM
P-800 Oniks High Supersonic CM
Khinzal ALBM
Golden Horizon Separating RV ALBM
Rocks Separating RV ALBM
Blue Sparrow Separating RV ALBM

Ukrainians claim to have shot down few Khinzals but even if we go by their claim the % kill ration is barely 10%. Rest have not been touched despite facing THAAD, Iron Dome, S-300PMU-2, Khordad, HQ-16/9 etc. Attack weaponry tech has far exceeded the AD tech. If we dont adapt to changing warfare then we are doomed.
At the very least, you need to ensure the security of the ballistic missile launch site, so that it won't be easily targeted by the Israelis. Currently, Iran's air defense system has not performed well in fulfilling its duties.
 
Max Blumenthal is a very credible analyst and I pay attention to every word he says, just like I pay attention to Trita Parsi.
Per Max, Trump would like to wrap up very quickly (I think he used, 'Sugar High' from the Venezuela success grabbing Maduro) and for that, per Max, tactical nukes to subdue Iran could be used to wrap up in first two days of the conflict.
I don't rule that out at all. Not at all.

Both Israel and the deep state want this war until they can achieve regime change or at least Iran that has no teeth (no nukes, no missiles) to bite. Figures like John Bolton, Lindsey Graham, and Marco Rubio have been the public face of this campaign.

As for Trump, they got something on him that he doesn't want his MAGA base to know. They will drive him to whatever direction that they want.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top