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

[ShapurII]

Face saving attempt by congress. They were low-key supporting the war from day one. Now that US lost and they see Trump are making concessions, they’re trying to make it look like they were never on board.

What concessions is Trump making though?
I haven't followed the news lately.

 

[ShapurII]

Pepe Escobar once implied he had evidence that Hassan Nasrallah faked his death. Not to be taken seriously.

Pepe Escobar is a joke. He once said that Israeli attack on Iran after TP1 or TP2 (I don't remember exactly) had been delayed because Israel wanted to use an EMP device on Tehran and Russia and others stopped Israel.

 

[Watandar]

By the way, those who opposed an Iranian preemptive strike during the US build-up in the region have been proven wrong, too. It was a major strategic mistake not to act during a time when Iran had a tactical advantage.

I don't think so. The politics and debate would have been completely different. The American public would have been told "9/11, 7/11, and now Iranian attack, you see we need another Global War on Terror 2.0". Events like the Minab school tragedy would be brushed off as "they started it" just like Gaza.

 

[Meengla]

By the way, those who opposed an Iranian preemptive strike during the US build-up in the region have been proven wrong, too. It was a major strategic mistake not to act during a time when Iran had a tactical advantage.

On the contrary: The war is unpopular all over the world, including in America, because Iran was attacked first. Iran would have gained a few tactical gains if did a 'preemptive strike' but the firepower that was concentrated against it would be only dented. Much of the American naval firepower was unreachable and the American bases were already emptied.
I have not found a single pro Iran analyst who had suggested before this war began that Iran should have struck first!

 

[Eşbah]

On the contrary: The war is unpopular all over the world, including in America, because Iran was attacked first.

The war has faced unpopularity in the US due to its results not aligning with the expectations of the Trump administration. Had they achieved a decisive victory, Trump would have been celebrated in Washington DC like Neil Armstrong's reception following the moon landing.

 

[vmro]

Pepe Escobar is a joke. He once said that Israeli attack on Iran after TP1 or TP2 (I don't remember exactly) had been delayed because Israel wanted to use an EMP device on Tehran and Russia and others stopped Israel.

Yes, I remember that Israel nuked Iran, but Russians intercepted it in the last seconds...I also can't take him seriously afterwards...

 

[ShapurII]

On the contrary: The war is unpopular all over the world, including in America, because Iran was attacked first. Iran would have gained a few tactical gains if did a 'preemptive strike' but the firepower that was concentrated against it would be only dented. Much of the American naval firepower was unreachable and the American bases were already emptied.
I have not found a single pro Iran analyst who had suggested before this war began that Iran should have struck first!

I completely disagree with this. The USAF was so confident that we would not launch a preemptive attack that almost all of their valuable assets were exposed and within our range. They had parked all their assets out in the open, neatly arranged in a provocative way.

One ballistic missile could've destroyed multiple USAF assets easily. We could've destroyed tens of USAF assets in a matter of minutes had we launched a pre-emptive strike.

Who are these pro-Iran analysts though? The ones that say Iran has defeated the US? Or the same ones that said there wouldn't be a war? Or that dude who talked about assembling multiple nukes underground as soon as Iran is attacked? Please name these pro-Iran analysts.

 

[lightning f57]

By the way, those who opposed an Iranian preemptive strike during the US build-up in the region have been proven wrong, too. It was a major strategic mistake not to act during a time when Iran had a tactical advantage.

Its a glass half full situation.

Let's say they carried out a pre-emptive strike leading to 100 dead america soldiers, 300 injured, I think thats reasonable number given not the chance to evacuate, trump would have had a strong public mandate for war, his been crying about lack of american support for months.

We should not underestimate the fact this is one of the most unpopular wars ever for the US that is another pressure lever on trump admin which has led to their failure miserably.

 

[Master Chief]

By the way, those who opposed an Iranian preemptive strike during the US build-up in the region have been proven wrong, too. It was a major strategic mistake not to act during a time when Iran had a tactical advantage.

Difficult to say for sure what was right or wrong at the time. In any event, Iran played the game well. Sometimes, one simply has no choice but to wait for the dealer to deal those cards.

I do wonder though if next time might see a different approach. The evidence for this is Iran's highly calculated attack on Israel, perhaps a month back now, after Israel broke terms of a prior ceasefire by attacking Lebanon. It may be that Israel bears the brunt of any pre-emptive strike next time if Tel aviv chooses a path of defiance, rather than USA.

 

[Meengla]

The war has faced unpopularity in the US due to its results not aligning with the expectations of the Trump administration. Had they achieved a decisive victory, Trump would have been celebrated in Washington DC like Neil Armstrong's reception following the moon landing.

The war was unpopular before it even began and that's a well known fact.

 

[Meengla]

Who are these pro-Iran analysts though? The ones that say Iran has defeated the US? Or the same ones that said there wouldn't be a war? Or that dude who talked about assembling multiple nukes underground as soon as Iran is attacked? Please name these pro-Iran analysts.

In a day I watch dozens of videos and to recall who said that before Feb. 28, will be some searching into my history. If I recall correctly, it may have been Patrick Henningsen and/or Max Blumenthal in late Feb.
And, yes, at least Max calls it a big victory for Iran. I remember before this conflict began, he refused to predict the outcome of this conflict on Judge Napo's shows. Max is a credible, careful analyst.

 

[Flotilla]

I don't think so. The politics and debate would have been completely different. The American public would have been told "9/11, 7/11, and now Iranian attack, you see we need another Global War on Terror 2.0". Events like the Minab school tragedy would be brushed off as "they started it" just like Gaza.

You're right.
Even if they deserve a preemptive strike. All ballistic missile program has been sold to the public under the title "defensive weapons" and Iranians followed exactly the manual textbook patern of defense.

And that is why slowly the shift of regional security is changing. You have two regional powers, one a Rogue State which doesn't comply with the basic rules like Israel and the other that follow international rules and fullfill their commitments in deals and treaties. So finally Saudí Arabia, Qatar and others are just taking the phone to discuss security issues.

And for that you need a responsible Government at the other side of the telephone.

 

[ShapurII]

In a day I watch dozens of videos and to recall who said that before Feb. 28, will be some searching into my history. If I recall correctly, it may have been Patrick Henningsen and/or Max Blumenthal in late Feb.
And, yes, at least Max calls it a big victory for Iran. I remember before this conflict began, he refused to predict the outcome of this conflict on Judge Napo's shows. Max is a credible, careful analyst.

I think we should wait to see the results of negotiations before calling this a victory for Iran.

If Iran manages to impose its control of the Strait of Hormuz after the war or refuses to hand over its HEU, I think it'll definitely be an Iranian victory. But if Iran loses its HEU and also loses its control over the Strait of Hormuz, then I think most people wouldn't call it an Iranian victory.

 

[Magi]

What concessions is Trump making though?
I haven't followed the news lately.

It looks like Iran opened the strait in exchange for promises of money. This was agreed to by the same negotiating team that agreed to pour cement in Arak reactor's fuel rod tubes and a accepted a one way trigger mechanism in the JCPOA. So that's par for the course.

Iran also gets to sell oil for 60 days to help build inventory in the US and fill the fuel tanks of the war machine so Iran may be attacked again.

Not surprising as the history of Iran is filled with sellouts and incompetent fools acting as politicians. The only sad part is Iran actually won this round militarily against everyone's prediction. Only for Zarif's buddies to give it away.

In the meantime a regional Sunni, anti Iran force seems to be shaping up. We are yet to see how this will be used.