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

[Persian Gulf]

Another MQ-9 downed

Interestingly this time over the Strait of Hormoz rather than Iranian territory

 

[Professor Jiang]

Never have I come across a political class more proud of being swindled than these reformist dinosaurs.

 

[Hassan Al-Somal]

️Iran’s Assembly of Experts issued a statement on the occasion of Arbaeen and following reports of negotiations

The Board reaffirmed its full support for the Leader of the Revolution, Ayatollah Seyyed Mojtaba Khamenei, and called upon all officials to demonstrate practical adherence to his guidance.

The statement:
“The wise, insightful, hopeful and dignified messages of the Leader of the Revolution provide direction and guidance for the honourable people of Iran and the Islamic nation, and must remain at the forefront of the country’s officials’ considerations.”

Referring to repeated violations of the MoU by the US:
“Trusting this arrogant government is nothing more than a mirage. Placing hope in reaching an understanding or agreement with this bullying regime will lead nowhere. Any action aimed at securing the nation’s rights must be carried out within the framework of the Leader’s views, guidance and strategic decisions.”

The Assembly of Experts also referred to calls for surrender by alarmists and conspirators made under the guise of defending peace. It described such as an unforgivable betrayal and stressed that legally confronting such actions is an unquestionable duty of the responsible authorities.





".....Any action aimed at securing the nation’s rights must be carried out within the framework of the Leader’s views, guidance and strategic decisions.”


How much power do the Assembly of Experts have in Iran? Can they overrule the decisions of the reformist-dominated institutions?

The statement does look like Araqchi, Qalibaf, and perhaps Pezeshkian were put in notice.

 

[Professor Jiang]

️Iran’s Assembly of Experts issued a statement on the occasion of Arbaeen and following reports of negotiations

The Board reaffirmed its full support for the Leader of the Revolution, Ayatollah Seyyed Mojtaba Khamenei, and called upon all officials to demonstrate practical adherence to his guidance.

The statement:
“The wise, insightful, hopeful and dignified messages of the Leader of the Revolution provide direction and guidance for the honourable people of Iran and the Islamic nation, and must remain at the forefront of the country’s officials’ considerations.”

Referring to repeated violations of the MoU by the US:
“Trusting this arrogant government is nothing more than a mirage. Placing hope in reaching an understanding or agreement with this bullying regime will lead nowhere. Any action aimed at securing the nation’s rights must be carried out within the framework of the Leader’s views, guidance and strategic decisions.”

The Assembly of Experts also referred to calls for surrender by alarmists and conspirators made under the guise of defending peace. It described such as an unforgivable betrayal and stressed that legally confronting such actions is an unquestionable duty of the responsible authorities.





".....Any action aimed at securing the nation’s rights must be carried out within the framework of the Leader’s views, guidance and strategic decisions.”


How much power do the Assembly of Experts have in Iran? Can they overrule the decisions of the reformist-dominated institutions?

The statement does look like Araqchi, Qalibaf, and perhaps Pezeshkian were put in notice.

The AoE isn't meant for that sort of thing. It's meant to monitor the appointment, performance, and dismissal of the SL, not act as officials on his behalf.

If Sayyid Mojtaba has observed any specific actions taken by these guys that runs contrary to his advice, he should say so himself. These aren't minor policy areas, and he is the Supreme Leader at a time of war.

That said, I continue to wonder how severe his injuries are, and whether his health situation might explain his reluctance to pick political fights at this time.

 

[Ravenman]

Americans are strong because of their weaponry and Iran is depleting/killing those weaponry.

It makes also Israel weaker. At which point the US will decide that they need their own weapons more than Israel?

Iran's only purpose should be destroy the weaponry. The US cant produce more than they lose.

Russia has discovered this in the Ukraine war.

 

[Nawnaw1]

Americans are strong because of their weaponry and Iran is depleting/killing those weaponry.

It makes also Israel weaker. At which point the US will decide that they need their own weapons more than Israel?

Iran's only purpose should be destroy the weaponry. The US cant produce more than they lose.

Russia has discovered this in the Ukraine war.

I'm sure they can stop all sales and use all production to their own armed forces and take away 99% from Asia etc. Even the US mainland... Who is going to lob missiles and drones into the US mainland? Lol. Maybe save 10-15% for Ukraine. So I don't think the problem is the shortages, the problem is Iran can guarantee destroying all energy production in the region, no matter how many Patriots etc. there are. That's the real bargaining chip Iran has and the straits.

 

[Khorasan Black Flags]

 

[BHAN85]

So many pages of talks about nuclear weapons. Pathetic.

Russia has thousands of them and yet they have been put in a situation/trap in which they lose tens of thousands of good men every year, get their cities and refineries and ports and ships bombed as if they're defenseless.

Yeah, having 10-20 nukes would have prevented a US/ISR attack on Iran. Great logic.

And yeah, Russia hasn't used them because Putin is a cuck. No other reason. Sure.

Russia exists today because they have nukes.

Without nukes, Putin would be impaled like others Western enemies like Qaddafi.

Pathetic is to refuse nuclear weapons when you face a sadistic psycho enemy who enjoy bomb a school with more 100 children.

Nuclear weapons are the most useful and peaceful weapon that it exists, you dont need to use never, it has a automatic deterrence effect over every bully you face, like North Korea proved.

 

[Nawnaw1]

Russia exists today because they have nukes.

Without nukes, Putin would be impaled like others Western enemies like Qaddafi.

Pathetic is to refuse nuclear weapons when you face a sadistic psycho enemy who enjoy bomb a school with more 100 children.

Nuclear weapons are the most useful and peaceful weapon that it exists, you dont need to use never, it has a automatic deterrence effect over every bully you face, like North Korea proved.

What I'm saying is not that nukes have no use or ANY detterence. What I'm saying is that even with 6000 nukes, the West attacked Russia. Maybe they would have gone all-out themselves on Russia, but even then, Russia's conventional capabilities are vast, and Europe's aren't. The US sure. Neither the Us or Europe will allow huge military casualties, so it's a standoff-range war, like with Iran.

Any of you really think that if Iran had nukes, they would back off? Or that Iran would fire off nukes just because they get bombed? It's not how it works.

Nukes imo are MAD assurance between great powers or semi-great powers (like Pakistan vs India). Too much cost to bear. Or US/SU or now even China.

But nukes never prevented helping separatists, lobbing missiles etc. All missiles that Ukraine is firing into Russia are Western missiles, where even the buttons are pushed by Western 'specialists'. Simple as that. So go deter them with your 6000 nukes.

This isn't to say I'm against nukes, Iran should have 500 of them.

PS: also regarding North Korea. The reason nobody dares touch them is because China would step in, not because NYC would get nuked. NK has 10.000 pieces of artillery aimed at Seoul and they got China which has, with it's own blood, made clear NK is a red line (in the 1950s already). So nobody will come near NK.

 

[BHAN85]

What I'm saying is not that nukes have no use or ANY detterence. What I'm saying is that even with 6000 nukes, the West attacked Russia. Maybe they would have gone all-out themselves on Russia, but even then, Russia's conventional capabilities are vast, and Europe's aren't. The US sure. Neither the Us or Europe will allow huge military casualties, so it's a standoff-range war, like with Iran.

Any of you really think that if Iran had nukes, they would back off? Or that Iran would fire off nukes just because they get bombed? It's not how it works.

Nukes imo are MAD assurance between great powers or semi-great powers (like Pakistan vs India). Too much cost to bear. Or US/SU or now even China.

But nukes never prevented helping separatists, lobbing missiles etc. All missiles that Ukraine is firing into Russia are Western missiles, where even the buttons are pushed by Western 'specialists'. Simple as that. So go deter them with your 6000 nukes.

This isn't to say I'm against nukes, Iran should have 500 of them.

PS: also regarding North Korea. The reason nobody dares touch them is because China would step in, not because NYC would get nuked. NK has 10.000 pieces of artillery aimed at Seoul and they got China which has, with it's own blood, made clear NK is a red line (in the 1950s already). So nobody will come near NK.

So do you think this picture was due because China would step in, and not due to NK developing hydrogen bomb

Really? Then he had met Xi, not Kim.

Explain the importance of nuclear weapons to some people, it seems to be impossible, like explain the importance of sovereignty. Some people cant just understand it and they were born to be a good cucks of USA elite masters.

 

[Immortals]

 

[Nawnaw1]

So do you think this picture was due because China would step in, and not due to NK developing hydrogen bomb

Really? Then he had met Xi, not Kim.

Explain the importance of nuclear weapons to some people, it seems to be impossible, like explain the importance of sovereignty. Some people cant just understand it and they were born to be a good cucks of USA elite masters.

This is a silly post not worth replying too.

I'm the most anti-American person you will ever find. But most posters on this thread don't have full analytical skills or don't see the full picture.

What was the reason to invade Korea for the US? To be able to harrass China near it's borders. Same as NATO-expansion, same as US expansions in Iran's vicinity.

A picture 80 years later, after US establishment has fully acknowledges that it can't touch China through (North) Korea anymore, is an attempt to normalize without normalizing (can't openly ignore that they developed nukes against your wishes).

Goal: contain and harrass China near borders. This goal wasn't achieved when NK had no nukes and it won't be achieved now. Why? Big China is right there. And now they won't send 250k farmers with rifles. Now China is a bit different.

So even if NK had no nukes today, the US couldn't do anything. End of. Start learning.

Oh and for people who won't reach triple digits, Iran has no China behind it, so yes Iran is different, very different. But I was merely pointing out nukes aren't a cure-all for sovereignty issues and attacks.

 

[Nawnaw1]

Do we know what they have signed this time?

Nothing. It appears now, to me at least, that the US will adhere to (more of the) points of the MOU. Which those are, is hard to say. I don't think there will be a new agreement.

The US apparently has decided military options aren't ripe or doable/preferable at this point and Iran wants to extract a cost. Iran won't go back to 27 Feb 2026.

To all doomers and gloomers, if Iran goes back to 27 Feb 2026, then you can say that Iran has lost and been sold out.

 

[Immortals]

As a reminder the Shiite pilgrimage ends on Tuesday. Did Iran buy a week of peace like it did for Khamenai’s funeral?

 

[Immortals]