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

[Immortals]

 

[Immortals]

 

[Immortals]

 

[Agnostic Muslim]

That's different than say Saudi Arabia, who said in the past that if Iran went nuclear then they would probably go nuclear.

I’m not convinced that the Saudis, even if they wanted to, could do much more than ‘rent-a-bomb’ (for the near to medium term future). They simply don’t have the domestic knowledge base to develop and deploy nuclear weapons.

They certainly have the resources to invest in a nuclear weapons program, but we’re still looking at decades, assuming that the Saudis would have to work under similar restrictions and constraints (on nuclear tech) as the Iranians and Pakistanis.

 

[tsunset]

I don't think (buying) is accurate , no country would sell some of their nuclear warheads to other country , that's insane.

there is an incident in 70s when Gaddafi went to China to buy nuclear warheads for Egypt to use against Bar-lev line and the israeli troops and his request was denied.

They don't need to ask China for nuclear warheads, North Korea or Pakistan under US pressure/threats and supervision will undoubtedly give them some warheads to fit on their Chinese BMs

Saudi Arabia doesn't have knowledge and manpower to build a device let alone have a in-house nuclear program, Saudi Arabia is an assisted country and depends on Islamophobic White Zionists for everything

Their only options left is either start a nuclear weapons program under total US supervision and financing or buy them from a third country using US threat power

 

[Desert]

They don't need to ask China for nuclear warheads, North Korea or Pakistan under US pressure/threats and supervision will undoubtedly give them some warheads to fit on their Chinese BMs

Saudi Arabia doesn't have knowledge and manpower to build a device let alone have a in-house nuclear program, Saudi Arabia is an assisted country and depends on Islamophobic White Zionists for everything

Their only options left is either start a nuclear weapons program under total US supervision and financing or buy them from a third country using US threat power

I don't know , maybe the Pakistani members here can enlighten us about that, can Pakistan sell or lend some or their nuclear warheads to saudia ?

 

[Immortals]

 

[Watandar]

I don't know , maybe the Pakistani members here can enlighten us about that, can Pakistan sell or lend some or their nuclear warheads to saudia ?

No. That is a merely a fantasy of Saudis and some heavily indoctrinated Pakistanis.

 

[Agnostic Muslim]

I don't know , maybe the Pakistani members here can enlighten us about that, can Pakistan sell or lend some or their nuclear warheads to saudia ?

At best, SA could negotiate the deployment of nuclear weapons on Saudi soil, but NO ONE is going to allow Saudi control over them.

See Turkey hosting US nuclear weapons as an example:

 

[Watandar]

When The Atlantic, an openly Zionist publication writes a sober article like this, it's time to pay attention.​

How the U.S. Squandered Its Strategic Advantage​

Idle threats and munitions shortages have boxed Trump in.
By Nancy A. Youssef and Jonathan Lemire

The United States is running out of missiles. After five months of war with Iran, stockpiles of long-range weapons are so low, current and former U.S. defense officials told us, that they don’t believe the U.S. has enough to combat a threat in Asia. The remaining supplies, depending on the munition, are as low as 20 percent of what the Pentagon would like to have in hand. And stores of sophisticated interceptor missiles, such as Patriots and Terminal High Altitude Area Defense (THAAD) missiles, are too depleted to give or sell the weapons to Ukraine or effectively defend against Iran’s launch of ballistic missiles. Even when troops see Iranian missiles approaching, they are forced to decide in a matter of seconds whether to expend a limited number of interceptors or hope for the best, the defense officials told us.

Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth this week pleaded with Republicans on Capitol Hill for billions of dollars to replenish America’s dangerously depleted stockpiles of missiles and other crucial munitions. Hegseth’s appeal was nakedly partisan—he ignored Democratic lawmakers entirely—but also long overdue.

The Pentagon this year has awarded tens of billions of dollars in contracts to replenish those arsenals. But signing contracts is not the same as delivering missiles. Those contracts will produce munitions over the coming years, not the coming months. The Trump administration has invested in the defense industrial base to accelerate production, as did the Biden administration, but for crucial systems such as the Patriot, supply is not projected to meet demand until about 2030. Meanwhile, Iran has ramped up production of its offensive drones and ballistic missiles, and enhanced their capabilities. The war is now being shaped as much by industrial supply and logistics as by economic considerations and the politics of the midterms.

President Trump raged at the assessment his national-security team gave him at Camp David on Friday, which showed that the U.S. military was running low on the munitions that would be necessary for Trump to order an escalation against Iran, a senior administration official familiar with the meeting told us. If the U.S. were to strike, Tehran would likely launch a barrage of missiles and drones against its neighbors in the region and the American bases they host.

The president barked at aides and had some pointed words for the Department of Defense’s leadership. (He is not presently considering staff changes, a White House official told us.) Trump has grown frustrated at his inability to escape the stalemate of the war; he’s seething at its toll on the economy and is desperate to move on. In a post on Truth Social earlier today, Trump said that reports of munitions shortages were false and that such “leaks” were treasonous. Manufacturers are shipping “large amounts” of munitions “as needed,” he wrote.

White House aides are concerned that Trump is losing his leverage in the conflict. He has threatened Iran many times but has rarely followed through; Tehran knows that. Tehran also knows that the U.S. is running low on munitions despite what Hegseth and the president say in public. Military leverage depends not simply on the U.S. ability to strike but also on its capacity to defend against Iran’s retaliation. Iran has displayed the confidence to further test the U.S., attacking ships in the Strait of Hormuz. The White House has maintained that Iran would soon face an economic situation so dire that the regime would be forced to negotiate, and U.S. intelligence reports suggest that Iran is struggling.

But the Trump administration has been surprised at Tehran’s resilience, and is no longer certain that the regime will reach the point where negotiation is its only option.

In the five months since the war started, the president has never faced such a weak position. The shortage of interceptors makes escalation dangerous. Nor would expanded strikes guarantee that Tehran will come back to the table.

That may leave diplomacy and concessions as the administration’s least risky option. Trump and Secretary of State Marco Rubio have repeatedly said that Iran will never be allowed to control any part of the Strait of Hormuz. But Trump is now considering a deal that gives Iran some control over maritime traffic. The proposed agreement between Oman and Iran, pending U.S. and Gulf approval, would reopen the strait by establishing a jointly managed framework for commercial shipping. Such a deal would give Iran the oversight of the crucial waterway it feels it has earned from the war, while also honoring Oman’s insistence on preserving freedom of navigation.

America’s stockpiles have been under strain for years, but became painfully clear after Russia invaded Ukraine in 2022. The U.S. military fired hundreds of missiles, some costing millions each, during the Trump administration’s 53-day campaign last year against the Houthis in Yemen. That was followed by nearly two weeks of U.S. and Israeli attacks on Iran and the interception of Iranian missiles and drones aimed at Israel. During the first 38 days of the Iran war, the U.S. launched thousands of munitions.

Hegseth has repeatedly denied any shortage, including to Trump as recently as last week, one U.S. official told us. On Capitol Hill, the defense secretary did not make a compelling case for the funding he wants, particularly to legislators who face tough reelections partly because of the war’s unpopularity. Between American voters’ frustrations with rising gas prices and Hegseth’s mixed messages and past combative relationship with Congress, “there is no goodwill for the department here,” one congressional aide told us.

Still, Congress is ultimately expected to provide much of the funds the Pentagon says it needs to replenish its stores. But what the U.S. really needs is time. Depending on the weapon, replenishment to prewar levels could take as long as five years, Mark Cancian, who tracks munitions stockpiles for the Center for Strategic and International Studies in Washington, D.C., told us.

Another three years would get stockpiles “to a level where the joint staff and U.S. commanders in charge of the Asia Pacific would be comfortable,” Cancian said. In theory, that gives Beijing plenty of time to take advantage of American shortages with, say, an invasion of Taiwan.

“Claims of U.S. munition shortages are false,” and the amplification of them is irresponsible, Sean Parnell, Pentagon spokesperson, told us in a statement. “We have everything required to strike at the time and place of the President’s choosing.”
The problem predates the Trump administration. After the Cold War, the U.S. reduced the number, and slowed the pace of production, of vital munitions, figuring that long bouts of peace between short, conclusive wars would provide plenty of capacity. But the military has been almost constantly engaged somewhere in conflicts led by missile strikes: Libya, Yemen, Syria, Iran, Nigeria. And Russia’s war with Ukraine has been defined by rapid advances in munitions. The Biden administration signed contracts to replenish Kyiv’s weapons but could not keep up with demand, Cancian told us.

The U.S. raced to develop cheaper ways to tackle the Iranian-supplied drones that Russia deployed, and has made some progress. But the stores of interceptors such as Patriots and THAADs were rapidly expended. “There are no good alternatives for stopping ballistic missiles,” Cancian told us. “Without these defensive missiles, attacking missiles will land unopposed. That is what is happening in Ukraine.”

Before Russia’s invasion, the U.S. produced roughly 300 Patriot missiles a year, half of which went to allies. Production has since doubled, but badly trails wartime demand.
Had the Iran war been over in a matter of several weeks, as the administration initially predicted, the U.S. munitions problem would not be so dire. And the problem would be mitigated “if we knew when the war will end,” one defense official told us. “The real problem is that there is no long-term strategy—and we can’t plan around that.”

Before the shortages, the U.S. used its technological advantages to shape its strategy. Now the technological advances of its foes—and the strain they have put on U.S. stockpiles—are forcing Washington to reconsider its strategy again, this time without the long-held assumption that U.S. forces would enjoy an advantage in munitions.

 

[BHAN85]

The visit of Sharif was in response to an invitation from Saudi Crown Prince and Prime Minister Mohammed bin Salman, according to Pakistan Television. Sharif will hold extensive talks with the Saudi Crown Prince. The high-level talks will focus on further strengthening Saudi -Pakistani bilateral relations and the latest regional developments.

Pakistan PM Sharif arrives in Jeddah for talks with Saudi Crown Prince

Prime Minister of Pakistan Muhammad Shehbaz Sharif arrived in Jeddah on Thursday for an official visit.

saudigazette.com.sa

 

[OldTwilight]

US can't afford more interceptors and missiles - very high cost and expensive or more debts

US/Ukraine war vs Russia
US/Israel vs Iran war
US/Saudi vs Yemen war
US/Israel vs Palestine & Lebanon
US/Taiwan vs China (coming soon...)





^20 hours ago

NK vs Sk as well

 

[Immortals]

 

[Watandar]

An in-depth article on how American Presidents has been outmaneuvered by Iranian leaders, because their thinking and motivations are different.

An Angry Trump Struggles to Understand Iran’s Defiant Leaders​

Iran’s leaders have perplexed several American presidents, perhaps none more than President Trump.

President Trump’s angry claim on Monday that Iran was being “unbelievably duplicitous” in its dealings with the United States was just the latest sign of his struggle to understand his rivals in Tehran.

Mr. Trump considers himself a master of sizing up and exploiting his adversaries. But Iran’s leaders have baffled him.

“All they do is make me angry,” he told reporters last week. “They just make me angry.”
More frustration could be in store for the American president. Trump officials say a new deal to reopen the Strait of Hormuz may be near, but Iran continues to insist on collecting fees there that Mr. Trump has ruled unacceptable.

Mr. Trump’s inability to strike a favorable deal with Iran has not only cost him politically among war-weary voters, but continued strife around the crucial waterway has made for volatile oil prices at the expense of American consumers and the global economy.

Mr. Trump is hardly the first U.S. president who has struggled to read Iran. Each of his predecessors since the country’s 1979 Islamic Revolution has tried to decode Iran’s murky power structure and the mind-set of its political leadership.

Most have come up short; some have been burned badly. A rare exception is President Barack Obama, whose 2015 nuclear deal with Iran was a 20-month diplomatic effort. Mr. Obama considered it a major achievement, despite criticism from Republicans and some Democrats that Iran had lured him into a flawed deal by feigning moderation.
But Mr. Trump may be the president who “has least understood Iran’s leadership,” said Kenneth Pollack, a former C.I.A. analyst and National Security Council official who has studied Iran for decades.

“In many ways, Trump represents the epitome of America’s frustrations with Iran,” Mr. Pollack said. “He has been both the most desirous of making a deal with Iran, and the one who used the most force against it. He has found that neither got him what he wanted.”
Mr. Trump often speaks as though massive force will produce a quick deal.
After the war opened with a Feb. 28 airstrike that killed Iran’s supreme leader of nearly 40 years, Ali Khamenei, Mr. Trump called on Iran’s people to rise up and “take over” their government. He added that he would then “choose” Iran’s next leader.

More senior Iranian officials would also be killed in airstrikes. But no popular uprising emerged.

A billboard in Tehran shows Iran’s three supreme leaders since the 1979 Islamic Revolution: from left, Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei and Ayatollah Mojtaba Khamenei. Credit...Arash Khamooshi/Polaris for The New York Times
Iran’s hard-line government instead doubled down. In March, it named a new supreme leader, Mr. Khamenei’s son, Mojtaba Khamenei. U.S. officials consider him even more rigid — and more interested in acquiring a nuclear bomb — than his father.



Iran had simply ignored Mr. Trump’s public declaration that the younger Mr. Khamenei would be an “unacceptable” choice. And Mr. Khamenei did not respond to a public offer from Mr. Trump for an in-person meeting.

Even so, Mr. Trump retained hope for major change. “Iran can get themselves on a very good footing if they make a deal,” he said in late April. Iran, he said could become “a legitimate country, not a country based on death and horror.”

Iranian officials say they can negotiate with Mr. Trump on matters such as the Strait of Hormuz and their nuclear program, even as they rule out many of his core demands.

But in a political system premised on hatred of the United States, none show interest in a larger reconciliation with the United States.

There are few signs that Mr. Trump’s months of dealing with Iran’s regime have given him a clearer understanding of it. Over the course of the conflict, Mr. Trump has constantly revised his assessment of Mr. Khamenei and his deputies. He has branded them “lunatics,” “reasonable,” “crazy bastards,” “very smart” and “stone cold crazy.”

Mr. Trump is to some degree experiencing frustrations that have bedeviled several of his predecessors who also hoped for grand bargains with Iran.

“For decades, American policymakers have consistently underappreciated the ideological commitment and deeply institutionalized structure of power in the Islamic Republic,” said Suzanne Maloney, vice president and director for foreign policy at the Brookings Institution in Washington.

One problem, Maloney noted, is how little direct exposure U.S. officials have had to top Iranian leaders. No U.S. official ever met Iran’s first supreme leader, Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, or the late Mr. Khamenei, nor his son.

Ms. Maloney said that war appears to have strengthened the power of Iran’s religious and military leadership, leaving no “viable alternative power center.”

Iran’s semi-democratic political system, which features a president and parliament under the total religious authority of its supreme leader, has at times included high-level officials open to friendlier relations with the United States.

But past appeals by Washington to those figures have mostly ended in regret.
Dennis Ross, a veteran of Middle East diplomacy who served presidents of both parties, said that “the Iranians seem to understand us better than we understand them.”

‘Bitter Disappointment’​

President Jimmy Carter speaking with reporters in April 1980 about the 52 Americans held by the Iranian government. The hostage crisis bedeviled his presidency.Credit...Bettmann Archive, via Getty Images

In 1980, President Jimmy Carter approved secret talks with Iran’s foreign minister in an effort to free the 52 American hostages seized from the U.S. Embassy in Tehran the year before.

Mr. Carter’s diary entries show him obsessing, much like Mr. Trump, on details of Iran’s political machinations — including feuds among top Iranian officials.

In early 1980 Mr. Carter thought he had struck a deal to free the hostages in return for the release of billions in frozen Iranian assets and a pledge of American noninterference in Iranian affairs, among other things.

But in what Mr. Carter called “a bitter disappointment,” Mr. Khomeini shot down the idea, blindsiding American officials and his own subordinates. Mr. Carter would eventually order a hostage rescue mission that failed before finalizing a deal that freed the Americans on his last day in office.

Secret Weapons Deals​

Five years later, President Ronald Reagan directed aides to explore a message from an Iranian arms dealer who claimed that moderate Iranian officials would be open to establishing friendly ties once the aging Mr. Khomeini had died.

In what Mr. Reagan later called a search for “a strategic opening,” he approved the secret sale of U.S. weapons to Iran in exchange for the release of American hostages held in Lebanon. The arrangement became part of what is known as the Iran-contra affair because money from the arms sales was covertly diverted, in defiance of Congress, to an anti-communist rebel group in Nicaragua known as the contras.

The affair’s exposure engulfed Mr. Reagan’s presidency in scandal, as several U.S. officials pleaded guilty or were convicted of felonies; Mr. Reagan’s former national security adviser attempted suicide.

The opening with Iran turned out to be a mirage. No friendly moderates emerged in Tehran, and the C.I.A. believed the arms dealer who began it all was a fraud. Mr. Reagan, denying knowledge of key events, apologized in a national address, while defending his original goal of courting Iranian moderates.

A Hopeful Moment Passes​

President Mohammad Khatami of Iran at the opening of the United Nations Millennium Summit in September 2000. Mr. Khatami was a moderate, but he had limited power under his country’s supreme leader.Credit...Richard Perry/The New York Times

A more tangible opportunity emerged for President Bill Clinton in 1997, when Iran elected a reformist candidate, Mohammad Khatami, as its president. Mr. Khatami called for good relations with the United States, and even expressed regret for the embassy hostage crisis.

This was the real thing.

Mr. Clinton reciprocated with gestures such as the restoration of U.S. imports of Iranian pistachios and carpets, and conciliatory remarks acknowledging some of Iran’s historical grievances.

Secretary of State Madeleine Albright even issued a public apology for the C.I.A.’s backing of a 1953 coup that overthrew Iran’s prime minister after he nationalized the country’s Western-dominated oil industry.

But powerful hard-liners opposed Mr. Khatami’s moderate vision, in part because reconciliation with the United States threatened the foundations of their anti-Western ideology.

Days after Ms. Albright’s speech, the elder Mr. Khamenei, who became supreme leader after Mr. Khomeini’s death in 1989, dismissed her words — and any possibility of dialogue with Washington.

Mr. Khatami later said privately that Mr. Khamenei believed that Iran could never make peace with the United States, according to Karim Sadjadpour, an Iran expert at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace.

Outmaneuvering Washington​

President Barack Obama fielding questions on the U.S.-Iran nuclear deal at the White House in 2015. Many officials in his administration hoped the agreement might lead to better relations with Tehran, but that was not to be.Credit...Stephen Crowley/The New York Times

Only Mr. Obama has pulled off a major diplomatic agreement with Iran, in the form of the 2015 nuclear deal that placed limits on Iran’s atomic program lasting up to 15 years in exchange for relief from economic sanctions.

Many officials in the Obama administration hoped that agreement, negotiated with another moderate Iranian leader, Hassan Rouhani, might be a first step toward better relations. But that was not to be. Mr. Khamenei approved the deal, but showed no desire for taking things further; critics said that confirmed their warnings that Mr. Rouhani would amount to a replay of Mr. Khatami.

Iranian suspicions that the U.S. could not be trusted were soon affirmed. In 2018, Mr. Trump withdrew from the nuclear deal and imposed even harsher economic sanctions than had been in place before the agreement.

Iran responded by accelerating its nuclear program, putting it on course for a violent collision with the United States and the war Mr. Trump initiated in February.
Since then, Mr. Ross said, Iran has continued to outmaneuver Washington, which Mr. Trump’s obvious impatience to conclude the war has made easier.

“They tend to read our sense of urgency as a form of leverage,” Mr. Ross said. “We always seem in a hurry to get things done. They operate under the premise that time serves their interests more than ours.”

 

[Immortals]