Iranian Chill Thread

[Tehrani021]

let's not believe every 'leaked' news that talks about any possible option

Hajizadeh said Iran discussed 14 options in response to assassination of Soleimani and Iran chose the most conservative one

ordering Iraqi Resistance to publicly promise not to attack US forces again and not to even respond to US attacks against them, shows Iran was very concerned about the US response and acted accordingly to help USA save face

Yes hence the caveat of them being true. Sometimes to make the conversation in an internet forum to move forward we have to make assumptions and use hypotheticals.

Bear in mind that Rohani and Za'eef had some say in that decision and they were weak minded people. I will reserve judgement on Raisi for now.

Well if we assume that Iran and Trump discussed and agreed on a respose for Soleimani assassination, we could also say that Trump showed weakness and allowed Iran to save face by striking Ain Al Assad, despite all the hot air coming from Trump leading up to the strike about obliterating Iran if it responsed.

 

[mangekyo]

I felt like he was implying that an appropriate response meant that Iran should tolerate it and draw a line under it. And I was explaining, I feel correctly, that it would not be appropriate and it would be double standards. If that's not what he meant then so be it.

I never said we should tolerate it. In fact, I don't think we should tolerate any strikes against us, not even strikes against our facilities in Syria, and especially not a strike within our borders. You are the one who argued that Pakistan striking us within our border was no big deal because they didn't target any IRGC facilities.

 

[Tehrani021]

I never said we should tolerate it. In fact, I don't think we should tolerate any strikes against us, not even strikes against our facilities in Syria, and especially not a strike within our borders. You are the one who argued that Pakistan striking us within our border was no big deal because they didn't target any IRGC facilities.

Yes and I stand by that. Unlike some of the rabid responses from users here, I know how to differentiate between terrorists and official infrastructure and establishment.

 

[mangekyo]

Well if we assume that Iran and Trump discussed and agreed on a respose for Soleimani assassination, we could also say that Trump showed weakness and allowed Iran to save face by striking Ain Al Assad, despite all the hot air coming from Trump leading up to the strike about obliterating Iran if it responsed.

A couple empty buildings for irreplacable Soleimani was a sweet deal. I'd take it and brag about it for the rest of my life If I were Trump.

 

[Persian Gulf]

Yes hence the caveat of them being true. Sometimes to make the conversation in an internet forum to move forward we have to make assumptions and use hypotheticals.

Bear in mind that Rohani and Za'eef had some say in that decision and they were weak minded people. I will reserve judgement on Raisi for now.

Well if we assume that Iran and Trump discussed and agreed on a respose for Soleimani assassination, we could also say that Trump showed weakness and allowed Iran to save face by striking Ain Al Assad, despite all the hot air coming from Trump leading up to the strike about obliterating Iran if it responsed.

that decision was taken by SNSC, I really doubt Zarif had any influence

I don't think the response was agreed overtly, but iran gave warning (and US detected signals) to let them withdraw and prepare to minimise risk of major casualties

Trump's rhetoric probably was factored into SNSC decision making and influenced them towards less extreme response, so in that sense Trump's rhetoric was very successful

 

[Tehrani021]

A couple empty buildings for irreplacable Soleimani was a sweet deal. I'd take it and brag about it for the rest of my life If I were Trump.

Again you're not looking at the bigger picture and forgetting that Soleimani already killed many US soldiers, established a formidable proxy presence and got Russia involved in Syria. I say he did his fair share and they got him late. Last time I'm going to speak to you about this!

100 soldiers went for concussion and if we put our tinfoil hats on, some may have died. So I don't know where you're getting empty buildings from. Stop using anti-Iran talking points. What would you do, just bomb every US base in sight?! Have you then thought about the response of such a careless option? Even Russia and China are more calculated than this and understand that you can't fluctuate too hard when trying to keep balance of power. The clue is in the word; "balance" of power.

 

[Tehrani021]

that decision was taken by SNSC, I really doubt Zarif had any influence

I don't think the response was agreed overtly, but iran gave warning (and US detected signals) to let them withdraw and prepare to minimise risk of major casualties

Trump's rhetoric probably was factored into SNSC decision making and influenced them towards less extreme response, so in that sense Trump's rhetoric was very successful

Well maybe not directly from Zareef, but no doubt the Rohani government sang from the same hymn sheet and had some influence on what options would be taken.

Well the US gave prior warning to Iran during the tanker war when they destroyed our oil fields. Was the US weak and making Iran save face? Or is this more to do with common courtesy between states?

Trump said if Iran retaliated then Iran would get obliterated. So I would only cede that to you had Iran not retaliated, but they went completely against that and retaliated. So I will have to disagree with you there. I think the weaker response was more political in the deslusional hope that the Rohani government had for the JCPOA.

 

[Persian Gulf]

Well maybe not directly from Zareef, but no doubt the Rohani government sang from the same hymn sheet and had some influence on what options would be taken.

Well the US gave prior warning to Iran during the tanker war when they destroyed our oil fields. Was the US weak and making Iran save face? Or is this more to do with common courtesy between states?

Trump said if Iran retaliated then Iran would get obliterated. So I would only cede that to you had Iran not retaliated, but they went completely against that and retaliated. So I will have to disagree with you there. I think the weaker response was more political in the deslusional hope that the Rohani government had for the JCPOA.

IRGC doesn't take orders from the government, only from Khamenei

they gave warning because that was a civilian target. do you think they gave warning when they attacked our navy ships or killed Soleimani

Trump said that as a bluff to influence iranian decision making to opt for a weaker response to avoid American deaths. very successful tactic by Trump. he killed head of IRGC Quds Force, head of Iraqi PMU, and multiple other high ranking commanders in one strike and in return just a few damaged tents in Iraq and zero American deaths. deal of the century for the USA

 

[mangekyo]

Again you're not looking at the bigger picture and forgetting that Soleimani already killed many US soldiers, established a formidable proxy presence and got Russia involved in Syria. I say he did his fair share and they got him late. Last time I'm going to speak to you about this!

What an absurd thing to say. Soleimani already did a good job, so it's ok that US took him out? Why did they take him out then and risk a potential war? They knew what he was capable of and how important he was and still is. Thats why.

 

[Immortals]

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

Accept third party cookies

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

Accept third party cookies

Seems like US isn’t backing down from a multi wave expansive strike package against the resistance.

Waving the white flag of cessation of hostilities isn’t enough at this point it appears.

 

[Tehrani021]

IRGC doesn't take orders from the government, only from Khamenei

they gave warning because that was a civilian target. do you think they gave warning when they attacked our navy ships or killed Soleimani

Trump said that as a bluff to influence iranian decision making to opt for a weaker response to avoid American deaths. very successful tactic by Trump

Velayate e faghi and government have an understanding and do communicate with each other, especially when the president is a cleric and close to the SL, so the wishes of the government would have been relayed to Khamenei.

I don't see how a military base that holds armed US troops is civilian. What Trump did was reckless and out of the norm, but Iran or any other intelligent people tend not to emulate wild creatures like that.

I can only go by what is apparent and that is that Iran called Trump's bluff by attacking. Trump was late in taking out an adversary that killed many US troops, established a formidable proxy force and got Russia involved in Syria which ended the US-funded Jihadi proxies. But let's agree to disagree.

 

[Tehrani021]

What an absurd thing to say. Soleimani already did a good job, so it's ok that US took him out? Why did they take him out then and risk a potential war? They knew what he was capable of and how important he was and still is. Thats why.

Well it's not "okay" but it is unreasonable to except that he would not be targetted. The US wanted to take out Soleimani for years prior to this. Because Trump was wreckless and in the end the military and Pompeo had to cool him off. Thankfully Soleimani accomplished most of what he was set out to do before they got him. I'm sorry but in war it is also absurd to think people wont get killed, it's stating the obvious but I feel compelled to state it. Russia has lost many men who they saw as their versions of Soleimani in the Ukraine war.

 

[Tehrani021]

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

Accept third party cookies

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

Accept third party cookies

Seems like US isn’t backing down from a multi wave expansive strike package against the resistance.

Waving the white flag of cessation of hostilities isn’t enough at this point it appears.

Seems like US has told Iran where and when it is going to hit. Is the US weak and allowing Iran to save face for doing this.

 

[Immortals]

Seems like US has told Iran where and when it is going to hit. Is the US weak and allowing Iran to save face for doing this.

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

Accept third party cookies

you are entirely optimistic if you think less than 3 or even 10 IRGC will die from these strikes.

Time for speculation is over. Results will soon be come apparent.

 

[mangekyo]

Well it's not "okay" but it is unreasonable to except that he would not be targetted. The US wanted to take out Soleimani for years prior to this. Because Trump was wreckless and in the end the military and Pompeo had to cool him off. Thankfully Soleimani accomplished most of what he was set out to do before they got him. I'm sorry but in war it is also absurd to think people wont get killed, it's stating the obvious but I feel compelled to state it. Russia has lost many men who they saw as their versions of Soleimani in the Ukraine war.

You know it was the military that presented him with the option to kill Soleimani, right? The only thing he did was to call our bluff and authorise the attack. Something no US president had done before.