Iranian Foreign & Resistance Front Strategy & Operations

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.
 
jauk said:
I’m the first to argue against ‘blind retaliation’ as you and others are well aware. A proper retaliation has to meet many criteria—perhaps yours is one.

So Iran should retaliate if it can meet specific strategic objectives. We’ll see.

That said, the main thrust of my position is that Iran should never put herself in a reactive position. Reacting, by definition, means many more option branches are culled that would’ve existed in a pre-emptive (action) position. In fact, one can solidly argue Iran has forced Zionia to react. If that is the case, then Iran no longer needs to do anything at all and maintain the status quo.
Click to expand...

Israel is "reacting" by killing our generals, while we do absolutely diddly squat to them. Also you're saying we should retaliate but not react. That's a massive contradiction.
 
Xerxes22 said:
They dont seem to have the courage to confront the enemy and deal with the dynamics as they shud.
Click to expand...

I think after this incident, IRGC will not be allowed within 250 meters of any Iranian diplomatic facility on foreign soil in Lebanon or Syria.

The country has now been forced to respond all because these Generals decided to meet in broad daylight on a street that likely has 50 Mossad cameras set up and in a building that is always watched.

Now They have put the entire country at risk.

Iran is in a bad game theory position: a lose - lose.

  • If it attacks, it’s merely to enforce its redline that Iranian soil cannot be overtly targeted (spy v spy operations is allowed). Attack will not establish deterrence on stopping future Syrian strikes, and can potentially open the country to a long war.
  • If it doesn’t attack, it not only violates its own most important redline(Iranian sovereignty), but would up breaking a very strong historical precedent which says blatant kinetic attacks on diplomatic outposts by another nation are acts of war.

What are your thoughts on this? @jauk
 
To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.


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


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


To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.
 
Last edited:
Immortals said:
I think after this incident, IRGC will not be allowed within 250 meters of any Iranian diplomatic facility on foreign soil in Lebanon or Syria.

The country has now been forced to respond all because these Generals decided to meet in broad daylight on a street that likely has 50 Mossad cameras set up and in a building that is always watched.

Now They have put the entire country at risk.

Iran is in a bad game theory position: a lose - lose.

  • If it attacks, it’s merely to enforce its redline that Iranian soil cannot be overtly targeted (spy v spy operations is allowed). Attack will not establish deterrence on stopping future Syrian strikes, and can potentially open the country to a long war.
  • If it doesn’t attack, it not only violates its own most important redline(Iranian sovereignty), but would up breaking a very strong historical precedent which says blatant kinetic attacks on diplomatic outposts by another nation are acts of war.

What are your thoughts on this? @jauk
Click to expand...
This was a great victory for Iran. Now Iran has the necessary excuse to attack Israel.
 
According to my thinking, my analysis and my intuition, Israel has fallen into the trap and they will suffer significant losses. We risk seeing for the first time in the modern history of war a super coordinated and very synchronized attack. I am convinced that before the attacks, they will suffer a powerful, large-scale cybernetic attack.
 
Immortals said:
I think after this incident, IRGC will not be allowed within 250 meters of any Iranian diplomatic facility on foreign soil in Lebanon or Syria.

The country has now been forced to respond all because these Generals decided to meet in broad daylight on a street that likely has 50 Mossad cameras set up and in a building that is always watched.

Now They have put the entire country at risk.

Iran is in a bad game theory position: a lose - lose.

  • If it attacks, it’s merely to enforce its redline that Iranian soil cannot be overtly targeted (spy v spy operations is allowed). Attack will not establish deterrence on stopping future Syrian strikes, and can potentially open the country to a long war.
  • If it doesn’t attack, it not only violates its own most important redline(Iranian sovereignty), but would up breaking a very strong historical precedent which says blatant kinetic attacks on diplomatic outposts by another nation are acts of war.

What are your thoughts on this? @jauk
Click to expand...
Well, that's what *I've* said for quite a while. Security->action->reaction. 'Reaction' without the first two is meaningless. IRI has a security problem. That's the primary culprit. Not Zionia. Fix security before lumbering the country into reactivity and further war and being pressured by the kiddie Lollipop Guild.

Iran HAS been proactive strategically but has been vulnerable to these kind of things that have endangered that proactivity. Just look at this forum--very little mention of the huge strategic advantage Iran has established for herself. Of the deep strategic failure Zionia finds itself in. Ostensibly nullified by public perception.

The IRI historically has had blind spots...branding, messaging, etc. Seems security is now on that list.

I never want to hear the term 'intigham/revenge' again. What dampayee speak that. That's the terminology of the weak.
 
Last edited:
To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.
 
To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.
 
To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.
 
To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.
 
To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.
 
To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 46 (members: 0, guests: 46)

Pakistan Defence Latest

Country Watch Latest

Latest Posts

Share this page

Back
Top