Iranian Nuclear Doctrine

ShapurII said:
I don't really get this analysis. What is this based on?
Russia is a nuclear state and is actively using its missiles against Ukraine.
Click to expand...
There is a NFU of nuclear weapons.

But also Irán only has tactical SRBM or MRBM as deterrence.

Both reasons means that the dead end of the street if a tít for tat attacks escalares, Israel would interpret that a huge volley of missiles includes some with nuclear warheads.
 
Flotilla said:
There is a NFU of nuclear weapons.

But also Irán only has tactical SRBM or MRBM as deterrence.

Both reasons means that the dead end of the street if a tít for tat attacks escalares, Israel would interpret that a huge volley of missiles includes some with nuclear warheads.
Click to expand...
I think it is possible to get around it. Iran can announce doctrine of no first use. and signal that its attacks will not include nuclear weapons.
 
The Paradox of Iran's Theocratic Politics: Nuclear Deterrence, Ideology, and Secularization Transition

Iran's theocratic regime takes "the authority of God" as the cornerstone of its legitimacy, with the Supreme Leader revered as the "Deputy of the Imam." However, national security demands clash with theocratic ideology: it cannot possess nuclear weapons to avoid undermining the exclusivity of "divine will," yet it needs perpetual nuclear tests to maintain popular support; its ideology demands opposition to Israel, while domestic crises force it to compromise externally. With economic collapse, youth unemployment exceeding 30%, and 81% of literate citizens opposing the regime, Iran will ultimately be propelled toward secularization, reconstructing its legitimacy foundation and achieving a balance between security, livelihoods, and ideology.



The Iran nuclear negotiations are unlikely to succeed, and the reasons are mainly as follows: Firstly, Israel and some Middle Eastern countries, out of their own security and geopolitical considerations, will strongly oppose any positive outcomes from the negotiations. Secondly, the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps of Iran controls key sectors such as the country's oil, ports, and infrastructure. A successful negotiation might disrupt its interest arrangements. Moreover, for major world powers, the benefits brought by a successful Iran nuclear negotiation are limited, so they may not provide strong support. Thirdly, countries around the world are well aware that, based on their own interest calculations, Iran's theocratic elite will never allow the successful development of nuclear weapons.
 
Last edited:
Persian Gulf said:
that is expensive
Click to expand...
They don't have money to buy jet fighters, but the Ayatollah has money to give to Russia or Arabs. He's a KGB-trained Ayatollah after all. He needs a reason to give our money to the Russians.

A quick comparison:
The UAE signed a 12-year contract to build 4 reactors with a net output of 5,600 MW for $20B.
This contract is possibly for 4 Russian VVER-1200 reactors. Net output will be 4,800 MW. And its initial cost is $25 billion.

So, we're paying 25% more for 15% less net output. So, the contract is about 47% more expensive.

And the Ayatollahs and their Basijis have the audacity to claim that the Arabs are milked by the US and her allies.
 
Flotilla said:
There is a NFU of nuclear weapons.

But also Irán only has tactical SRBM or MRBM as deterrence.

Both reasons means that the dead end of the street if a tít for tat attacks escalares, Israel would interpret that a huge volley of missiles includes some with nuclear warheads.
Click to expand...
I didn't get what you said to be honest.
Does NFU stand for Non-First Use? Or does it mean something else?

If yes, what does that have to do with what you said?
You have literally no historical example or logical reason to support your theory that if a nuclear power fires a missile, it will be deemed as a nuclear strike.
 
BigMela2onin said:
They will also take the cash and not build anything citing UN sanctions.
Click to expand...
Absolutely. It took them 16 years to finish a single VVER-1000 reactor even though most of the building had already been constructed before them. They used that as an excuse to spend years after years milking us to integrate their technology with the Siemens designs and technology.

This is the type of project that will last for 20 years, and each year they will bill us and milk us to the last drop.

I wonder, why didn't they wait for the Russians to finish phase II and III of the Bushehr nuclear plant first? They're already behind schedule in Phase II and I don't know much about the fate of Phase III yet but I assume they're behind schedule in that one as well.

So, what has Russia done so well in the past that it justifies giving them 25 billion dollars? I would rather spend 25 billion dollars on the IRIAF and our air defenses.
 
Persian Gulf said:
I think it is possible to get around it. Iran can announce doctrine of no first use. and signal that its attacks will not include nuclear weapons.
Click to expand...
That takes back to the starting point. Iran need first other options aside just ballistic missiles at first. At second, you must enter in nuclear states properly. First abandon NPT, second make weapon tests and then make public the engagement rules of nuclear weapons.
Again. Irán probably it is a "de facto" nuclear power (within those 2 and a half months, if IRI has any non-declared enrichment site, eventually would have enough fissile material for some warheads). But in the middle of a escalatory interchange of threats and with no previous legal process to declare them if you have only hammer, everything are nails. So Israel or US would understand any incoming volley of missiles a nuclear attack.

ShapurII said:
If yes, what does that have to do with what you said?
You have literally no historical example or logical reason to support your theory that if a nuclear power fires a missile, it will be deemed as a nuclear strike.
Click to expand...

Check it by yourself;

Reckless Iranian rhetoric, moreover, including ritual calls for
Israel’s destruction, might incline Israeli decisionmakers
to interpret Iranian actions in the darkest possible
light—further increasing the potential for miscalculation.
21 The possibility that a massive conventional
missile strike might be mistaken by Israel for a nuclear
strike and prompt a massive nuclear “counterstrike”
could complicate Iran’s military calculus. Paradoxically
then, the deployment of nuclear-armed missiles might
undermine the utility of Iran’s large conventional
missile force, which has played such an important role
in the regime’s ability to deter its enemies and project
influence across the region.22

Copy and pasted from page 26 of "The Washington Institute for Near East Policy" called "If Iran gets the bomb".

www.washingtoninstitute.org

If Iran Gets the Bomb: Weapons, Force Posture, Strategy

The decision would require tradeoffs affecting the security, survivability, and military credibility of Tehran's nascent arsenal.
www.washingtoninstitute.org www.washingtoninstitute.org

So if Iran does only have ballistic missiles and IRGC equip them with nuclear warheads it is counterproductive.

That is the reason why myself understand Khamenei politics of hide the military nuclear program, and try to rebuild as fast as possible the conventional army, specially IRIAF and IRIN.
 
Flotilla said:
That takes back to the starting point. Iran need first other options aside just ballistic missiles at first. At second, you must enter in nuclear states properly. First abandon NPT, second make weapon tests and then make public the engagement rules of nuclear weapons.
Again. Irán probably it is a "de facto" nuclear power (within those 2 and a half months, if IRI has any non-declared enrichment site, eventually would have enough fissile material for some warheads). But in the middle of a escalatory interchange of threats and with no previous legal process to declare them if you have only hammer, everything are nails. So Israel or US would understand any incoming volley of missiles a nuclear attack.

Check it by yourself;

Reckless Iranian rhetoric, moreover, including ritual calls for
Israel’s destruction, might incline Israeli decisionmakers
to interpret Iranian actions in the darkest possible
light—further increasing the potential for miscalculation.
21 The possibility that a massive conventional
missile strike might be mistaken by Israel for a nuclear
strike and prompt a massive nuclear “counterstrike”
could complicate Iran’s military calculus. Paradoxically
then, the deployment of nuclear-armed missiles might
undermine the utility of Iran’s large conventional
missile force, which has played such an important role
in the regime’s ability to deter its enemies and project
influence across the region.22

Copy and pasted from page 26 of "The Washington Institute for Near East Policy" called "If Iran gets the bomb".

www.washingtoninstitute.org

If Iran Gets the Bomb: Weapons, Force Posture, Strategy

The decision would require tradeoffs affecting the security, survivability, and military credibility of Tehran's nascent arsenal.
www.washingtoninstitute.org www.washingtoninstitute.org

So if Iran does only have ballistic missiles and IRGC equip them with nuclear warheads it is counterproductive.

That is the reason why myself understand Khamenei politics of hide the military nuclear program, and try to rebuild as fast as possible the conventional army, specially IRIAF and IRIN.
Click to expand...
Please don't copy paste stuff.
Use arguments. Not some text written by our enemies with "might" or "could" as their auxiliary verbs.

You claimed if a nuclear state cannot use ballistic missiles. Prove it. What is that theory based on?

There is no such thing as a military nuclear program in Iran. And all dual-use technology that Iran used to have, such as uranium metal or heavy-water production, have been destroyed by the US and Israel in the 12-day battle.
And the IRIAF has not received a single new airframe in decades. The IRIN is extremely under-armed as well.
 
ShapurII said:
You claimed if a nuclear state cannot use ballistic missiles. Prove it. What is that theory based on?
Click to expand...
Russia literally dropped a mirv'ed up oreshnik on Dnipro last year and nothing happened. They regularly hit Ukraime with Iskanders too.
 
To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.
 
Persian Gulf said:
I think it is possible to get around it. Iran can announce doctrine of no first use. and signal that its attacks will not include nuclear weapons.
Click to expand...
Khamenei is 90 years old , even Ousoulgara are tired of his "the current situation is good " policies and despite his recent speech , they are openly talking about changing nuclear Qomboling ....
 
OldTwilight said:
Khamenei is 90 years old , even Ousoulgara are tired of his "the current situation is good " policies and despite his recent speech , they are openly talking about changing nuclear Qomboling ....
Click to expand...
it was a very strange situation that Araghchi was in NYC negotiating with the E3 and Grossi and having some form of talks with the US while Khamenei tweeted saying there is no point in negotiations

very weird.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)

Pakistan Defence Latest

Country Watch Latest

Latest Posts

Share this page

Back
Top