Middle East Defence & Security

P

Perun

Member
@KipPotapych I don't know why you're arguing with him at all. He's a paid troll, constantly twisting the truth and uses chatGPT regularly instead to use his own brain. He does this on several forums under the same or similar name. He publicly encourages and advocates the killing of children. Basically, arguing with him is a pure waste of time and energy. But, of course, it's up to you to decide
 
Last edited:
Big_Zucchini

Big_Zucchini

Well-Known Member
@KipPotapych Sorry but this is a combination of historical revisionism and cliches.
JCPOA was de facto a temporary agreement. It had a deadline. Within 15 years there would be no restrictions, with some being lifted years earlier.
Effectively the intent was to ban Iranian enrichment and some other activities for up to 15 years, but give it sanctions relief through which it would build up an arsenal, a deterrent (Hezbollah was supposed to deter a strike but it made a strategic error), and build significant infrastructure including more UGFs and stockpile components for massively increasing the program.
By 2025 it would not be close to a nuclear weapon, but it would so much more powerful ballistic missile arsenal and much empowered Hezbollah, that if October 7th hadn't driven Israel to retaliate and Hezbollah hadn't mistakenly locked itself in a conflict with Israel, it's very much possible Israel would remain deterred from conducting a strike.

You think from the perspective of someone living in the sheltered Europe or US. But JCPOA was never about the full picture. It ignores, as you ignore, the conventional aspect to which it is tied. Iran's array of proxies and its own arsenal. Easy to ignore in hindsight when it was all dismantled already.

This same decision to ignore Iran's conventional capabilities causes your ignorance to the Iranian threat to Europe.
Iran has been developing Europe and US-range missiles for years. They are of no use against Israel.
Over 10,000 of its drones rained down on Europe already.
And it operates significant networks of operatives across Europe. It's been known for years for example that the UK is the regional hub for Iranian activity.
And guess what? Just yesterday they disabled 2 tanker aircraft in RAF Brize Norton.
Why specifically tanker aircraft, an aircraft type that coincidentally is so relevant to air operations in Iran?
They were then set to be branded as terrorist organizations, but the writing was on the wall, as this is actually not the first time they cause millions in damage to a British military facility.

You also dismissed Merz as a buffoon.
Is he really though? It's no coincidence that Iran's missiles can now reach Germany, but as of 2025 Germany does not posses a BMD system to intercept them.
They will soon, Arrow 3 provided by Israel, same one knocking down MRBMs right now. But there are leaks, and Merz knows there's no such thing as actually defending from a nuke without preventing that nuke's construction.

I do not subscribe to the idea of defeatism. I believe problems have a solution, and solutions work.
After defeating Hamas and Hezbollah, and a week into a war with Iran:
  1. No WW3.
  2. No massive regional war.
  3. Strait of Hormuz is open.
  4. Israel largely unscathed.
  5. No ground invasion into Iran.
Now, I've heard plenty of people doom-mongering on Iran for years. I've always responded with reason. But it never seems to stop. Even in the middle of a war that's the antithesis of that.

Another person apparently made the same case more eloquently and it resonated with more people.
https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1934799660717146343

I see absolutely nothing bad with eliminating a nuke program before it produces one. Nor anything bad about eliminating a regime whose motto was "death to America/Israel/Britain".
 
S

SolarisKenzo

Well-Known Member
The fact that american or israeli still think that "regime change" is something makes me wonder you guys didnt really pay much attention to the last 30 years of war in Middle east.

You can't "change" a regime that has been ruling for 45 years by bombing them, you will get the exact opposite.

The most you can get out of this is another middle eastern failed state like Iraq or Syria.
But, as you surely know, with Iran this is not going to happen. They are not Iraq or Syria.
They are not even arabs, they're persians.

All I see here is two countries full of hate that want short-term results that will inevitably lead to a long term disaster.
 
P

Perun

Member
SolarisKenzo said:
The fact that american or israeli still think that "regime change" is something makes me wonder you guys didnt really pay much attention to the last 30 years of war in Middle east.

You can't "change" a regime that has been ruling for 45 years by bombing them, you will get the exact opposite.

The most you can get out of this is another middle eastern failed state like Iraq or Syria.
But, as you surely know, with Iran this is not going to happen. They are not Iraq or Syria.
They are not even arabs, they're persians.

All I see here is two countries full of hate that want short-term results that will inevitably lead to a long term disaster.
Click to expand...
Yes, you are correct. Persians are Indoeuropeans. Jews are a Semitic branch of people just like their arab brothers.
 
Big_Zucchini

Big_Zucchini

Well-Known Member
SolarisKenzo said:
The fact that american or israeli still think that "regime change" is something makes me wonder you guys didnt really pay much attention to the last 30 years of war in Middle east.

You can't "change" a regime that has been ruling for 45 years by bombing them, you will get the exact opposite.
Click to expand...
Can I not, really? I can think of at least 2 counter-examples in the last year.

EDIT: To preempt a question, the examples are Syria and Lebanon.
And if the Houthis were pressed longer before Israel went for Iran, then we could perhaps see the Houthis downfall as well, or at least loss of significant power.

SolarisKenzo said:
All I see here is two countries full of hate that want short-term results that will inevitably lead to a long term disaster.
Click to expand...
Syria and Iraq are indeed full of hate, and they had their disasters. But Syria is on a path of rehabilitation after the civil war, and stabilization around a popular rule. Iraq still needs some work.

If there's one thing I learnt about defeatism, is that it itself leads to defeat. Not the act of trying.
You are advocating for military surrender and defeat for all because you think war can never occur. But it can, and thus victory is possible by definition. Which in turn invalidates the theory of inherent defeatism.
 
Last edited:
Musashi_kenshin

Musashi_kenshin

Well-Known Member
Big_Zucchini said:
I see absolutely nothing bad with eliminating a nuke program before it produces one.
Click to expand...
Note that few people cried when Israel launched Operation Cobra and crippled Saddam Hussein's attempt to develop nuclear weapons. Israel did the region a solid then even if it was also their interests to stop Iraq becoming a nuclear power.

Either every country in the world has the sovereign right to develop nuclear weapons, or we accept that it is in the world's interests to limit the growth in the number of nuclear powers even if the only way to do that is through military action.

SolarisKenzo said:
The fact that american or israeli still think that "regime change" is something makes me wonder you guys didnt really pay much attention to the last 30 years of war in Middle east.
Click to expand...
Khamenei has only stayed in power by rigging the system in his favour, in more recent years so blatently that it was incredible Pezeshkian won last year's election and shows that the regime's public support is very thin.

"Regime change" could mean many things:

1. Khamenei voluntarily resigning as part of the price of a peace deal;
2. Iranian elites who are worried about losing their privileges due to the collapse of the Iranian economy force Khamenei to resign;
3. Following Khamenei's death in the coming years (he's an old man), there is significant public pressure against the Principalists, resulting in a forward-thinking, moderate Supreme Leader like Montazeri taking over, who pledges to put Iran first rather than waste resources sponsoring regional terrorism or developing WMDs; or
4. The entire theocracy is toppled at some point in the next 10 years just as the Shah was forced out, in part because of the price currently being paid due to Iran's nuclear ambitions.

Israel has been playing the long game in preparing for these recent attacks. They'd be more than happy to wait for a new, less aggressive Iranian government a decade from now.

It could also be a bluff, in that Israel "begrudgingly" agrees Khamenei stays on in exchange for getting what they really want.

They are not even arabs, they're persians.
Click to expand...
That's not particularly relevant to the discussion, unless you want to make racially-based stereotypes on who is bravest.
 
Last edited:
Big_Zucchini

Big_Zucchini

Well-Known Member
Theory: US plans something more ambitious than Fordow destruction.
Fordow is a feint.

(For brevity, I will refer to Israel+US simply as "west", because these are essentially western interests at their core, with only Israel+US doing the kinetic work.)

The west would ideally have Iran become something very different. No nukes, and no conventional threat or being western-oriented.
But pre-war Iran was something they could live with as long as nukes weren't pursued and the conventional threat was minimal. That is, it wasn't a burning issue for anyone to do a regime change.

Fast forward now, Iran has no nukes, no conventional threat, and its leadership has no negotiating cards and itself fragile. This allows the west to be increasingly ambitious with war objectives.

Factors:
  1. Fordow is not a difficult target.
    1. It is sold as such to the public, but even publicly available (including to Israel) means are viable solutions.
    2. Another option is a ground raid like in Syria in 2024.
    3. Both have developed classified weapons and methods over several decades with a focus on Iran.
  2. Too many assets in the region for just a Fordow strike. Preparations could have been completed within few days.
  3. Could also be a flex to Russia and China.
  4. Khamenei hasn't really much to offer.
  5. Operational superiority in Iran invalidates assurances provided by IRGC.
  6. There isn't really a worse claim to power than IRGC.

Whether or not to keep Khamenei and IRGC in power therefore becomes more of a question of whether the west considers now the optimal time for regime change, and by what method.
The west could decide on a costlier and longer method that would reduce risk to civilian casualties, particularly against the strategy of IRGC living and hiding within residential areas. This would be important in gaining public favor and permitting higher level of coordination for an uprising and takeover.
 
P

Perun

Member
As we can clearly see from recent and slightly more distant history, Israel's constant wars with all its neighbors can by no means be considered as wars of the "West" against the "East". This stupid statement is nothing more than just plain frivolous nonsense.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top