Iranian Chill Thread

[TheImmortal]

First on CNN: Russians have begun training on Iranian drones, US believes

The US believes Russian officials have begun training on drones in Iran over the last several weeks, the latest sign that Russia intends to purchase the systems as the war in Ukraine continues.

amp.cnn.com

 

[Hack-Hook]

First on CNN: Russians have begun training on Iranian drones, US believes

The US believes Russian officials have begun training on drones in Iran over the last several weeks, the latest sign that Russia intends to purchase the systems as the war in Ukraine continues.

amp.cnn.com

rehashing the old news, still they show no evidence

 

[Surenas]

It's time to say it: the Russians are putting up an abysmal performance in Ukraine. On par with Israel's in 2006 against a similar well-entrenchment force (Hezbollah). The incompetence is simply staggering and some of its infamous weaponry clearly overrated.

But perhaps a wounded and battered Russia serves Iran's interests better. The eventual loss of Russian prestige and capabilities will forge closer ties between both countries as the schism with the West will remain for the long-term.

 

[TheImmortal]

It's time to say it: the Russians are putting up an abysmal performance in Ukraine. On par with Israel's in 2006 against a similar well-entrenchment force (Hezbollah). The incompetence is simply staggering and some of its infamous weaponry clearly overrated.

But perhaps a wounded and battered Russia serves Iran's interests better. The eventual loss of Russian prestige and capabilities will forge closer ties between both countries as the schism with the West will remain for the long-term.

One side has a general mobilization of any man under 50. The other side has 250,000 troops (assuming KIA/WIA).

Pretty hard to conquer a country when it’s 500,000+ vs 250,000. Ukrainian troops are pretty capable fighters overall.

Russia has shown some incompetence especially early in the war. But they are now facing the entire SIGNIT/EINT and intelligence
Arm of NATO/US plus billions in equipment being pumped into Ukraine.

Capturing Donbas should be achievable. But after that, I think Russia needs to regroup for a while and build up its capability. They figured Ukraine would fold quickly or succumb to the initial Blitzkreig.

A defeat for Russia is not an option for Iran or China. Then the West will think they can do the same to Iran or China because of early success. So neither country wants to see Russia weakened too much as that will turn the attention on them in the future. You already see it with US passive aggressive actions in Taiwan.

 

[Stryker1982]

One side has a general mobilization of any man under 50. The other side has 250,000 troops (assuming KIA/WIA).

Pretty hard to conquer a country when it’s 500,000+ vs 250,000. Ukrainian troops are pretty capable fighters overall.

Russia has shown some incompetence especially early in the war. But they are now facing the entire SIGNIT/EINT and intelligence
Arm of NATO/US plus billions in equipment being pumped into Ukraine.

Capturing Donbas should be achievable. But after that, I think Russia needs to regroup for a while and build up its capability. They figured Ukraine would fold quickly or succumb to the initial Blitzkreig.

A defeat for Russia is not an option for Iran or China. Then the West will think they can do the same to Iran or China because of early success. So neither country wants to see Russia weakened too much as that will turn the attention on them in the future. You already see it with US passive aggressive actions in Taiwan.

Some could argue that NATO is more emboldend now than before from the slow pace of the Russian Juggernaut which is not churning very smoothly.

 

[Surenas]

One side has a general mobilization of any man under 50. The other side has 250,000 troops (assuming KIA/WIA).

Pretty hard to conquer a country when it’s 500,000+ vs 250,000. Ukrainian troops are pretty capable fighters overall.

The Russians could and should have calculated these factors in their overall war scenarios and gameplanning. But then again, their archaic and outdated military thinking and procurement is just a misfit for 21th century fighting.

Russia has shown some incompetence especially early in the war. But they are now facing the entire SIGNIT/EINT and intelligence
Arm of NATO/US plus billions in equipment being pumped into Ukraine.

Which they thus far have failed to completely grasp and adjust to. Their ability to adapt to this enviroment is below par.

Capturing Donbas should be achievable. But after that, I think Russia needs to regroup for a while and build up its capability. They figured Ukraine would fold quickly or succumb to the initial Blitzkreig.

A defeat for Russia is not an option for Iran or China. Then the West will think they can do the same to Iran or China because of early success. So neither country wants to see Russia weakened too much as that will turn the attention on them in the future. You already see it with US passive aggressive actions in Taiwan.

The Russians are strategically failing in Ukraine at the moment, even if they would completely absorb Donbas to their own territory. But it is a long shot for Russia to stop posing as a strategic threat to NATO. In fact, I believe the post-conflict reforms of the Russian military are going to be enormous, and a battered Russia will be highly motivated to re-energize with new-fashioned capabilities. Similar to how the lessons of the Iran-Iraq War resulted in IRGC ingenuity.

I don't believe that the lessons of the Ukraine War would result in the West thinking they can do the same to Iran though. On the contrary, Ukraine clearly demonstrates that modern warfare favours the defender and Iran has adjusted to this reality more so than which country whatsoever.

 

[Surenas]

https://twitter.com/x/status/1557028604122390535

https://twitter.com/x/status/1557040958033854470

https://twitter.com/x/status/1557078553748979712

https://twitter.com/x/status/1557085395892027392

https://twitter.com/x/status/1557168672128569345

 

[TheImmortal]

Some could argue that NATO is more emboldend now than before from the slow pace of the Russian Juggernaut which is not churning very smoothly.

The west underestimated the Iranian war machine and military planning.

They overestimated the Russian war machine and military planning.

Difference is Iran stepped up and won when it counted in Syria with the chips stacked against it.

Russia waited and waited and then finally made its move to a Ukraine that was mobilized. After the color revolution, Russia should have moved in. At the time Ukraine military was basically non existent and in shambles due to purges and the revolution. Hence why they did so poorly in the East before Putin listened to the German Dyke Merkel and agreed to a peace deal.

I remember vividly reading an military article when Russia took control of Crimea and everyone was afraid of Russia and the “little green men”. The article accurately predicted the Russian underperformance ahead of time. It basically said Russian military was a mirage. Outside of spetnaz and a few niche special forces groups ( ex VDV) the average Russian officer and infantry troop was wholly undertrained vs their western counterpart.

Now it was easy at the time to dismiss the article as western propaganda when Russia was coming off Georgia war, Crimea capture, and smacking around Ukraine in eastern part of the country. But it was a very accurate foreshadowing.

Soviet doctrine relies on tactical nukes to level the playing field against the West. It realizes it’s a quantity vs quality military and that the West has superiority in terms of arm tech. Even Putin himself said that the gap between NATO and Russia is huge and they are clear about that. Then he added nuclear war is the response to protect Russia against this gap. Tactical nuke strikes on staging areas and airbases/barracks would largely break up large deployments and negate Western air advantage and level the playing field.

The only problem here is if you face an opponent that is stronger than Georgia, but not an all out war opponent like NATO or USA. This is what Ukraine was. Then your strategy is half baked because you unable to steam roll your opponent and you can’t use nukes either.

General mobilizations are tough to break thru. Just ask Saddam. He had one of the strongest military in the world and couldn’t break thru against volunteers and a just born IRGC.

 

[lydian fall]

 

[BlessedKingOfLonging]

PIJ is a new group less than 3K members. They work much closely with Iran than Hamas in recent times, but still aren’t nearly as large or influential or have the deep history/experience.

You expect a new group to have the same influence and weaponary as a group that Iran has supported for 20+ years? Especially after Iran lost its supply depots in Sudan due to Sudan switching back to Saudi influence? Especially after Sisi sent troops to Sinai to police and destroy smuggling tunnels that Morsi overlooked?

Where is common sense here?

Hamas already fought Israel last year. In war you have to pick your battles. Every keyboard warrior on here has blood lust and wants Hamas, PIJ, Houthis and Hezbollah to all attack Israel at the same time. The technological gap is way too great, they will cause damage, but the west will rally to Israel’s side.

When do you expect the predicted multi-front war against israel to come? You know, the one that involves Hezbollah, Hamas and PIJ all attacking in tandem?

 

[TheImmortal]

When do you expect the predicted multi-front war against israel to come? You know, the one that involves Hezbollah, Hamas and PIJ all attacking in tandem?

Unlikely in near future.

Depends on Nasrallah and how far he wants to push this natural gas dispute. Nasrallah has backed himself in a corner by drawing a red line on Israel drawing on the offshore gas field without an agreement of division or demarcation. If both sides miscalculate then an confrontation can easily happen.

I like to think that Lebanon’s severe economic crisis will tie Hezbollahs hands from plunging the country into a destructive war. Israel would also like to avoid a war and is content with “mowing the grass” in Syria.

If Israel attacks Iranian nuclear sites due to nuclear deal negotiations collapse that would be an obvious scenario. But highly highly unlikely. Though history is filled with blundering decisions (Napoleon and Hitler attacking Russia in winter) and we are overdue for one.

 

[BlessedKingOfLonging]

Unlikely in near future.

Depends on Nasrallah and how far he wants to push this natural gas dispute. Nasrallah has backed himself in a corner by drawing a red line on Israel drawing on the offshore gas field without an agreement of division or demarcation. If both sides miscalculate then an confrontation can easily happen.

I like to think that Lebanon’s severe economic crisis will tie Hezbollahs hands from plunging the country into a destructive war. Israel would also like to avoid a war and is content with “mowing the grass” in Syria.

If Israel attacks Iranian nuclear sites due to nuclear deal negotiations collapse that would be an obvious scenario. But highly highly unlikely. Though history is filled with blundering decisions (Napoleon and Hitler attacking Russia in winter) and we are overdue for one.

I foresee a long deadlock over the offshore gas fields between Lebanon and israel. Possibly, there will be a naval line of confrontation which will form over the disputed lines, who can say?

 

[TheImmortal]

I foresee a long deadlock over the offshore gas fields between Lebanon and israel. Possibly, there will be a naval line of confrontation which will form over the disputed lines, who can say?

Lebanon as a government is weak and has no powerful allies to support its claim or aid it in negotiations. The only leverage it has is Hezbollah prowess. So it’s not negotiating from a position of strength.

Even if UN sides with Lebanon, we have seen Israel doesn’t care about UN a rule. It is already moving forward with gas extraction in the Golan Heights and UN has ruled that is Syrian land.

 

[Stryker1982]

I foresee a long deadlock over the offshore gas fields between Lebanon and israel. Possibly, there will be a naval line of confrontation which will form over the disputed lines, who can say?

I don't know why you laughed.

Both issues are major potential flashpoints, the gas field is a serious issue, and while I also think Israel is too afraid to attack Irans nuclear facilities, a bad decision could easily be made. Both are situations that could lead to all out war.

Other situations can occur, like tit for tat attacks but may not lead to that point and I don't think Iran has an incentive to start a war, and would rather keep Israel under siege from all sides, and expand the strength of the siege. As far as I see it, Iran has no incentive to rush, while Israel is dealing with enemies that are only getting stronger over time, all the while Iran is also getting more technologically advanced and expanding its inventory and capabilities.

 

[BlessedKingOfLonging]

Lebanon as a government is weak and has no powerful allies to support its claim or aid it in negotiations. The only leverage it has is Hezbollah prowess. So it’s not negotiating from a position of strength.

Even if UN sides with Lebanon, we have seen Israel doesn’t care about UN a rule. It is already moving forward with gas extraction in the Golan Heights and UN has ruled that is Syrian land.

The question is, will Hezbollah sit back and allow the enemy to exploit it's resources as Syria has done thus far?

That is the question everything hinges on.

I don't know why you laughed.

Both issues are major potential flashpoints, the gas field is a serious issue, and while I also think Israel is too afraid to attack Irans nuclear facilities, a bad decision could easily be made. Both are situations that could lead to all out war.

Other situations can occur, like tit for tat attacks but may not lead to that point and I don't think Iran has an incentive to start a war, and would rather keep Israel under siege from all sides, and expand the strength of the siege. As far as I see it, Iran has no incentive to rush, while Israel is dealing with enemies that are only getting stronger over time, all the while Iran is also getting more technologically advanced and expanding its inventory and capabilities.

I didn't laugh, it was another user.

And I largely agree with your analysis. However, of vital importance is to end the american presence in Syria.

It matters little how they leave - either a full-fledged withdrawal or slaughtered to the man, only none must remain.