Iranian Chill Thread

[Hack-Hook]

Does someone know the meanings of "Barandaz"? I've asked to an Iranian friend and he told me that a Barandaz is a move used in wrestling to score points, like a wrestling throw

I've seen a lot of people using the "barandaz" term to describe the opposition or the "traitors". Are there two meanings?

Barandaz if first "a" pronounced like "as" means an opposition or person which aim to change government through peaceful or violent means depends on their ideoplogy.
Barandaz if First "a" pronounced like "Antarctica" is a wrestling move

برانداز /bar[']andāz/barandaz​

معنی۱. = برانداختن​

Barandaz came from Barandakhtan

برانداختن​

/bar[']andāxtan/​

معنی​

۱. برافکندن؛ از میان بردن؛ نابود کردن.
۲. رسم و عادت یا قانونی را از بین بردن.

And

bar[']andāxtan/barandakhtan means​

1. Destroy , throw (it would be close to uprooting in English )
2. To destroy custom or law


If you see a lot of these people it's because of immigration and
visa policy of your government

two different word two different meaning .
and by the way the word Barandaz if meant as a pointing to a person who want change the government has become a tools like how freedom and democracy become a tool.
sadly the word become a tool to put an stigma on anyone who even don't want to change the government but some change by people who only accept a small circle of selected like minded people as legitimate and don't tolerate any opposition to their own viewpoints .

The oppositions who try to "fall" a government are "barandaz"

barandazi: trying to fall/overthrow a system or government

not a complete explanation

 

[Hack-Hook]

https://twitter.com/x/status/1641460621597110276

i really like to see which part of Iranian assets that is frozen due to USA sanctions abroad or frozen directly by USA is done so legally according to international rules?

 

[Muhammed45]

Scientific excellence can re-emerge in Iran, unless there is political upheaval or further sanctions.

Iran's long march - Nature

Scientific excellence can re-emerge in Iran, unless there is political upheaval or further sanctions.

www.nature.com

That's how they think about us. Damn and old but truthful article.

 

[HGV]

Zionists killed a IRGC member in Damascus yesterday. Some members here claim these events are very rare and Iran always responds. Let's see how Iran will respond. @SalarHaqq

https://twitter.com/x/status/1641746583124430849

 

[tsunset]

Zionists killed a IRGC member in Damascus yesterday. Some members here claim these events are very rare and Iran always responds. Let's see how Iran will respond. @SalarHaqq

https://twitter.com/x/status/1641746583124430849

Smells an attempt to destabilize things after the peace deals

I wonder how Iran would respond at this

 

[HGV]

Smells an attempt to destabilize things after the peace deals

I wonder how Iran would respond at this

Probably another mystery response that Hajizadeh will claim is a secret and he can't tell anyone but that Israel knows about it.

 

[Shams313]

My boy at YT too...

 

[SalarHaqq]

Zionists killed a IRGC member in Damascus yesterday. Some members here claim these events are very rare and Iran always responds. Let's see how Iran will respond. @SalarHaqq

https://twitter.com/x/status/1641746583124430849

Are you suggesting they are very frequent? If so, please present the correct tally.

Picking a single case in what is an ongoing escalation consecutive to the Iran-Saudi agreement which I'm sure you noticed, seeing how it's simultaneously playing out in at least two theaters namely Syria (drone strikes on USA occupation forces, now the recent zionist attack) and the south Caucasus, is not going to disprove the point.

What I can reiterate with certainty (and again, you're welcome to prove me wrong) is that out of several hundreds of air strikes claimed by the zionists, a ridiculously low percentage is confirmed to have resulted in the martyrdom of IRGC or Qods Force personnel.

Another fact is that the zionist regime, zionist media as well as their allies have been trying their best to twist this reality with faulty, manipulative semantics and declarations.

Here's a concrete and typical example. In late November 2019, Tel Aviv purported to have carried out a series of raids targeting Syrian missile sites, warehouses, air defence batteries as well as "16 targets" supposedly pertaining to Iran's Qods Force and to pro-Iranian groups stationed in Syria. Of course zionists declared that Syria failed to intercept any of the AGM fired, a claim disputed by Damascus. And what are the respective casualty reports? Let's find out.

It’s not clear how many people were killed in the raid. Syrian state media reported that only two civilians died. Israeli officials said that the two killed were Iranians, while the UK-based activist group Syrian Observatory for Human Rights (SOHR) said as many as 16 Iranians were killed in addition to five Syrian soldiers and two Syrian civilians.

Israeli military officials said the strikes were in response to four rockets fired a day earlier by an Iranian unit into the Israeli-occupied Golan Heights near Mount Hermon. The rockets were intercepted by the Iron Dome anti-aircraft battery.

'The rules have changed': Iran-Israel tensions hit high gear with Syria attack

With enhanced Iranian capabilities, more adventurous Israeli tactics and the US in retreat, strikes in Syria this week reflect a confrontation at a boil

www.middleeasteye.net

In other terms, according to Syrian authorities the Resistance Axis lost no combatants, however two Syrian civilians were martyred. According to the zionist regime, those two civilians were IRGC units. Whilst the SOHR ("Syrian Observatory for Human Rights"), a one-man operation run by a taylor of Syrian descent residing in London who hasn't set foot in his country of origin for ages - in fact a mouthpiece for MI6 / NATO disinformation and psy-ops all along, was quoted as saying "16 Iranians" in addition to five Syrian soldiers and two Syrian civilians were martyred.

Just launched a search covering the period between November 1, 2019 and January 1, 2020, restricting the results to Iranian-hosted websites (*.ir). Turns out there's no report whatsoever about Iranians embracing martyrdom in the Levant during said period.

This is while the Islamic Republic isn't exactly known for shying away from publicizing the names of fallen Iranian military personnel, nor from sponsoring public funeral processions for the latter. Simultaneously, the SOHR's credibility tends to be abysmal and the zionist regime well known to be practicing full fledged censorship in military matters in addition to issuing bogus claims about Iran.

Now if someone prefers to go with zionist or Syrian insurgent narratives, that will be their issue but it's certainly not as if these narratives had been substantiated by evidence, not to mention the fundamental bias of their authors against anything Iranian, as well as their ample record of spreading fake news on Iran.

A further instance of zionist media attempting to mislead the public is reflected by the fallacious semantic slips they operate in their reporting on zionist attacks against Syria. In particular, they frequently peddle the phrase "Iranian militias" in their headlines. Can anyone tell me what in the world these so-called "Iranian militias" are supposed to be?

Firstly, there are no "militias" in the Axis of Resistance - this is a derogatory designation since it historically applied to far-right (fascist) outfits in Europe before and during World War 2. What we have in the Resistance front are either multipronged organizations active in various fields of politics, economy, society, culture and security such as Basije Mostaz'afan in Iran or HezbOllah in Lebanon, which in addition to the above may have a military branch of their own; or proper military corps of revolutionary nature, such as Iran's Sepah (IRGC), Iraq's Hashd ul-Sha'bi.

Secondly, whenever zionist and affiliated media throw around this term, they are actually referencing Resistance groups allied with Iran. Groups which, as a matter of fact, are not comprising Iranian nationals. Anti-Iranian propaganda rags will nonetheless talk of so-called "Iranian militia" in order to generate the impression that IRGC members were martyred when no such thing happened.

Two examples, one from January this year in the Times of Isra"el" and another from April 2022 by the UK-based Asharq Al-Awsat which is owned by Saudis:

https://www.timesofisrael.com/warpl...-iranian-militia-trucks-on-syria-iraq-border/

https://english.aawsat.com/home/article/3594766/israel-targets-iranian-militias-damascus-countryside/

This neuro-linguistic programming is not merely aimed at targeting Iran by means of psychological warfare, but also at promoting the notion that Tel Aviv is "the only" regime "to kill Iranians", in the very words uttered in July 2019 by the zionist "Regional Cooperation Minister" (sic) of all officials, one Tzachi Hanegbi.

https://www.timesofisrael.com/israeli-minister-were-the-only-country-killing-iranians/

Which in turn was pretty obviously directed at western-aligned Arab regimes of the region, as well as more generally at any and all audience driven by visceral hostility towards Iran and/or (Shia) Muslims (from takfiri pseudo-"jihadis" and their sympathizers to national-zionists of the west, the American Christian Right and other followers of so-called rapture eschatology and so on). All in the framework of the formalized anti-Iranian regional bloc which was taking shape during Trump's presidency.

To that effect the enemy spared no effort at disinformation, as we just saw.

Lastly, when it comes to retaliation it was carried out in the open after token occurrences of high-profile attacks on Iranian or allied forces in Syria, such as the bombing of the T4 base in Homs where Iranians were martyred, which was promptly met by multiple rocket fire onto Occupied Palestine. Or the martyrdom of Jihad Mughniyah on 18 January 2015, to which HezbOllah responded no more than ten days later by hitting a zionist infantry patrol in the Sheeba Farms with anti-tank missiles, killing two zionist troops.

In lower profile cases, more discrete retaliation might be opted for. If someone's killed under mysterious circumstances in Occupied Palestine over the coming days and weeks and news of it makes it to the press, it might very well hint to Iranian involvement. In this regard, don't count on the zionists nor on the mainstream media they control, to admit to anything though. Then again it wouldn't be their first act of misinformation.

Probably another mystery response that Hajizadeh will claim is a secret and he can't tell anyone but that Israel knows about it.

Perhaps we ought to believe Netanyahu's propagandists instead, including their stories of "Iranians killed" in about every zionist air strike on Syria? Is this to say they're more credible than sardar Hajizadeh?

 

[TheImmortal]

Perhaps we ought to believe Netanyahu's shills instead, including their tall claims of "Iranians killed" in about every zionist air strike on Syria? They're so much more credible than sardar Hajizadeh... not.

If I was Israel, I wouldn’t mention any Iranians killed. That only provokes a response and doesn’t change the facts on the ground.

Israel is content “mowing the lawn” in Syria. Israel is trying to minimize Iranian casualties (most strikes happen late at night when personnel are in barracks or away from the base/site), but it is not trying to COMPLETELY avoid them. We have seen when it comes to sabotage and assassination they will take action in Syria to eliminate people they feel make a larger than average difference in Iranian operations in that theatre. But they aren’t trying to go out every air strike and kill Iranians patrolling bases or what have you.

We saw in case of T4 attack if Israel wants to go all out, it def can and there is limited options Iran has responding when so far from home. This is Israel’s backyard.

Or the martyrdom of Jihad Mughniyah, son of Imad on 18 January 2015, against which HezbOllah reacted no more than ten days later by hitting a zionist infantry patrol in the Sheeba Farms with anti-tank missiles, killing two zionist troops.

Very curious you don’t show respect to our dead in that attack including several Quds force operatives and Brigadier General Allahdadi, one of the heads of Syrian operations who was killed in that attack.

The very disproportionate response (killing some patrol soldiers on the border) emboldened Israel and began the cycle that we see today. It also lead to US calculating it could kill two more Brigadier Generals without too much blowback (Solemani and Yemen Quds Force General), they succeeded in one of those efforts.

Based on your lack of knowledge of past events, I suspect you haven’t been following Syrian conflict as closely as you like us to believe you have. I been following since the initial “protests”. IRGC casualties from air strikes and sabotage are not as “insignificant” as you make it out to be, but at the same time they are not enough of a threat to Syrian operations that Iran cares to take dramatic escalatory action that could spiral into a hot conflict.

Such is the way of a pragmatic leadership. I doubt IRGC is the ones holding back, likely goes up the chain of command. Solemani had more reign to respond, but even his responses never fully took off (most dramatic one was probably the F-110 flying over Israeli ski resort).

 

[HGV]

Picking a single case in what is an ongoing escalation consecutive to the Iran-Saudi agreement which I'm sure you noticed, seeing how it's simultaneously playing out in at least two theaters namely Syria (drone strikes on USA occupation forces, now the recent zionist attack) and the south Caucasus, is not going to disprove the point.

This is not related to other arenas, these strikes have a clear purpose from the Israeli side and have been ongoing consistently for years.

out of several hundreds of air strikes claimed by the zionists, a ridiculously low percentage is confirmed to have resulted in the martyrdom of IRGC or Qods Force personnel

Agreed, but that's mostly a function of the sheer number of strikes.

This is while the Islamic Republic isn't exactly known for shying away from publicizing the names of fallen Iranian military personnel, nor from sponsoring public funeral processions for the latter.

Not always, but mostly true.

Second of all, whenever zionist and affiliated media throw around this term, they are actually referencing Iranian-allied Resistance groups. Which, as a matter of fact, are not comprising Iranian nationals. Yet, anti-Iranian propaganda rags will nonetheless talk of so-called "Iranian militia" in order to generate the impression that IRGC members were martyred when no such thing took place.

Agreed.

Lastly, when it comes to retaliation it was carried out in the open after token occurrences of high-profile attacks on Iranian or allied forces in Syria, such as the bombing of the T4 airbase in Homs where Iranians were martyred, which was promptly met by multiple rocket fire onto Occupied Palestine. Or the martyrdom of Jihad Mughniyah, son of Imad on 18 January 2015, against which HezbOllah reacted no more than ten days later by hitting a zionist infantry patrol in the Sheeba Farms with anti-tank missiles, killing two zionist troops.

Not agreed. By the way the Iranian government itself denied it was responsible for those pathetic rockets to the Golan Heights which did not damage anything and to which Israel responded with huge strikes in Syria (which Iran, of course, did not respond to). So there was no meaningful direct Iranian response.

In the 2015 attack the Zionists killed 6 Hezbollah fighters, including 2 commanders. Hezbollah responded by killing 2 random IDF soldiers on the border. OK, blood for blood, understandable. But that attack also killed an Iranian General. What was Iran's direct response? Nothing.

In November 2022 when the IRGC said its Colonel had been martyred by Israel in Syria, what was Iran's direct response? Nothing again.

We don't need to talk about the multiple assassinations of IRGC officials inside Iran and Fakhrizadeh and Iran not even daring to directly respond to those hugely significant and daring acts of aggression.

In lower profile case more discrete retaliation might be opted for. If someone's killed under mysterious circumstances in Occupied Palestine over the coming days and weeks and news of it makes it to the press, it might very well hint to Iranian involvement

Which incident of murdering IRGC soldiers and colonels and generals inside and outside of Iran is low profile to you? Which one led to an appropriate retaliation of equal visibility and scale? None. Not even one.

Perhaps we ought to believe Netanyahu's shills instead, including their tall claims of "Iranians killed" in about every zionist air strike on Syria? They're so much more credible than sardar Hajizadeh... not.

Israeli government doesn't claim to kill Iranians in those attacks, only that it strikes Iranian targets and assets. By contrast, Iran officially promises revenge and does nothing, or invents phantom retaliations that nobody can know about or detect. Unfortunately for them, anyone can observe that these imaginary responses have no deterrent value so if they do exist (they do not) they may as well not exist. These are obvious and regrettable lies. Unfortunately you are dedicated to defending these lies with creative theories and wider narratives to obfuscate. The wider points of the narratives I often agree with, by the way, but lies are lies.

The reality is that Iran does not have the will or ability to retaliate to these acts of aggression and assassinations in a way that would establish deterrence and not lead to a hot war (something the ruling elite fears desperately, evidently). So instead they have to create propaganda for internal consumption about imaginary retaliations and take credit for a 86 year old former rocket engineer being killed in a fire during riots.

But when the US can assassinate Iran's most important general, the head of the Iraqi resistance forces, and several other IRGC generals, and the best Iran can do is give a few Americans a headache, while Hajizadeh claims Americans definitely died, but also we didn't want to kill any Americans because we want to kill McKenzie etc not random Americans (another incident where he lets himself down with stupid lies), then we obviously cannot expect a response to Israeli assassinations of IRGC generals in Syria/Iran. The only option Iran has is to escalate to using ballistic missiles but that would ignite a war, so nowadays Iran responds to Israeli acts of aggression by attacking a random Israeli billionaire's ships or using the resistance groups to attack US bases in Syria/Iraq.

But now we have a new example of Israel murdering an Iranian IRGC soldier in Syria, and Iran promising retaliation. Maybe you think Israel murdering Iranians is a low profile event, but I think most Iranians would disagree with you. Let's see if the elites can think of a way to establish deterrence or make good on their promise this time. 100th time lucky!

 

[SalarHaqq]

If I was Israel, I wouldn’t mention any Iranians killed. That only provokes a response and doesn’t change the facts on the ground.

Israel is content “mowing the lawn” in Syria. Israel is trying to minimize Iranian casualties (most strikes happen late at night when personnel are in barracks or away from the base/site), but it is not trying to COMPLETELY avoid them. We have seen when it comes to sabotage and assassination they will take action in Syria to eliminate people they feel make a larger than average difference in Iranian operations in that theatre. But they aren’t trying to go out every air strike and kill Iranians patrolling bases or what have you.

We saw in case of T4 attack if Israel wants to go all out, it def can and there is limited options Iran has responding when so far from home. This is Israel’s backyard.

"If they wanted to, they could" will be irrelevant unless the reasons for the suggested restraint are precisely defined. Reason's not that Tel Aviv is achieving its underlying objective as is. And this is what matters in the final analysis.

Very curious you don’t show respect to our dead in that attack including several Quds force operatives and Brigadier General Allahdadi, one of the heads of Syrian operations who was killed in that attack.

By what peculiar rationale you came to this conclusion shall remain a mystery. My intention was to illustrate a case of Iranian allies carrying out retaliation for a martyr of theirs. Not mentioning every name in this context doesn't imply disrespect by any measure.

Besides, I'm not sure that a user who's on the record for calling Iranian military officials names (including qualifying sardar Hajizadeh as "a liar") would be in a position to lecture others in this regard.

The very disproportionate response (killing some patrol soldiers on the border) emboldened Israel and began the cycle that we see today. It also lead to US calculating it could kill two more Brigadier Generals without too much blowback (Solemani and Yemen Quds Force General), they succeeded in one of those efforts.

Based on your lack of knowledge of past events, I suspect you haven’t been following Syrian conflict as closely as you like us to believe you have. I been following since the initial “protests”. IRGC casualties from air strikes and sabotage are not as “insignificant” as you make it out to be, but at the same time they are not enough of a threat to Syrian operations that Iran cares to take dramatic escalatory action that could spiral into a hot conflict.

I never made any claims about being knowledgeable or not. It's you who keep repeating how astutely you followed the war in Syria. Great, in that case, how about addressing my statements rather than drifting into vague ad hominems?

Above all, substantiating your suggestion that IRGC casualties in Syria have not been as infrequent as I pointed to (I did not use the term insignificant). Those who reject this ought to post a comprehensive tally supported by evidence to back up their claim.

On the other hand I demonstrated through a concrete case study how and why mainstream media have been resorting to various rhetoric artifices to blow out of proportion Iranian casualties in Syria. Again, anyone believing this is untrue is welcome to show why.

Such is the way of a pragmatic leadership. I doubt IRGC is the ones holding back, likely goes up the chain of command. Solemani had more reign to respond, but even his responses never fully took off (most dramatic one was probably the F-110 flying over Israeli ski resort).

My statements were factual. I did not comment on how proportional Iranian responses have been, nor on whether or not they deterred further such actions by the enemy - actions which at the end of the day have been inconsequential in disrupting the strategic balance.

So your entire retort has amounted to a straw man.

 

[tsunset]

Are you suggesting they are very frequent? If so, please present the correct tally.

Picking a single case in what is an ongoing escalation consecutive to the Iran-Saudi agreement which I'm sure you noticed, seeing how it's simultaneously playing out in at least two theaters namely Syria (drone strikes on USA occupation forces, now the recent zionist attack) and the south Caucasus, is not going to disprove the point.

What I can reiterate with certainty (and again, you're welcome to prove me wrong) is that out of several hundreds of air strikes claimed by the zionists, a ridiculously low percentage is confirmed to have resulted in the martyrdom of IRGC or Qods Force personnel.

Another fact is that the zionist regime, zionist media as well as their allies have been trying their best to twist this reality with faulty, manipulative semantics and declarations.

Here's a concrete and typical example. In late November 2019, Tel Aviv purported to have carried out a series of raids targeting Syrian missile sites, warehouses, air defence batteries as well as "16 targets" supposedly pertaining to Iran's Qods Force and to pro-Iranian groups stationed in Syria. Of course zionists declared that Syria failed to intercept any of the AGM fired, a claim disputed by Damascus. And what are the respective casualty reports? Let's find out.

'The rules have changed': Iran-Israel tensions hit high gear with Syria attack

With enhanced Iranian capabilities, more adventurous Israeli tactics and the US in retreat, strikes in Syria this week reflect a confrontation at a boil

www.middleeasteye.net

In other terms, according to Syrian authorities the Resistance Axis lost no combatants, however two Syrian civilians were martyred. According to the zionist regime, those two civilians were IRGC units. Whilst the SOHR ("Syrian Observatory for Human Rights"), a one-man operation run by a taylor of Syrian descent residing in London who hasn't set foot in his country of origin for ages - in fact a mouthpiece for MI6 / NATO disinformation and psy-ops all along, was quoted as saying "16 Iranians" in addition to five Syrian soldiers and two Syrian civilians were martyred.

Just launched a search covering the period between November 1, 2019 and January 1, 2020, restricting the results to Iranian-hosted websites (*.ir). Turns out there's no report whatsoever about Iranians embracing martyrdom in the Levant during said period.

This is while the Islamic Republic isn't exactly known for shying away from publicizing the names of fallen Iranian military personnel, nor from sponsoring public funeral processions for the latter. Simultaneously, the SOHR's credibility tends to be abysmal and the zionist regime well known to be practicing full fledged censorship in military matters in addition to issuing bogus claims about Iran.

Now if someone prefers to go with zionist or Syrian insurgent narratives, that will be their issue but it's certainly not as if these narratives had been substantiated by evidence, not to mention the fundamental bias of their authors against anything Iranian, as well as their ample record of spreading fake news on Iran.

A further instance of zionist media attempting to mislead the public is reflected by the fallacious semantic slips they operate in their reporting on zionist attacks against Syria. In particular, they frequently peddle the phrase "Iranian militias" in their headlines. Can anyone tell me what in the world these so-called "Iranian militias" are supposed to be?

Firstly, there are no "militias" in the Axis of Resistance - this is a derogatory designation since it historically applied to far-right (fascist) outfits in Europe before and during World War 2. What we have in the Resistance front are either multipronged organizations active in various fields of politics, economy, society, culture and security such as Basije Mostaz'afan in Iran or HezbOllah in Lebanon, which in addition to the above may have a military branch of their own; or proper military corps of revolutionary nature, such as Iran's Sepah (IRGC), Iraq's Hashd ul-Sha'bi.

Secondly, whenever zionist and affiliated media throw around this term, they are actually referencing Resistance groups allied with Iran. Groups which, as a matter of fact, are not comprising Iranian nationals. Anti-Iranian propaganda rags will nonetheless talk of so-called "Iranian militia" in order to generate the impression that IRGC members were martyred when no such thing happened.

Two examples, one from January this year in the Times of Isra"el" and another from April 2022 by the UK-based Asharq Al-Awsat which is owned by Saudis:

https://www.timesofisrael.com/warpl...-iranian-militia-trucks-on-syria-iraq-border/

https://english.aawsat.com/home/article/3594766/israel-targets-iranian-militias-damascus-countryside/

This neuro-linguistic programming is not merely aimed at targeting Iran by means of psychological warfare, but also at promoting the notion that Tel Aviv is "the only" regime "to kill Iranians", in the very words uttered in July 2019 by the zionist "Regional Cooperation Minister" (sic) of all officials, one Tzachi Hanegbi.

https://www.timesofisrael.com/israeli-minister-were-the-only-country-killing-iranians/

Which in turn was pretty obviously directed at western-aligned Arab regimes of the region, as well as more generally at any and all audience driven by visceral hostility towards Iran and/or (Shia) Muslims (from takfiri pseudo-"jihadis" and their sympathizers to national-zionists of the west, the American Christian Right and other followers of so-called rapture eschatology and so on). All in the framework of the formalized anti-Iranian regional bloc which was taking shape during Trump's presidency.

To that effect the enemy spared no effort at disinformation, as we just saw.

Lastly, when it comes to retaliation it was carried out in the open after token occurrences of high-profile attacks on Iranian or allied forces in Syria, such as the bombing of the T4 base in Homs where Iranians were martyred, which was promptly met by multiple rocket fire onto Occupied Palestine. Or the martyrdom of Jihad Mughniyah on 18 January 2015, to which HezbOllah responded no more than ten days later by hitting a zionist infantry patrol in the Sheeba Farms with anti-tank missiles, killing two zionist troops.

In lower profile cases, more discrete retaliation might be opted for. If someone's killed under mysterious circumstances in Occupied Palestine over the coming days and weeks and news of it makes it to the press, it might very well hint to Iranian involvement. In this regard, don't count on the zionists nor on the mainstream media they control, to admit to anything though. Then again it wouldn't be their first act of misinformation.



Perhaps we ought to believe Netanyahu's propagandists instead, including their stories of "Iranians killed" in about every zionist air strike on Syria? Is this to say they're more credible than sardar Hajizadeh?

Secondly, whenever zionist and affiliated media throw around this term, they are actually referencing Resistance groups allied with Iran. Groups which, as a matter of fact, are not comprising Iranian nationals. Anti-Iranian propaganda rags will nonetheless talk of so-called "Iranian militia" in order to generate the impression that IRGC members were martyred when no such thing happened.

Lloyd Austin (US defense minister) calls them "Shia-backed militias", cracks me up everytime, this is even a bit racist when you look at it, what the heck is a "shia backed militia", like others have Sunni and Christian backed militias? Jesus-backed militias?

 

[tsunset]

The question; What can Iran do to retaliate appropriately? Iran is not close to Syria as Israel is close to Syria.

How could Iran kill Israeli soldiers/high figures in the same way as Israel does?

 

[SalarHaqq]

This is not related to other arenas, these strikes have a clear purpose from the Israeli side and have been ongoing consistently for years.

These strikes, in the immense majority of cases, have avoided targeting Iranian personnel. That this latest instance apparently contrasts with their normal behaviour may suggest a connection with the ongoing escalation.

Agreed, but that's mostly a function of the sheer number of strikes.

You're welcome to establish the tally of those IRGC casualties you appear to deem numerous.

Not always, but mostly true.

If you know of cases where Iranian authorities intentionally covered up military fatalities, I'd be glad to learn of them too.

Not agreed. By the way the Iranian government itself denied it was responsible for those pathetic rockets to the Golan Heights which did not damage anything and to which Israel responded with huge strikes in Syria (which Iran, of course, did not respond to). So there was no meaningful direct Iranian response.

I wasn't really evaluating how meaningful they were but questioned the notion that Iran and allies have never responded to zionist strikes.

Ultimately however the entire zionist campaign over Syria has failed in reaching its objective which was to oust Iranian and allied forces from the Levant and disrupt Iran's land route to the Mediterranean. Instead, the land bridge is up and running. Pro-Iranian forces are entrenched along the borders to Occupied Golan. It came at a price for sure, but the Resistance was fending off aggression by western / zionist proxies and we should never expect this enemy to sit still.

Compared to the status quo ante (pre-Syrian war), Iran did not experience any strategic setback. On the contrary she improved her position towards the zionist regime by directly deploying forces closer to its illegal borders.

In the 2015 attack the Zionists killed 6 Hezbollah fighters, including 2 commanders. Hezbollah responded by killing 2 random IDF soldiers on the border. OK, blood for blood, understandable. But that attack also killed an Iranian General. What was Iran's direct response? Nothing.

In November 2022 when the IRGC said its Colonel had been martyred by Israel in Syria, what was Iran's direct response? Nothing again.

As explained the T4 attack and Jihad Mughniyeh's martyrdom were the two most high-profile cases - either because of the number of martyrs involved (T4) or because of their public status (the son of one of the most legendary commanders in the history of the Resistance). So these were the ones which drew concrete responses. Quod erat demonstrandum. If you can think of other reasons, please share.

We don't need to talk about the multiple assassinations of IRGC officials inside Iran and Fakhrizadeh and Iran not even daring to directly respond to those hugely significant and daring acts of aggression.

Which incident of murdering IRGC soldiers and colonels and generals inside and outside of Iran is low profile to you? Which one led to an appropriate retaliation of equal visibility and scale? None. Not even one.

The discussion was about Syria (rather than assassinations carried out elsewhere, hence why I didn't touch upon those), my point being that the two cases which led to a retaliation were different.

You may disregard every suspicious death of a high ranking figure in Occupied Palestine, at USA military bases throughout the region or over Afghan airspace as wholly unrelated to Iran, after all no direct proof of Iranian involvement exists. However it'd be a major mistake to conceive of success and failure in terms of kill ratios and visibility. Iran's feats are never going to enjoy equal visibility, the enemy's dominance over the media is too tight to allow for such a thing anyway. And kill ratios do not determine the outcome of conflicts.

Whatever points the enemy scored in these affairs have been psychological in nature. Which may be practical with ordinary folk who tend to confuse geopolitics with a schoolyard brawl governed by narrow tit-for-tat rules. Not with those who'll stay focused on what's most relevant in the general picture though.

Israeli government doesn't claim to kill Iranians in those attacks, only that it strikes Iranian targets and assets. By contrast, Iran officially promises revenge and does nothing, or invents phantom retaliations that nobody can know about or detect. Unfortunately for them, anyone can observe that these imaginary responses have no deterrent value so if they do exist (they do not) they may as well not exist. These are obvious and regrettable lies. Unfortunately you are dedicated to defending these lies with creative theories and wider narratives to obfuscate. The wider points of the narratives I often agree with, by the way, but lies are lies.

I quoted a zionist "minister" literally boasting that his regime is "killing Iranians". Coupled with the media disinformation techniques I evidenced - and these measures are definitely coordinated considering military censorship in Isra"el", Tel Aviv's pretty much been seeking to convey that message.

Secondly when it comes to my take on the events in question, I'd like to know when I was being as categorical about them. However I'm not going to be as quick to dismiss them either, considering how they're clearly featuring a set of indications by virtue of which the hypothesis of covert Iranian retaliation finds itself firmly settled within the realm of possibility.

Thinking about it moreover, Iran would have ample reason to keep such operations covert rather than going public like the enemy does. It's a logical consequence of the disparity in raw conventional resources. Those who lament this, may as well feel frustrated about the fact that shiny aircraft carriers and latest generation fighter jets have no place in the asymmetrical path Iran is well advised to follow.

As for the argument about the allegedly lacking deterrence value of such operations, it would cut both ways. We can't say these actions may as well not exist (assuming they do) on grounds that the enemy has continued its acts of hostility, since by the same token we could contend that the enemy may capitulate since their sabotage and assassinations failed to achieve the desired goals, failed to prevent Iran from challenging their interests including through kinetic action when necessary.

The reality is that Iran does not have the will or ability to retaliate to these acts of aggression and assassinations in a way that would establish deterrence and not lead to a hot war (something the ruling elite fears desperately, evidently). So instead they have to create propaganda for internal consumption about imaginary retaliations and take credit for a 86 year old former rocket engineer being killed in a fire during riots.

To put this statement into broader perspective: the reality is that the enemy does not have the will nor the ability to resort to the kind of steps which may enable it to achieve its aims with regard to Iran while avoiding a hot war (something their ruling elite are wary of). Reason being that Iran has established deterrence against those abruptly game-changing, balance disrupting forms of aggression. An incredible achievement onto itself.

But when the US can assassinate Iran's most important general, the head of the Iraqi resistance forces, and several other IRGC generals, and the best Iran can do is give a few Americans a headache, while Hajizadeh claims Americans definitely died, but also we didn't want to kill any Americans because we want to kill McKenzie etc not random Americans (another incident where he lets himself down with stupid lies), then we obviously cannot expect a response to Israeli assassinations of IRGC generals in Syria/Iran. The only option Iran has is to escalate to using ballistic missiles but that would ignite a war, so nowadays Iran responds to Israeli acts of aggression by attacking a random Israeli billionaire's ships or using the resistance groups to attack US bases in Syria/Iraq.

Equivalences posited in the above quote notwithstanding, the Resistance practiced by the Islamic Republic has continuously strengthened Iran's position vis à vis her enemies.

But now we have a new example of Israel murdering an Iranian IRGC soldier in Syria, and Iran promising retaliation. Maybe you think Israel murdering Iranians is a low profile event, but I think most Iranians would disagree with you. Let's see if the elites can think of a way to establish deterrence or make good on their promise this time. 100th time lucky!

Well, I would recommend coming to terms with the reality that the enemy is going to martyr not one, but many more Iranians. On the path to ultimate victory, additional martyrs are bound to sacrifice their earthly presence for Islam and Iran.

But, the people who contributed to Iran accomplishing what she did to date, were they looking down on Iran's capabilities under the pretext that the sheer number of martyrs conceded was higher than the amount of enemies eliminated in the process?

 

[HGV]

Well, I would recommend coming to terms with the reality that the enemy is going to martyr not one, but many more Iranians.

Sounds like something our friend Benny would say.