What's new

Iranian Chill Thread

Assuming Iran went nuclear, the US or any other country would think twice before launching any sort of attack on Iran since the risk of escalation leading to an exchange of nukes would always be there.

First you didn’t have a valid rebuttal against my topography comment nor about the fact that securing Iran would require 500K soldiers. Probably because it doesn’t fit your narrative that nukes are needed. Saddam had the largest standing army in Arab world and lived next door and couldn’t pass Kermanshah.

But sure let’s indulge your nuclear weapons fantasy. Tel what risk is there for US ? Iran has zero missiles that can reach US mainland. So who are they going to nuke? Saudi Arabia? A carrier group? Israel? Iran can’t hit US mainland.

You play too many video games. Both Pakistan and India have had skirmishes. China and India have had skirmishes. You can’t just magically go from “hey let’s fire at each other’s military bases to let me fire a nuke”. Even when Soviets thought US was launching nukes at them they stood down instead of ordering retaliatory strikes. People like to say risk of nuclear war between powers is there, it really isn’t as likely as widely believed. All nuclear powers are very shy from even thinking about using them.

Nonetheless, You (Iran) don’t fire nukes against a country that has 3000+ of them and can literally end your country as a civilization for next 100 years.

Iran getting into nuclear exchange is a losing cause considering Iran has no true second strike capability (nuclear tipped submarines) thus US could nuke every Iran city 100 times over along with every military installation before Iran could even fire one makeshift ICBM back towards US.

So let’s not talk about hypotheticals. Nukes wouldn’t help Iran prosper today economically or physically. Smarter men in Iran than you have decided it wasn’t worth the chase.

As for your energy comment it’s also not in the realm of reason. The world is moving towards clean energy (fusion, wind, solar, natural gas, etc) so no one is invading Iran for petrochemicals and oil. Now if you would have said WATER you would have a valid point. Except Iran is destroying its water tables faster than most countries in the Middle East so if any country in the next 100 years will be invading other countries for a resource it will be Iran for drinking water, not the US that is largely energy independent and has one of the largest land masses in the world.

Lastly, outside of China, Russia or US. No other country in the world has the resources (money, energy, etc) and military (500K+ active soldiers along with necessary war machine) to even ATTEMPT a land invasion of Iran. You are talking about a war that would cost an opposing country potentially more than $5T US Dollars in costs without factoring in global recession from high oil prices . That would bankrupt most nations even if they won.

So no one is invading Iran in next 100 years barring a complete implosion of Iran from within (Balkanization).
 
Last edited:
. . .
The regime in Baku has launched a military attack on Armenia!!!
greetings comrade ,
As an Indian , iam confused as to why iran supports a Christian Armenia instead of islam Azerbaijan .
Don't take this question , as if iam trolling , i know about historical and cultural affinity between Armenia and iran .
I wanted to know an Iranians perspective in this regard
 
.
greetings comrade ,
As an Indian , iam confused as to why iran supports a Christian Armenia instead of islam Azerbaijan .
Don't take this question , as if iam trolling , i know about historical and cultural affinity between Armenia and iran .
I wanted to know an Iranians perspective in this regard
Greetings and seven blessings to you 😬
The reason is that Iran does not trust Republic of Azerbaijan. They have been involved in anti-Iranian propaganda in their country for decades. They have a strong military alliance with Israel and follow an outdated Pan-Turkic ideology. If they maintain to control particular regions of Armenia, that will affect the security and and availability of our transit routes to Europe. Armenia on the other hand is a long term friend of us and even now that is controlled by a government that wants to make Armenia closer to the West, they know that they must maintain amicable relations with us. So, it's easier to trust them.
 
.
Greetings and seven blessings to you 😬
The reason is that Iran does not trust Republic of Azerbaijan. They have been involved in anti-Iranian propaganda in their country for decades. They have a strong military alliance with Israel and follow an outdated Pan-Turkic ideology. If they maintain to control particular regions of Armenia, that will affect the security and and availability of our transit routes to Europe. Armenia on the other hand is a long term friend of us and even now that is controlled by a government that wants to make Armenia closer to the West, they know that they must maintain amicable relations with us. So, it's easier to trust them.
Nice to know that , i don't support israel either .
Wherever they and Americans are trouble follows .
I wish india and iran have beter relations between them.
 
.
greetings comrade ,
As an Indian , iam confused as to why iran supports a Christian Armenia instead of islam Azerbaijan .
Don't take this question , as if iam trolling , i know about historical and cultural affinity between Armenia and iran .
I wanted to know an Iranians perspective in this regard
That's a great question. If one looks back at Iranian historical policymaking, they will see it's driven primarily by national interest rather than an ethnic one. Given many of these states were at some point part of Iran, the 'internal' policies and social practice was never driven by religious or ethnic priorities. Yes, there has been a 'dominant' group always ('Persians' or 'Shi'a') but there's been an almost extreme sensitivity to peer groups. As such, the notion of race or religion is not really a 'thing' other than the attempts by foreigners to inject that and sow discord. Or by 'Iranians' that have bought into that engineered foreign mindset. That is why Iran has supported Armenia and Armenians more or less for a long time (note the history of their geneocide by the Turks). Armenians also have a warm and dear place in the Iranian hearts and minds and are well integrated in society. Much like other groups...
 
Last edited:
.
None of the western / zionist vassal regimes in Iran's neighborhood are going to get nuclear weapons: their imperial masters simply will not allow them to. If they do nonetheless, you know these weapons and their triggers won't be under their own sovereign control, but firmly and fully in the hands of those same imperial masters.

_____

This is some good feeling story to tell oneself but not in line with ground reality. We can deploy to any country ain't nobody will contest it or say anything about nor can do anything about it.

If there was any need for it and it shall happen openly and unapologetically. People were saying the same thing nobody will allow Pakistan to have Nukes yada yada before it got. We could deploy to Turkey, KSA or anyone in that matter of allies if they deemed it necessary overnight.

There route for going nuclear will be much easier they will first get Nuke warheads and test it declaring themselves officially than start to build their own in silence and quite atmosphere.

It could even happen today but Iran provides an excuse it is important they reach break-out point but unfortunately they won't do it until 2031 because currently they are rumored to re-enter the nuclear deal which means this pushes everything back 10 years. We will motive Iran to reach break-out point post 2031 in order for us to reconstruct the region from regional powers to potential world powers that launching pad is gonna be Tehren. Iran is doing god's work here if you ask me. Good job to Iran I would have preferred them reaching break-out point in the next 2 years instead of waiting another 12-13 years around 2032-2033
 
. .
This is some good feeling story to tell oneself but not in line with ground reality. We can deploy to any country ain't nobody will contest it or say anything about nor can do anything about it.

If there was any need for it and it shall happen openly and unapologetically. People were saying the same thing nobody will allow Pakistan to have Nukes yada yada before it got. We could deploy to Turkey, KSA or anyone in that matter of allies if they deemed it necessary overnight.

There route for going nuclear will be much easier they will first get Nuke warheads and test it declaring themselves officially than start to build their own in silence and quite atmosphere.

It could even happen today but Iran provides an excuse it is important they reach break-out point but unfortunately they won't do it until 2031 because currently they are rumored to re-enter the nuclear deal which means this pushes everything back 10 years. We will motive Iran to reach break-out point post 2031 in order for us to reconstruct the region from regional powers to potential world powers that launching pad is gonna be Tehren. Iran is doing god's work here if you ask me. Good job to Iran I would have preferred them reaching break-out point in the next 2 years instead of waiting another 12-13 years around 2032-2033

Keep telling yourself that the US, whose head of state had no qualms about referring to the Saudi regime as a "milking cow" unable to last more than a few weeks if it weren't for American protection, will authorize its client to acquire nuclear weapons and thereby gain the theoretical capability to emancipate itself from western suzerainty, and challenge Isra"el"'s regional monopoly on these weapons among other things. Saudi Arabia fits all the criteria defining a client, or should we say a vassal state devoid of sovereignty. Washington only needs to lift a finger and gone are the Sauds, much quicker than the British placed them on the throne. Any hypothetical Saudi, Turkish or Egyptian nuclear weapons will be fully US-controlled ones or they simply won't be.

__________

But this is more dangerous for region.is not it?

Of course. It would grant the Americans plausible deniability to use so-called "Saudi" nukes, which they themselves actually control, against Iran.
 
Last edited:
.
Keep telling yourself that the US, whose head of state had no qualms about referring to the Saudi regime as a "milking cow" that would not last more than a few weeks if it weren't for American protection, will authorize its client to acquire nuclear weapons and thereby gain the theoretical capability to emancipate itself from western suzerainty among other things. Saudi Arabia fits all the criteria defining a client, or should we say a vassal state. Washington only needs to lift a finger and gone are the Sauds, much quicker than the British placed them on the throne.

They already know the Saudis have it. The CIA have known this publically since the 90s this is not a secret everyone and his dog knows this already.

Also thinking anyone can bully the Qibla is delulu a unified world can't achieve that.. This is not where Israel keeps bounding you where no sovereign red-lines exist. Ethablish your own red-lines first than start to speak being bounded by a tiny country constantly and leaders eliminated inside your soil.

The only where you fight nowadays is on twitter, PDF and other platforms and you basically just mourners and got some machoistic tendencies..

If it makes you sleep better at night you can tell yourself that these nukes are US controlled and hack while we are at it why don't we also say Pakistan's nukes are US controlled why only stop at their potential future nukes?
 
Last edited:
.
I don't know about Iranian nukes , but saudi has them .
I read somewhere that saudi funded pakistani nuke project ?
If yes than , saudi has the bomb.
Regardless of what Americans tell Saudis to do.
 
.
I don't know about Iranian nukes , but saudi has them .
I read somewhere that saudi funded pakistani nuke project ?
If yes than , saudi has the bomb.
Regardless of what Americans tell Saudis to do.
Not correct. SA doesn't have a real industrial infrastructure. Period. Unlikely Pakistan has 'given' them nukes. The US wouldn't allow it. Plus Pakistan has it own major issues with India.
 
.
I don't know about Iranian nukes , but saudi has them .
I read somewhere that saudi funded pakistani nuke project ?
If yes than , saudi has the bomb.
Regardless of what Americans tell Saudis to do.
This

Not correct. SA doesn't have a real industrial infrastructure. Period. Unlikely Pakistan has 'given' them nukes. The US wouldn't allow it.

This is a baseless fallacy. Do you take the Americans to be god? Do exactly what when the treaty is triggered and it is deployed. Just sanctions how is that fruitful? They have no power over it because if they had it Pakistan wouldn't have gained them in the first place all that is just fallacy and they know KSA already has them and have known it for decades now. This is a basic ground reality. When it is deemed necessary it will
 
Last edited:
.
What people don't get here is that , pakistani bomb was called islamic bomb , I myself have no opinion about it .
But that is it , when india made the bomb , they said it was a hindu bomb .
Americans have Christian bomb .thats how it goes .
Not correct. SA doesn't have a real industrial infrastructure. Period. Unlikely Pakistan has 'given' them nukes. The US wouldn't allow it. Plus Pakistan has it own major issues with India.
Amrika could not stop india to develope the bomb .
We tested one on 74 another in 98.
They are not gods , iam not being rude to you sir but the fact is saudi funded pakistani nuke program .
Why saudi , pakistan may give nukes to turkey also .
I don't support hypocrisy of western countries about nuke proliferation , just saying some possibilities
Best would have been , had iran made its own for atleast minimum deterance.
 
.
Back
Top Bottom