I really suggest you to open a dictionary ASAP and read what ''deterrence'' literally means. If you are talking about semi or a quarter of a deterrence then perhaps you might have a point.
I never came across terms such as 'semi-deterrence' or 'quarter deterrence' in geopolitical and international relations literature so far.
Do you realize the only thing that is left is an attack on Iranian mainland OPENLY (covertly they have done this).
This isn't the appropriate way of looking at geopolitical conflict. Wars are not fought to kill or destroy more than the opposite side, nor to humiliate an adversary, nor for prestige reasons... They are solely fought to attain a political objective, no more, no less. Since Clausewitz at most, this is a well demonstrated and universally accepted truth in academia.
The thing that's left for the US and zionist regimes, is to reach their basic objectives to start with: namely, to suppress Iran because of her Resistance policies first and foremost (and indeed, these policies are neither "bogus" nor "harmless", no matter the inanities that takfiris or individuals with a similar discourse will utter), and then because the regime in Tel Aviv cannot tolerate large any nation-state with considerable potentials in its neighborhood.
Military aggression is not the only possible means to carry through this agenda, by the way. But no matter how they tried, Iran's enemies have failed in implementing their program. In other terms, the enemy has not been successful in the least.
Like i said in my previous posts, IRGC is not at fault here, they are doing their best with limited resources they got. The problem is the political decisions made by a few, especially Khamenei.
There's no justification for such a hypothesis. All arguments presented to this effect can be debunked.
* It was suggested that the enemy would try to "assassinate" the Supreme Leader if he orders to go ahead with manufacturing nuclear weapons. This scenario, however, is quite removed from reality. Hajj Qassem was martyred in an absolute surprise attack - there were no prior indications nor was there a particular reason to believe he would be targeted during that specific trip of his to Iraq. Plus, he was a soldier who went to the frontlines all the time - hence everyone in the system was aware of and accepted the risk that he could get martyred at any given moment. Thirdly, he was martyred outside Iran's borders in an entirely non-protected setting.
To compare this with the extreme levels of security enjoyed by the person of the Supreme Leader on Iranian soil is baseless. Underground facilities and air defence systems like those believed to be solid enough to protect the Iranian nuclear infrastructure from enemy strikes in case Iran decided to go for nuclear weapons, would be just as apt in protecting a key individual.
Furthermore, if the Supreme Leader ordered to build nuclear weapons and if this really entailed such a huge risk for his personal safety, then this risk would be known in advance, and would allow Iran to prepare accordingly - contrary to shahid Soleimani's case. And therefore, protective measures for the Supreme Leader would be enhanced to such a degree that it would make it impossible for the enemy's assassination teams to infiltrate the multiple, rock solid security layers set up for this specific occasion.
And let's not obfuscate the fact that these security measures would only need to last a couple of weeks - which is the time required for Iran to break out and assemble a nuclear device. After which, according to those who make the contentions under discussion, there'd be no more risk anymore for the Supreme Leader. Because, so they argue, nuclear weapons provide absolute deterrence against assassination of political and military figures. And yes, the Islamic Republic of Iran is perfectly capable of effectively shielding her Supreme Leader from any assassination attempts for a period of some weeks, even months or more if required.
Also, if the Democratic People's Republic of Korea was as much if not more of a threat to US hegemony, as claimed previously by the quoted user, and if the regime in Washington will proceed to assassinate leaders from rival states the moment they decide to go nuclear, why then was Kim Il-Sung spared?
No matter how one will look at it: the claim that Iran's Supreme Leader is being deterred from ordering to build nukes because of "fear for his life" does not hold water.
* The second argument presented in support of the claim, was that the US would strike and weaken the IRGC. And that this weakening was considered too high a price to pay in exchange for the acquisition of nuclear weapon. Weapons which, so the quoted user claims, provide absolute deterrence against any form of aggression. I hope everyone sees the self-contradicting nature of this reasoning: for if nukes make any act of aggression impossible, then what relevance does a temporary weakening of the IRGC have in such a context? Strictly none at all, given that only a few weeks after the hypothetical strikes, the IRGC would be armed with nukes. So this claim doesn't work either.
* This is all without mentioning that nuclear weapons do not deter against all sorts of armed attacks or military-grade operations, as proven by the
1982 Falklands war between the UK and Argentina, by the
1999 Kargil conflict between India and Pakistan, and by Islamic Iran's support for
Resistance forces conducting armed attacks against the zionist military in Palestine and Lebanon, as well as against the US military in Iraq. So it is necessary to insist:
nuclear weapons do not deter against any and all forms of hostile armed action.
In my opinion, everything has to be done for the interest of the ''nezaam''. If there is any threat to the stability and longevity of the nezaam they will do whatever in their power to cancel that threat.
Problem with this view is that the survival of the Islamic Republic and Iran's survival are inextricably linked and inseparable from each other, given the nature of the enemy's agenda.
Second problem is that if nuclear weapons strengthen a country's national defence, they strengthen the political system of that country
even more against foreign military aggression.
You can think of giving concessions, negotiating with the devil once again (yes, sitting with the same thugs that carried out an open attack on Iran on Jan.2020) etc.
If you are interested in reading and understanding the view of all sides, you can read the two articles posted above by user Abid123.
The Leader of the nuclear-armed DPRK, Kim Jong-Un, also thought of giving concessions. He offered Trump to completely give up Korea's nuclear weapons, no less, in exchange for a lifting of US-imposed sanctions.
Conclusion : Iran has not yet reached full deterrence against the USA/Israel. If you believe otherwise you are free to live in your dreamworld while the real world plays out very differently.
This relativization of the concept of deterrence is inoperative, insofar as military aggression serves a political objective, and nothing else. Does the aggressor achieve its political objective, then the defending side's deterrence has failed. Does the aggressor hold back from resorting to the means necessary for reaching its previously defined geostrategic goals - assuming that like the US, it does possess these means in theory, then it's the aggressor which was successfully deterred by the defender.
This is how the concept of deterrence plays out in practice.
- - - - -
They killed Soleimani and took full responsibility for it and even called him a terrorist and a danger to the world. They treated him like Bin Laden.
When it comes to ordering the strike on shahid Soleimani, someone like Trump likely wouldn't have been deterred by Iranian nuclear weapons. Trump also threatened nuclear-armed North Korea with a military attack (his "fire and fury" Tweet in particular), and it worked fine: he got the meeting he wanted with Kim.
But, beyond the psy-ops, here's what really matters: how exactly did the cowardly attack on Hajj Qassem fulfill Washington's geostrategic aims vis a vis Iran? It didn't, and hence this is ultimately not relevant.
The US would've never done that to the Soviet Union, or even today's Russia or today's China.
But the Argentinians declared war on the UK, landed troops on territory London claims sovereignty over, and turned several British warships into blazing fireballs. They did all this to the UK despite Britain's large nuclear weapons arsenal, arsenal which did not deter Buenos Aires in the least.
Indian and Pakistani nukes did not prevent the armies of the two countries from clashing repeatedly, from killing each others' troops, from humiliatingly parading POW's in front of the cameras, in contravention of international laws and regulations.
It's interesting that Russia was cited though. Once upon a time, there was a much more powerful, much more intimidating version of present day Russia, known as the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics. However, where's the USSR today? Dwelling in the trash can of History. Defeated, territorially dismantled. Having the world's most massive stockpile of nukes (45.000 units) did not save the Soviet Union from being defeated by its rival. Leading us once again to conclude: nukes do not offer a fool-proof guarantee for survival.
People who think that Iran has established deterrence against the US are not only delusional, but they are plain stupid and retarded. It's just as simple as that. No offense to any of our members here though.
The concept Interpretation of Irans new basing concept Non-nuclear states can have the highest conventional military capability but are alwa...
patarames.blogspot.com
- - - - -
You do bring up a pretty important point, one that we both agreed on in the past when Soleimani was murdered. The Iranian government tends to err on the side of caution when it comes to decisions that could quite possibly end or greatly harm the I.R.I as we know it. It's no secret that Iranian officials would want to hold onto the power they have and will only go so far but I guess that's more of subjective take since what one considers far enough or not enough is up to the individual.
Could you name one government that will knowingly endanger its own survival when carrying out an act of military retaliation? Thus, I'm not sure how the Islamic Republic has erred in this respect. But if the IR is foregoing nukes for the time being, that's not out of a fear of US aggression, as demonstrated above.
Also, how many states do you know whose leading figures put their lives at risk as much as IR leaders have done? How many terrorist attacks and attempts on their lives have they been subjected to since 1979? How many of them fought on the war fronts, compared to other countries? Heck, how many states are there in the world, whose leadership is brave enough to stand up to and seriously challenge American imperial hegemony? Four, five out of a hundred and ninety five? Let's not even mention Resistance against zionism, as that would reduce the number even more. So definitely, the IR leadership is on the daring side here.
But moreover, if the Islamic Republic is gone, Iran will be gone. Any hiatus in the authority of the central state will be mercilessly exploited by Iran's enemies to turn the country into a nightmare worse than Iraq, Syria, Libya and Afghanistan combined.
I've personally came to the conclusion that the IRGC launched a covert operation against the USAF in Afghanistan, downing the E11-A as a covert retaliation for Soleimani's murder
Agreed 100% on this observation. The Taleban had practically stopped their attacks on US forces over the last three years of NATO occupation, and they were never seen intercepting American aircraft with surface to air missiles before. Then all of a sudden, shortly after shahid Soleimani's martyrdom, a US military or intelligence aircraft is downed over Afghanistan...
But here's the question, brother:
where was US nuclear deterrence when Iran had that aircraft hit? Some say CIA mastermind Michael D'Andrea ("Ayatollah Mike") was on board - even if he wasn't, this was not an ordinary aircraft. Where was America's nuclear deterrence when Iran struck the CIA compound at Arbil airport, Kurdish Autonomous Region of Iraq? When Iran, in all probability, eliminated high-ranking US military officers in PGCC countries (like the one who supposedly lost his life while "lacing his boots", so their official statement)?
(
