What's new

Iranian Missiles | News and Discussions

I'd say that, if you're willing to believe the IRGC shot down the E11-A BACN aircraft over Afghanistan: An event which itself took place shortly after Shahid Soleimani's death. Then one can say that Iran got 'blood' revenge for Hajj-Qassem, albeit covertly. And the overt conventional military strike against Ayn Al-Assad was the operation meant to re-established relative deterrence and save-face as it were.

Valli, dovereh, rust-migi. Aslan hichkasi nist ke Iran bokosheh that would amount to Hajj-Qassem.
But we don't know if Iran was involved in that, and again, if Iran has reached full deterrence against the US, why not just claim responsibility for the attack? Honestly, I don't buy any of that story, particularly about killing Ayatollah Mike.

Didn't the United States claim responsibility for killing two of the most important commanders of the Middle East? If Iran has reached deterrence against the US as Salar and others claim, then Iran could at least go for Gen. McKenzie, the CENTCOM's commander in chief, and then claim full responsibility for it. Why not?
 
.
But we don't know if Iran was involved in that, and again, if Iran has reached full deterrence against the US, why not just claim responsibility for the attack? Honestly, I don't buy any of that story, particularly about killing Ayatollah Mike.

Didn't the United States claim responsibility for killing two of the most important commanders of the Middle East? If Iran has reached deterrence against the US as Salar and others claim, then Iran could at least go for Gen. McKenzie, the CENTCOM's commander in chief.

From my position, having followed Trump's radical foreign policy decision making. I think both Iran and the United States (even under Trump) didn't want to openly escalate the situation any further. Many of his advisors and other think-tanks did warn him of the possible fallout of escalating into a open shooting war with the I.R.I. so most probably each side walked away with there chunk of flesh from each other and called it a day.

After all, the United States cannot lose Eastern Europe and the East Asia Pacific region all in a bid to confront Iran since men, weapons and supplies are already spread thin.
 
.
From my position, having followed Trump's radical foreign policy decision making. I think both Iran and the United States (even under Trump) didn't want to openly escalate the situation any further.
Yes, but I can understand why the US didn't want to escalate the situation further. I mean they had just killed two of the most important commanders affiliated with Iran in the region. Obviously, they were pretty happy with the outcome and didn't want to escalate further. But the situation for Iran was quite the opposite. If we had reached deterrence against the US, we should've flattened the US bases in Iraq, Qatar and the Emirates. And directly attempted to kill Gen. McKenzie and right after Trump's presidency ended, we should've openly gone for assassinating him and Pompeo. Not in propaganda animations, but in reality.
 
.
Yes, but I can understand why the US didn't want to escalate the situation further. I mean they had just killed two of the most important commanders affiliated with Iran. Obviously, they were pretty happy with the outcome and didn't want to escalate further. But the situation for Iran was quite the opposite. If we had reached deterrence against the US, we should've flattened the US bases in Iraq, Qatar and the Emirates. And directly attempted to kill Gen. McKenzie and right after Trump's presidency ended, we should've openly gone for assassinating him and Pompeo. Not in propaganda animations, but in reality.

But we don't know if Iran was involved in that, and again, if Iran has reached full deterrence against the US, why not just claim responsibility for the attack? Honestly, I don't buy any of that story, particularly about killing Ayatollah Mike.

Didn't the United States claim responsibility for killing two of the most important commanders of the Middle East? If Iran has reached deterrence against the US as Salar and others claim, then Iran could at least go for Gen. McKenzie, the CENTCOM's commander in chief, and then claim full responsibility for it. Why not?

Iran, Russia, Israel, China, North Korea, U.S., U.K. and many others all operate very actively within the sphere of covert operations. So I truly do think that the downing of the E11-A was just another part of this "shadow-war" each side partakes in, It is what it is.

Moreover brother, my position has always been that the IRGC AEROSPACE MISSLE FORCE'S response should have been significantly more comprehensive. There were many more targets to be obliterated at Ayn Al-Assad but the IRGC decided to go after only so many. What the Americans had to say on the matter is of little to no consequence. We know from first-hand reports of Danish soldiers that were stationed at Ayn Al-Assad during the attack that "when they came out of their bunkers, helicopters were cut in half and there was widespread destruction".

I think the level of damage done was considerably more than what the Americans showed and the cover-up/clean up job was done as fast as possible so the story that came out downplayed Iran's operation in order to save-face. Apart of me also thinks that Iran knew that it could only take so much away from the Americans as, again, neither side didn't wants to engage in a costly war so the IRGC took the downing of the E11-A as enough of a blood-revenge to satiate the need for immediate reprisal. Ayn Al-Assad was as more of a show of strength than a "revenge operation".

It should be noted that, even though Iran has grown its military strength significantly over the recent years. There is no wish to get into a conflict that will see many of those gains destroyed or rolled back. Iran isn't suicidal in this regard.
 
Last edited:
.
There was a lowered morale. Its evidence continues to exist on PDF and all it takes is someone goes to just 2 years ago and sees our posts back then. If you want to continue to live in denial, that's your problem.

PDF as a yardstick for Iranian and allied military forces... I don't think so. Evidence is all over the place that shahid Soleimani's martyrdom led to heightened readiness for mobilization.

Well, let's see: Iran is losing tens of billions of dollars in oil and gas revenue every year. The US is blocking Iranian money internationally. Iraq, which happens to be under our control, owes us several billion dollars and at the same time is reducing her energy dependence on us. China which is supposed to be our partner owes us billions of dollars. South Korea owes us billions of dollars but refuses to pay and the IRGC tactic of seizing their tanker didn't work. Saudi Arabia is making fortunes selling oil at $95 per barrel while we are left alone with China's mercy for discounted price and overdue payments. I can add to the list in Persian.

All of these applied prior to shahid Soleimani's martyrdom as well. On a sidenote, it's excellent to reduce dependence on oil incomes. Iran's reliance on oil exports is incomparably smaller than Saudi Arabia's. That's a sign of progress, not a setback.

I portrayed nuclear weapons exactly as what they are: the best deterrence that exists today. If you do not believe in this theory, or if dumb Iranian leadership does not believe in this theory, then they should all be hanged for wasting over 100 billion dollars over some useless program that is an embarrassment in every aspect. The only reason that justifies keeping this nuclear program alive is that it can be used for nuclear weapons. Otherwise, Iran's nuclear program is a complete and utter joke from a civilian aspect.

Nuclear weapons are one among several effective instruments of deterrence. Hence why Iran is maintaining the option to acquire them. But by no means are they the only effective deterrent, and by no means are they fool proof against any and all conceivable uses of force.

No, it doesn't because the Falklands war was not an attack on the British sovereignty. For the same reason that the British did not respond to Iran's attack on their claimed territories in the Persian Gulf, the British did not take their dispute with Argentina as an aggression on their territory because well, everyone knows that they are there illegally.

The reason why the British did not react to Iranian take over of Abu Musa and the Tumbs, is because they had officially abandoned their claims over these islands! As opposed to the Falklands, claims to sovereignty over which the UK never forewent. Hence why the UK struck back and war ensued.

Also, the two sets of islands have had different legal statuses. While London considers the Falklands as full fledged part of British soil, the present territory of the UAE and the three Persian Gulf islands were never attributed that status, they were British protectorates. To the UK, Argentina's move was an attack on British territorial integrity.

Nuclear weapons are not for expansionism. You don't get the difference between deterrence and expansionism. Just like you don't get the difference between deterrence and maintaining a bad status quo.

Expansionism? The British had exerted de facto if not de jure sovereignty over the Falklands for nearly 150 years when Buenos Aires declared war on them. The expansion had been done long before. Again, you're somehow trying to dodge this significant case by suggesting that if a nuclear weapons armed state contravenes international law, out of shame and humbleness it will voluntarily renounce the deterrence power stemming from said weapons. Sorry, but that's an outlandish assumption.

Only 600 US troops? And all of them before 2011? So, in other words, you are confirming that after the assassination of Gen. Soleimani, the Islamic Republic has not had the balls to hurt even 10 low rank American soldiers?

I am confirming that American nuclear weapons couldn't do a damn thing in preventing them from losing over 600 troops at the hands of Iranian-backed Resistance groups in Iraq. Which is more significant in terms of concrete impact on the ground than the removal of a single general.

Look at the dates again: before 2011, and 2019 for shahid Soleimani's martyrdom... there's eight years in between. So no, the assassination of martyr Soleimani is not the reason for lower numbers of US casualties in Iraq.
 
Last edited:
.
PDF as a yardstick for Iranian and allied military forces... I don't think so. Evidence is all over the place that shahid Soleimani's martyrdom led to heightened readiness for mobilization.



All of these applied prior to shahid Soleimani's martyrdom as well. On a sidenote, it's excellent to reduce dependence on oil incomes. Iran's reliance on oil exports is incomparably smaller than Saudi Arabia's. That's a sign of progress, not a setback.



Nuclear weapons are one among several effective instruments of deterrence. Hence why Iran is maintaining the option to acquire them. But by no means are they the only effective deterrent, and by no means are they fool proof against any and all conceivable uses of force.



The reason why the British did not react to Iranian take over of Abu Musa and the Tumbs, is because they had officially abandoned their claims over these islands! As opposed to the Falklands, claims to sovereignty over which the UK never forewent. Hence why the UK struck back and war ensued.

Also, the two sets of islands have had different legal statuses. While London considers the Falklands as full fledged part of British soil, the present territory of the UAE and the three Persian Gulf islands were never attributed that status, they were British protectorates.



Expansionism? The British had exerted de facto if not de jure sovereignty over the Falklands for nearly 150 years when Buenos Aires declared war on them. Again, you're somehow trying to dodge this significant case by suggesting that if a nuclear weapons armed state contravenes international law, out of shame and humbleness it will voluntarily renounce the deterrence power stemming from said weapons. Sorry, but that's just baseless.



I am confirming that US nuclear weapons couldn't do a damn in preventing them from losing over 600 troops at the hands of Iranian-backed Resistance groups in Iraq.

Look at the dates again: before 2011, and 2019 for shahid Soleimani's martyrdom... there's eight years in between. So no, the assassination of martyr Soleimani is not the reason for lower numbers of US casualties in Iraq.
PDF is an example of a website where you can find Iranian posters interested in military affairs.

Nobody said that this situation didn't exist before Soleimani's assassination. Your straw man fallacy does not change the subject and the valid point that was raised about the side effects of the status quo for Iran. And the fact that you didn't refute them shows that you do not deny them.

It is excellent to reduce our dependence on oil income, but that should be done by heavily increasing the size of our non-oil exports while selling oil, not by getting deprived of our right to sell oil by the US bullying.

Maintaining the option to acquire them? How and at what cost? By losing tens of billions of dollars over a year? This is exactly the reason that I am saying that the Iranian leadership does not have a clear strategy regarding the nuclear program. You do not "maintain the option to acquire nukes" for a cost this high! When you are cornered and you are already paying the price, then just go for it and build them if you have the balls.

So, you are saying that the US should use nukes against militias in Iraq? Is that what you are saying? LOL. Using nuclear weapons for attacks committed by militias that you are occupying their country? Seriously?

How many US soldiers have been killed in Iraq after the assassination of Gen. Soleimani?
 
.
PDF is an example of a website where you can find Iranian posters interested in military affairs.

With a handful of exceptions, PDF users aren't in line with the ideological orientation of the revolutionary core of the IRI, of IRGC personnel etc.

Nobody said that this situation didn't exist before Soleimani's assassination. Your straw man fallacy does not change the subject and the valid point that was raised about the side effects of the status quo for Iran. And the fact that you didn't refute them shows that you do not deny them.

Me: "Sorry but no. You failed to mention a single geostrategic setback experienced by Iran as a result of shahid Soleimani's martyrdom. Because there haven't been any."

You: "Well, let's see: Iran is losing tens of billions of dollars in oil and gas revenue every year. The US is blocking Iranian money internationally. Iraq, which happens to be under our control, owes us several billion dollars and at the same time is reducing her energy dependence on us. China which is supposed to be our partner owes us billions of dollars. South Korea owes us billions of dollars but refuses to pay and the IRGC tactic of seizing their tanker didn't work. Saudi Arabia is making fortunes selling oil at $95 per barrel while we are left alone with China's mercy for discounted price and overdue payments. I can add to the list in Persian."

Me: "All of these applied prior to shahid Soleimani's martyrdom as well."

You: "Strawman fallacy."

Thence, at this particular juncture we weren't discussing the general side effects of Iran's anti-imperialist foreign policy since 1979, but alleged game changing consequences of Hajj Qasem's martyrdom at the geostrategic level.

As for the cited economic data, they're painting an incomplete and therefore biased picture of Iran's standing.

It is excellent to reduce our dependence on oil income, but that should be done by heavily increasing the size of our non-oil exports while selling oil, not by getting deprived of our right to sell oil by the US bullying.

Any path towards reduction of oil dependence is good. Whether export-based or primarily founded upon reliance on the domestic market. But Iran's non-oil exports have recorded a steady increase as well.

Maintaining the option to acquire them? How and at what cost? By losing tens of billions of dollars over a year? This is exactly the reason that I am saying that the Iranian leadership does not have a clear strategy regarding the nuclear program. You do not "maintain the option to acquire nukes" for a cost this high! When you are cornered and you are already paying the price, then just go for it and build them if you have the balls.

To Iran's enemies the nuclear file is essentially a pretext for sanctions. If not for Iran's civilian nuclear program, they'd have invoked something else. Or even made up fictive claims as with Iraq back in the day.

So, you are saying that the US should use nukes against militias in Iraq? Is that what you are saying? LOL. Using nuclear weapons for attacks committed by militias that you are occupying their country? Seriously?

US nukes weren't enough to deter Iran from conducting this policy. Likewise, Iranian nukes would not have been guaranteed to prevent any of the events invoked here as alleged signs of lacking Iranian deterrence.

How many US soldiers have been killed in Iraq after the assassination of Gen. Soleimani?

How many had been killed during the eight years prior to his martyrdom? His martyrdom isn't the cause for decreased Resistance activity in Iraq, US withdrawal of the bulk of its forces minus a small auxiliary contingent is.
 
Last edited:
. . .
With a handful of exceptions, PDF users aren't in line with the ideological orientation of the revolutionary core of the IRI, of IRGC personnel etc.



Me: "Sorry but no. You failed to mention a single geostrategic setback experienced by Iran as a result of shahid Soleimani's martyrdom. Because there haven't been any."

You: "Well, let's see: Iran is losing tens of billions of dollars in oil and gas revenue every year. The US is blocking Iranian money internationally. Iraq, which happens to be under our control, owes us several billion dollars and at the same time is reducing her energy dependence on us. China which is supposed to be our partner owes us billions of dollars. South Korea owes us billions of dollars but refuses to pay and the IRGC tactic of seizing their tanker didn't work. Saudi Arabia is making fortunes selling oil at $95 per barrel while we are left alone with China's mercy for discounted price and overdue payments. I can add to the list in Persian."

Me: "All of these applied prior to shahid Soleimani's martyrdom as well."

You: "Strawman fallacy."

Thence, at this particular juncture we weren't discussing the general side effects of Iran's anti-imperialist foreign policy since 1979, but alleged game changing consequences of Hajj Qasem's martyrdom at the geostrategic level.

As for the cited economic data, they're painting an incomplete and therefore biased picture of Iran's standing.



Any path towards reduction of oil dependence is good. Whether export-based or primarily founded upon reliance on the domestic market. But Iran's non-oil exports have recorded a steady increase as well.



To Iran's enemies the nuclear file is essentially a pretext for sanctions. If not for Iran's civilian nuclear program, they'd have invoked something else. Or even made up fictive claims as with Iraq back in the day.



US nukes weren't enough to deter Iran from conducting this policy. Likewise, Iranian nukes would not have been guaranteed to prevent any of the events invoked here as alleged signs of lacking Iranian deterrence.



How many had been killed during the eight years prior to his martyrdom? His martyrdom isn't the cause for decreased Resistance activity in Iraq, US withdrawal of the bulk of its forces minus a small auxiliary contingent is.
You didn't really answer anything that is worth discussing.

First of all, it seems established from your answer that no American soldier has died after the assassination of Gen. Soleimani, not even in the following rocket attacks by the Iranian-backed militias in Iraq. That's pathetic and quite embarrassing, particularly because the US is overstaying their welcome in Iraq after the Iraqi parliament asked them to leave.

In case you feel that killing over 600+ US soldiers from 2003 to 2011 is a huge achievement, I have to remind you that the US is responsible for the deaths of over 300,000 Iranian soldiers and civilians during the Iraq war, including tens of thousands of deaths due to the widespread use of chemical weapons, fully backed by the US, even publicly through their vetoes of UNSC resolutions about Iraqi use of chemical weapons. So, killing 600+ US soldiers and thinking that it's an achievement compared to what the US has done to Iran is quite ridiculous. Even in that regard, it's still 300K+ vs 600+ for the US. And I am using official statistics only, some unofficial stats claim that over 500,000 Iranians were killed in the 8 years of the Iraq-Iran war and the US is a main culprit there.

Your straw man fallacy is quite apparent. I said that Iran needs megatonne nukes for deterrence and you said that Iran was doing fine without them and we don't need them and went on about how Iran is this and that. Then I told you that the situation is nowhere as good as you pretend it is because they have killed several top Iranian commanders with complete immunity from our retaliation and our economy is bleeding from their unilateral sanctions. You somehow attempted in futile to turn this about the aftermath of the assassination of Gen. Soleimani. All of my points nevertheless remain valid. The US feels immune against Iran's retaliation while they are bleeding Iran at any opportunity they find.
 
.
My father and entire family protected Iran from the same western dogs you're brown nosing, tokhm e sag. Babat dayooseh.
Considering your flags that belongs to the country that is Iran's eternal enemy, and your mother is probably currently wh0ring for her English masters now, it is quite clear who is brown nosing westerners.

Madar jendehi ke parchame Angalestan ro gozashti o ehtemalan pedaret kooni boode too qom va ba'd landan, oon zamani ke to haroom zadeh inja naboodi 2 ta dayi man to jang shahid shodan zena zadeh tokhme haroom.
 
.
First of all, it seems established from your answer that no American soldier has died after the assassination of Gen. Soleimani, not even in the following rocket attacks by the Iranian-backed militias in Iraq. That's pathetic and quite embarrassing, particularly because the US is overstaying their welcome in Iraq after the Iraqi parliament asked them to leave.

The question was how Iran's geostrategic standing vis a vis the US is supposed to have degraded after Hajj Qasem's martyrdom. Not to debate how worthy the Iranian response has been.

Fact is and remains that this episode did not affect Iran's position on the ground. It's only effect was in the psy-ops realm, which was not translated into any concrete material gains for the US regime (the Supreme Leader shedding tears or PDF users being upset is not a concrete material gain at the geostrategic level).

In case you feel that killing over 600+ US soldiers from 2003 to 2011 is a huge achievement, I have to remind you that the US is responsible for the deaths of over 300,000 Iranian soldiers and civilians during the Iraq war, including tens of thousands of deaths due to the widespread use of chemical weapons, fully backed by the US, even publicly through their vetoes of UNSC resolutions about Iraqi use of chemical weapons. So, killing 600+ US soldiers and thinking that it's an achievement compared to what the US has done to Iran is quite ridiculous. Even in that regard, it's still 300K+ vs 600+ for the US. And I am using official statistics only, some unofficial stats claim that over 500,000 Iranians were killed in the 8 years of the Iraq-Iran war and the US is a main culprit there.

I've consistently underscored that kill ratio comparisons are irrelevant in war. Conflicts are never fought to kill more than the opponent, but to reach predefined political goals (e.g. Soviet versus German casualties in WW2, Vietnamese versus American casualties during the Vietnam war etc).

So my point wasn't to speculate as to how much of an achievement it was compared to what the US obtained - achievement which is never measured in terms of casualty figures anyway, but in terms of concrete geopolitical indicators and realities weighed against previously set political objectives. Iran's support for Iraqi Resistance groups curtailed the US-zionist neocon program for a "New Middle East" more than American backing of Saddam achieved to fulfill its goals i.e. to topple the Islamic Republic and to bring the Revolution to a definitive halt.

The point was to show that US nuclear weapons could not deter Iran from waging this form of indirect warfare on the US military, whose impact on the ground surpassed the geostrategic effects of Hajj Qasem's assassination by far.

Your straw man fallacy is quite apparent.

I provided a detailed break down of the relevant discussion segment. There isn't any straw man fallacy.

I said that Iran needs megatonne nukes for deterrence and you said that Iran was doing fine without them and we don't need them and went on about how Iran is this and that. Then I told you that the situation is nowhere as good as you pretend it is because they have killed several top Iranian commanders with complete immunity from our retaliation and our economy is bleeding from their unilateral sanctions.

Now you are referring to the entire discussion from the very start, rather than to the specific part under consideration.

But to address the above nonetheless,

1) Despite Iranian megaton nukes, they likely would have carried out these assassinations all the same. Nuclear weapons do not deter against any and all use of force. They have even failed at systematically averting full fledged conventional conflict as in the Falklands in 1982, and this ranks higher in the level, intensity and scope of violence than the mere assassination of a general.
2) If armed with megaton nukes, Iran would have been sanctioned all the same. Even in the absence of a civilian nuclear program, they would have sanctioned Islamic Iran.

At any rate, this isn't what matters most. Relevant is chiefly the outcome in concrete geopolitical terms, viewed through the prism of the stated and/or implicit political objectives meant to be served by means of the military instrument. In this regard, the US regime has quite utterly failed at causing any strategic setback for Iran with its sanctions and isolated terrorist operations.

You somehow attempted in futile to turn this about the aftermath of the assassination of Gen. Soleimani. All of my points nevertheless remain valid. The US feels immune against Iran's retaliation while they are bleeding Iran at any opportunity they find.

It isn't relevant. Not only did Hajj Qassem's martyrdom fall short of affecting Iran's geostrategic position in a negative way, but said position has experienced further improvement since then. US think tank analysts have no problems admitting it (as in the previously shared video clip).

Due to Iran's effective power of deterrence, the US regime is feeling highly vulnerable to what it would actually take to achieve their strategic aims towards Iran - and assassinations or sabotage most definitely do not fall under that category, and never will.
 
Last edited:
.
The question was how Iran's geostrategic standing vis a vis the US is supposed to have degraded after Hajj Qasem's martyrdom. Not to debate how worthy the Iranian response has been.

Fact is and remains that this episode did not affect Iran's position on the ground. It's only effect was in the psy-ops realm, which was not translated into any concrete material gains for the US regime (the Supreme Leader shedding tears or PDF users being upset is not a concrete material gain at the geostrategic level).



I've consistently underscored that kill ratio comparisons are irrelevant in war. Conflicts are never fought to kill more than the opponent, but to reach predefined political goals (e.g. Soviet versus German casualties in WW2, Vietnamese versus American casualties during the Vietnam war etc).

So my point wasn't to speculate as to how much of an achievement it was compared to what the US obtained - achievement which is never measured in terms of casualty figures anyway, but in terms of concrete geopolitical indicators and realities weighed against previously set political objectives. Iran's support for Iraqi Resistance groups curtailed the US-zionist neocon program for a "New Middle East" more than American backing of Saddam achieved to fulfill its goals i.e. to topple the Islamic Republic and to bring the Revolution to a definitive halt.

The point was to show that US nuclear weapons could not deter Iran from waging this form of indirect warfare on the US military, whose impact on the ground surpassed the geostrategic effects of Hajj Qasem's assassination by a lot.



I provided a detailed break down of the relevant discussion segment. There isn't any straw man fallacy.



Now you are referring to the entire discussion from the very start, rather than to the specific part under consideration.

But to address the above nonetheless,

1) Despite Iranian megaton nukes, they likely would have carried out these assassinations all the same. Nuclear weapons do not deter against any and all use of force. They have even failed at systematically averting full fledged conventional conflict as in the Falklands in 1982, and that ranks higher in the intensity and scope of violence than the mere assassination of a general.
2) If armed with megaton nukes, Iran would have been sanctioned all the same. Even in the absence of a civilian nuclear program, they would have sanctioned Islamic Iran.

At any rate, this isn't what matters most. Relevant is chiefly the outcome in concrete geopolitical terms, viewed through the prism of the stated and/or implicit political objectives meant to be served by means of the military instrument. In this regard, the US regime has quite utterly failed at causing any strategic setback for Iran with its sanctions and isolated terrorist operations.



It isn't relevant. Not only did Hajj Qassem's martyrdom fall short of affecting Iran's geostrategic position in a negative way, but the latter has experienced further improvement since then. US think tank analysts have no problems admitting it (as in the previously shared video clip).

Due to Iran's effective power of deterrence, the US regime is feeling highly vulnerable to what it would actually take to achieve their strategic aims towards Iran - and assassinations or sabotage most definitely do not fall under that category.
Again, a long post of nothing!

"I have underscored that kill ratio comparisons are irrelevant", but I am happy to bring up 600+ US soldiers that were killed like 15 years ago for something that happened just 2 years ago and 2 of Iran's most important commanders were killed without any lethal retaliation on our part. LOL At the same time, when I realize that the US is responsible for over 500,000+ deaths of Iranians, it suddenly becomes irrelevant. LOL

Dude, stop writing your nonsense. I know you're not Iranian because you have admitted it before on your own. I think you are an Afghan Hazara or something, but I don't know for sure. I think you type these long answers because you're on a payroll and you're paid by the number of words that you type. So, just cut it short. I don't have time to read long answers that only hit around the bush and avoid the real matter.

You say if Iran was armed with megatonne nukes, we would be sanctioned. I didn't know that we aren't sanctioned now. There are more sanctions on Iran than on North Korea currently. And again, since when you care about sanctions? I thought sanctions were a good thing?

The points are very clear. It doesn't matter how much you attempt in futile to change it and pretend that the discussion is about something else. Everyone who has read the topic knows what we are discussing. It is about Iran's nuclear strategy and the deterrence that nuclear arsenal can give Iran.
 
Last edited:
.
Mobin stealth cruise missile shown off. Hopefully we see an anti ship missile version on future Moudges
20220212_120941.jpg
20220212_120808.jpg
20220212_120924.jpg
 
.
Considering your flags that belongs to the country that is Iran's eternal enemy, and your mother is probably currently wh0ring for her English masters now, it is quite clear who is brown nosing westerners.

Madar jendehi ke parchame Angalestan ro gozashti o ehtemalan pedaret kooni boode too qom va ba'd landan, oon zamani ke to haroom zadeh inja naboodi 2 ta dayi man to jang shahid shodan zena zadeh tokhme haroom.

Lol what a hypocrite, aren't you the one who's 100% for sure living in the west, supporting the same system to be imposed on Iran and your own mother and sister are free to see on adult websites? Your fake outrage is pathetic and obvious to see. Apart from where I was born, where have I brown nosed anyone other than Iran? Whereas one doesn't need to look far to see your credulous bache kooni pandering to the enemies of Iran. We will never let your ilk have a significant footing in Iran, ever! Cope!

Doorghgooye kesafat! Agair rast migi kheyli pas bache kooni hasti ke miyay inja jelow e ma Amrikaro suk mizani, valad e zena! Familit bikhod kardan shaheed shodan baraye yek haroom zadeye mesle to! Nanat va babat faghad shahr-e-no baladan becharkhoonan dar gharb, va harshab bache sarbazaye amrikayi miyan koon e nanato jer midan, kharkoste. To ye bache yahoodi hasti, bayeed midonam che migi. Boro koon bede!
 
.
Back
Top Bottom