your military and industrial infrastructure is exploding if front of your eyes.
No, it isn't.
No incident occurred at a military site in 2020 except for the explosion of an ordinary gas tank, causing no damage whatsoever to any weapons systems nor to any military infrastructure. It may well have been an accident. If not, then the perpetrators were certainly amateurs because this did not harm Iran's defence industry in the slightest.
As for incidents affecting civilian infrastucture, other than the explosion at Natanz - which was the work of saboteurs, but hardly affects Iran's nuclear program and thus remains largely inconsequential, there are no other proven cases of sabotage.
In fact, a study showed that there were more such accidents in 2019 than in 2020, meaning there is nothing out of the ordinary with these events. In the US itself, similar industrial accidents are practically a daily occurrence. So one shouldn't take everything zionist-dominated media suggest at face value.
For reference:
Part 2: Iran’s Fires and Explosions Are Not Unusual
By Tiziana Corda
Updated: August 4, 2020
Original: July 21, 2020
The fires and explosions in Iran in the summer of 2020 were not anomalies. Some were quite ordinary, especially in a country with a long record of neglected infrastructure and especially in summertime. Data retrieved from the archives of IRNA — used for consistency and because the news agency provides fairly consistent media coverage of such incidents–shows that these kinds of events occur frequently. In 2019, IRNA reported at least 97 fires or explosions — at power plants, factories, hospitals, research centers, vessels and arms depots — or more than one per day over 2.5 months. During the same period in 2020, Iran witnessed at least 83 incidents. In both years, the seriousness of the events varied significantly. (Neither year includes fires in green areas such as parks, forests and gardens.)
The only major difference between 2020 and 2019 was the number of explosions at military or nuclear facilities—notably at the Natanz nuclear facility on July 6 and the Khojir missile plant on June 26.
Related material with chronology of incidents: "Mysterious Explosions Rock Iran"
The following maps detail the site and type of fire or explosion assembled from IRNA data:
- fires and explosions in military/nuclear sites noted in black (and only happened in 2020),
- medical centers noted with a cross
- factories, power plants, public places are noted in dark red,
- and private residential units are in light red.
Therefore you are essentially evoking non-issues, since with the exception of only one or two cases, none of these are likely to have been the work of foreign agents. And, none of this has affected the continued development of Iran's civilian and military industries. In other words, there's nothing to write home about.
Your civilians and generals are being killed on your soil and abroad and you say you have averted military aggression? hehehehehe
What general was killed on Iranian soil? What civilians are being killed?
And yes, Iran has successfully averted outright military aggression. Token acts of terrorim or sabotage do not qualify as proper military aggression in anyone's book.
By the way, all nuclear powers except for North Korea have been subject to and have lost civilians to terrorist attacks committed on their territory. Be it the USA, the UK, France, Pakistan, India or the zionist entity. By your logic they too "failed to avert military aggression", despite their nuclear armament. In reality Iran has been one of the countries least affected by terrorism over the past couple of decades.
can you imagine if someone killed a Russian general sent to syria? what would happen?
I can imagine someone shooting down a Russian fighter jet over Syria, killing its pilots. Or someone pounding Russian private contractors in Deir ez-Zour, killing according to estimates more than a hundred in a go.
More significant yet, 241 US Marines and 38 French military personnel were killed in the 1983 Beirut barrack bombing carried out by pro-Iranian forces. 600+ US occupation troops in Iraq were killed by Iranian-armed and -trained resistance groups in the 2000's.
Retaliation-wise, in all of the above cases, nothing happened in military terms, despite the fact that the US and Russia are in possession of the world's two largest nuclear weapons arsenals.
or someone assassinated a North Korean or Chinese scientist?
your ability for self delusion is very great.
Do not shift goalposts and do not change the topic.
There is no "delusion" in the fact that Iran has successfully deterred military aggression. Because once again, token targeted assassinations do not qualify as proper military aggression.
It is also a fact that Iran would have been subjected to actual aggression if its defensive power was not deterring its enemies from launching such an aggression.
USSR dismantled itself. or more accurately after a few hundred years of expansion, the Russian empire decided to free some of its captured lands and free some of its captured people. This is a miracle.
In other words, nuclear weapons on their own do not keep nation-states safe, which is what I was responding to. They didn't in the case of the USSR, a state that no longer exists.
Still because of nukes, 30 years later, Russia can still invade sovereign countries and no-one can do anything about it. Russia takes parts of Ukraine, Georgia etc. there is only a letter protest. Russia could invade Estonia tomorrow, or Lithuania, a NATO member, nobody would do a thing. If Iran invaded Dubai, or Kuwaiti, it would be the end of Iran. can you figure out why?
Iran does not intend to invade anyone, so the contention is out of context.
Speaking of the Russian Federation, it had to confront armed uprising on its own territory over the course of two high intensity conflicts in Chechnya. It's nuclear armament couldn't prevent it. Nor was Russian victory in Chechnya due to Moscow's nuclear weapons. And, these weapons did not deter NATO and its regional vassals from backing the anti-Russian, separatist rebellion in the Caucasus.
end end goal of destroying Iran will be achieved sooner.
Anti-Iranian elements have been rehashing the same line for 40+ years and have kept being proven wrong by history. They should brace themselves for another 40 years of .
this is true, they did, But Pakistan just beat the Americans in Afghanistan. they are pulling out. Wasn't Pakistan behind the Amercian defeat there? And no-one says a bad word against Pakistan.
If Iran had nukes, it could arm and fund Hezbollah (or anyone) just as the Pakistanis do with Taliban and no-one would say a thing against Iran. but because you don't have nukes half of your armed forces are classified as terrorists.
The US regime's conflict with the Taleban is not of an existential nature and their enmity has always been reversible.
In fact it was the CIA whose support for specific factions of the Afghan mujahidin led to the creation and rise of the Taleban. US outreach to the Taleban is nothing new either, it follows a long tradition:
www.chicagotribune.com
Pakistan's primary objective is to see a friendly government take over in Kabul. If Washington considers that such a government would continue to ensure US strategic interests in Afghanistan, then it will not oppose it. This is what the current trilateral negotiations on Afghanistan are all about.
When it comes to US pullout from Afghanistan, I will believe it when I see it. For now it is far from certain to come to pass.
Whereas the US regime's hostility against Hezbollah and Iran runs much deeper. Thus a grand bargain to solve mutual points of contention is immensely more difficult to conceive. Reason being the zionist entity, and America's complete subservience to that entity. America is subservient to Tel Aviv, not to the government it installed in Kabul.
If Iran acquired nuclear weapons, Washington would not magically shelve its hostility nor acquiesce to Hezbollah's challenging of Isra"el"... The contrary would very much be the case. The US can envisage to sacrifice the current Afghan government in order to strike a deal with the Taleban and Pakistan; but it will never even think of jeopardizing let alone sacrificing the zionist entity's security or geostrategic standing in order to pursue a raprochment with the Axis of Resistance.
This is unrelated to nuclear weapons. It is flawed to perceive such multi-faceted geopolitical issues from the sole prism of nuclear armament, or to ascribe to the latter that much of an explanatory power.
By the way, I notice that the blog post I keep pointing to reply after reply is systematically being dodged. So long as the argumentation contained therein is not addressed, any dismissal of the opposed view as mere "self-delusion" cannot be taken seriously.
This right here is why there's nothing delusional about Iran's strategic thinking and its defence doctrine:
The concept Interpretation of Irans new basing concept Non-nuclear states can have the highest conventional military capability but are alwa...
patarames.blogspot.com
_____
This argument that conventional missile deterrence only is enough to deter a conventional large scale enemy attack is ridiculous. According to this argument, the enemy can come and blow up buildings, kill high ranking officials, sanction the country to death and do anything they want except a classic massive military invasion.
Please make sure to tell that to the author of the blog post below:
https://patarames.blogspot.com/2020/11/irans-path-to-second-strike-capability.html
This amply demonstrates the soundness and logic of Iran's conventional missile deterrence.
No, the enemy cannot do anything they want according to this argument.
First and foremost, according to this argument the enemy
cannot reach its objective with regards to Iran. And that's what actually counts.
As for sanctioning the country to death, if Iran armed itself with nuclear weapons, sanctions will not be lifted either (see the example of North Korea).
