International Iran begins attack on Israel, launching dozens of drones that’ll take hours to arrive

[Badr Hari]

Score in embarrasing attacks after today 1-1

 

[Kassitus]

What do you think Iran is capable of doing to Israel? Like, you don’t think they’re capable golf an invasion do you?

I find it weird how westerners are cheering on repressive regimes that their own people want gone.

In less than 50 years they will be ready for an invasion. By then they will have infiltrated Iraq with pro-Iranian politicians, they already have Asad as a loyal ally, China and Russia will be backing them. They will definitely be capable of launching an invasion.

I'm not gonna act like Iran is some comic villain that must be defeated for the greater good or something just because they implement some social policies that seem backwards to outsiders. The reality is most Iranians agree with Sharia law, modesty police and all that. If Islamism is exactly what the society wants who are we to tell them we know what's really good for them.

 

[HereticBD]

In less than 50 years

Quite the window you give to those clowns.

So, barring that rather generous 50 year window to get their shit together, what do you think their chances are today?

 

[Blayt7hh]

In less than 50 years they will be ready for an invasion. By then they will have infiltrated Iraq with pro-Iranian politicians, they already have Asad as a loyal ally, China and Russia will be backing them. They will definitely be capable of launching an invasion.

I'm not gonna act like Iran is some comic villain that must be defeated for the greater good or something just because they implement some social policies that seem backwards to outsiders. The reality is most Iranians agree with Sharia law, modesty police and all that. If Islamism is exactly what the society wants who are we to tell them we know what's really good for them.

A lot of Iranians do not agree with Sharia law. You haven’t been following the news much

 

[EL CORINTHIAN]

A lot of Iranians do not agree with Sharia law. You haven’t been following the news much

They are heavily nominal and many of the Diaspora that I've met, view Islam as foreign and corrosive element to their historically rich culture.

 

[Chad R. Thundercock]

They are heavily nominal and many of the Diaspora that I've met, view Islam as foreign and corrosive element to their historically rich culture.

You don't say...

 

[Chad R. Thundercock]

I say it's time someone puts an end to the persecution of the Zoroastrians in Iran.

 

[Samjj]

Fucking lol

I don't think anyone on Sherdog has any sort of understanding of the process of nuclear weapons proliferation and development, and any such posturing is retarded.

No offence to either of you, but there's a Reuters article that you're both arguing either end of in a best case/worst case scenario, and they even used the car analogy that Iran used that you've been batting back and forth. The conclusion quite clearly is: nobody knows where Iran is at, because Trump is a giant dumbass who effectively withdrew the team that inspects Iran's actions out of Iran and blinded the world to whatever progress they are or are not making.

The assumption that Iran might not have the expertise to fully develop a nuke is shaky since they're almost partnered up with Russia, who definitely do know how.

All in all, another big 'W' for Donald who made the Middle East a much less safe place.

I am comfortable with my posturing statements, thank you. I am certain that I have completed more graduate level coursework in STEM than most posters and certainly more than Rod1 based on the content of his posts.

If you follow the conversation back you will see that I did not claim certainty that the “worst case” scenario would have happened. I was mainly taking issue with @Rod1 greatly overstating the deal as being this hermetic pact which would have inevitably caused Iranian denuclearization. I was presenting the “worst case” scenario as the primary caveat which the deal would not have prevented. Yes, you are absolutely correct Trump is primarily to blame as well, but our friend here has repeatedly claimed that Bibi is singly guilty.

I am mostly agnostic in regards to the Iran deal. It could have worked and is a massively missed opportunity if so. It also could have lead to political cover while Iran greatly advanced its weapons program (acknowledging this somehow makes me a Bibi supporter.)

Edit: I am glad that Iran’s former nuclear chief agrees with my analogy.

 

[The_Renaissance]

I wasnt joking. They are a paper tiger who ran out of ammo fighting a militia and needed America to bail them out.

They are the size of Wales mate. I'm Welsh. If all my neighbours wanted me dead, I would expect my country to militarise and pray a bigger allie helped me.

This is a good outcome so far. Both sides can say they struck. Without massive damage. Let's hope it stays that way.


The Israeli strike is interesting. It wasn't Tehran it was further inland where the Mullahs retreat. It was almost like "if we want boy, it won't be little drones next time and we can get beyond Tehran."


Irans was "we can launch from everywhere around you".

A lot of bravado and face saving on both sides without mass casualties. I think we should hope this is done for now

 

[Samjj]

NYTs reporting that Israel used a low-visibility “stealth” air to surface missile that struck the radar component of a Russian S-300 system. Iranian air defenses did not detect it.

 

[Rod1]

I am comfortable with my posturing statements, thank you. I am certain that I have completed more graduate level coursework in STEM than most posters and certainly more than Rod1 based on the content of his posts.

Which is why i call you dishonest

If you follow the conversation back you will see that I did not claim certainty that the “worst case” scenario would have happened. I was mainly taking issue with @Rod1 greatly overstating the deal as being this hermetic pact which would have inevitably caused Iranian denuclearization.

Iran does not has nuclear weapons and would not be able to procure them as long as JCPOA stands.

Yes, you are absolutely correct Trump is primarily to blame as well, but our friend here has repeatedly claimed that Bibi is singly guilty.

Bibi jumped through the hoops to talk to Trump directly knowing he is a very manipulable moron, so yeah he is singly guilty for the deal failing.

Both Rex Tillerson and Jim Mattis wanted the deal to stand because it served the best interests of the USA.

 

[Samjj]

Which is why i call you dishonest

Because you think I am lying about myself or I am wrong about you? Your reasoning in your fuel comparison doesn’t come across as someone with a background in STEM.

Iran does not has nuclear weapons and would not be able to procure them as long as JCPOA stands.

You haven’t learned anything.

 

[Rod1]

NYTs reporting that Israel used a low-visibility “stealth” air to surface missile that struck the radar component of a Russian S-300 system. Iranian air defenses did not detect it.

Rampage (missile) - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

UK was looking to buy the missile after donating Storm Shadow to Ukraine.

 

[Samjj]

Rampage (missile) - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

UK was looking to buy the missile after donating Storm Shadow to Ukraine.

Pretty badass piece of equipment.

 

[Rod1]

Because you think I am lying about myself or I am wrong about you?

Because you are constantly moving the goalposts and using grammatical arguments.

You want to be in a position where you don't look like an unhinged moron being in direct contradiction with the entirety of the collective West, the IAEA and the US own experts in the matter, but you also want to be right.

So you are simply using grammatical sophism to create a strawman where you can at the same time discredit me personally without having to take a stand whatsoever.

 

[Rod1]

You haven’t learned anything.

Again, is everyone wrong except Israel?

 

[Rod1]

Pretty badass piece of equipment.

I guess they can indeed fit inside of an F-35.

 

[Samjj]

Because you are constantly moving the goalposts and using grammatical arguments.

You want to be in a position where you don't look like an unhinged moron being in direct contradiction with the entirety of the collective West, the IAEA and the US own experts in the matter, but you also want to be right.

So you are simply using grammatical sophism to create a strawman where you can at the same time discredit me personally without having to take a stand whatsoever.

You either haven’t understood the entire premise of this argument or this is a badfaith attempt by you to obfuscate.

The experts you keep quoting supported the Iran deal (this is not my/our point of contention as I have repeatedly not expressed a strong opinion on the matter) They did not however, claim that it would lead to total denuclearization as you keep claiming. (Point of contention).

 

[Samjj]

Again, is everyone wrong except Israel?

Am I defending Bibi or Trump?

I have repeatedly said to you that I think it could have been a mistake to drop the Iran deal, but it is simply not as comprehensive as you claim it to be.

 

[Rod1]

The experts you keep quoting supported the Iran deal (this is not my our point of contention as I have repeatedly not expressed a strong opinion on the matter) They did not however, claim that it would lead to total denuclearization as you keep claiming. (Point of contention).

"total denuclearization" again, this is the whole grammatical argument you are trying to make.

You have your own definition for what words means and then claim im wrong based on your personal definitions.

"Denuclearization" is the term for nuclear disarmament, your argument is that "denuclearization" means "Iran would never, ever be able to build a bomb and it must abandon all its nuclear research", that's beyond the scope of the JCPOA and beyond what the term denuclearization means.

Plenty of countries are in a position where they have the technical knowledge to build a bomb and none of them is considered a nuclear state.