Iran war games

Oct 18, 2002
16,193
152
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/06/26/opinion/trump-iran-china.html

I remember when JCPOA was under way he and some others thought the U.S is trying to prevent iran from completely going into China's lap as Pakistan has done.

Robert Kaplan is big proponent of the influence of natrual geography in world politics. (you might have watched his speeches on revenge of geography)


This Isn’t About Iran. It’s About China.
Whether or not Trump realizes it, the current standoff in the Middle East is about something much bigger than the Gulf.

By Robert D. Kaplan


Image

CreditCreditVCG/Getty Images
阅读简体中文版閱讀繁體中文版
In a world of global financial markets, 5G networks and cyberwar, geography still rules. The two shipping lanes in the Strait of Hormuz, each two miles wide, hold the key to the Persian Gulf and roughly half of the world’s proven oil reserves and production capacity. That is why the recent attacks, widely assumed to have been ordered by Iran, on tankers in the Gulf of Oman, a strategic waterway just outside the Strait, have frayed geopolitical nerves the world over.
The Iranians understand that because geography is so precious in the Gulf region, small actions have magnified effects. Likewise, the Americans know that in the constricted waters of the Gulf, their large warships are prone to attacks by Iranian swarm boats, even as Iran’s proximity to Saudi Arabia threatens that fragile kingdom and American ally. Truly, the Middle East faces a crisis of room.
Yet geography tells a more important story in the Gulf region: The current tensions are less about Iran and the Persian Gulf than about China and the Indian Ocean. Whether the Trump administration realizes it or not, what is occurring in the American-Iranian standoff is about something much vaster.
The Gulf of Oman separates not only Oman and Iran, but also Oman and Pakistan. In the southwestern corner of Pakistan, close to the Iranian border, China has completed a state-of-the-art container port at Gwadar, which Beijing hopes will eventually link up with roads, railways and pipelines to western China. And from Gwadar, the Chinese can monitor shipping traffic through the Strait of Hormuz.
Sign Up for Jamelle Bouie's Newsletter
Join Jamelle Bouie as he shines a light on overlooked writing, culture and ideas from around the internet.


Advertisement

In other words, China is already in the Middle East. The Chinese are now contemplating the construction of a naval base nearby, adjacent to the Iranian border. More crucially, the Gulf of Oman has become more than just a waterway for oil that America, with its shale gas revolution, requires less and less of. It is a hinge uniting the Middle East, the Indian subcontinent and East Asia in China’s Belt and Road Initiative.
While the United States contemplates a war with Iran, the Chinese are engaged in trade and infrastructure building there. Gwadar is central to the maritime aspect of the Belt and Road Initiative, but China’s interest in Iran is about both land and sea. The routes that China has already built across Central Asia link China with Iran — an unbeatable combination in Eurasia, where Iran is a demographic and geographic organizing point.


An American war with Iran will drive the country even further into the hands of China, which already accounts for almost a third of all Iran’s energy trade. While China’s energy ties with Iran may be curtailed as a result of the Trump administration’s sanctions, as well as by the complexities of the Beijing-Washington trade talks, China and Iran will eventually find a way to cooperate and thwart the United States.
The Gulf of Oman remains a focus of the Belt and Road Initiative, as do, to a lesser extent, other energy-rich points along the Indian Ocean. The aim is to get oil and gas transported directly by pipeline north into China, since the Strait of Malacca, which runs between Malaysia and Indonesia and upon which China currently depends for much of its imported oil, is, like the Strait of Hormuz, too narrow for comfort. Again, it is all about geography.
It isn’t only China that is central to the Persian Gulf region. The Indians and Iranians are competing with China and Pakistan to unite the Gulf of Oman with the Eurasian interior, in the hope of linking southeastern Iran with energy-rich Central Asia. It is unclear which effort will succeed — the Chinese-Pakistani one, the Indian-Iranian one, or both. In any case, the United States is simply not in this game.


Iran is at the very center of 21st-century geopolitics. It dominates Central Asian trade routes and sits at the hydrocarbon nexus of the Indian Ocean, with a coastline of over 1,500 miles stretching from Iraq to Pakistan. Iran is the key to China’s plans, just as China’s plans are key to Eurasia’s destiny.
Indeed, China has a grand strategy that understands all this geography and culture. The United States, by contrast, is pursuing a myopic, war-by-choice strategy with Iran. Its withdrawal from the free-trading alliance in maritime Eurasia, known as the Trans-Pacific Partnership, shows that Washington has no plan to compete with the Belt and Road Initiative. The Americans are obsessed with the Persian Gulf as a small, distinct region; the Chinese see the larger, more fluid geographical picture.
Of course, Iran does present a challenge to peace in the Middle East and to America’s allies in particular. But Iran’s clerical regime has too many power centers and is too deeply institutionalized to be toppled by impulsive military action. Indeed, regime change in Iran could lead to a worse state of affairs, with the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corp in direct control, rather than in indirect control as now.
The Chinese vision for Iran to be a hub for its Belt and Road Initiative is something the United States is simply not going to change. A better approach is a suite of economic pressures, targeted cyber attacks and resumed negotiations — combined with loud, persistent calls for increased freedoms in Iran and the other participants in the initiative, as a way to undermine China’s position.
Washington is half a world away from Eurasia. Without a big idea, the United States will be unable to compete with China. As for Iran, because of the blunt fact of geography it will be key to 21st-century Eurasia, something which argues for a long-term, sustainable strategy.
 

Bache Tehroon

Moderator
Staff member
Oct 16, 2002
38,636
978
DarvAze DoolAb
www.iransportspress.com
I'm sorry, but you think you've figured out Trump but those around him and working for him haven't? You think if Iran "yeh haali midaad va ya alaan yeh haali bedeh va begeh" lets make another a deal that those who pushed Trump into getting into this situation are going to sit around the negotiation table and let Iran get away by resigning the same deal?
Not the same deal. Iran would also give up its Syrian stronghold and at worst, some of its long-range missile programs. Nothing else.

Have you not heard of Pompeo's 12 point preconditions?
Have you heard of Iran's 40 years of "Down with USA" chants and how they want to turn every casino into a Hosseinieh? Who cares about Pompeo's demands or Iran's kos-sher? No one.

If Iran were to sit down at a negotiation table today US will not settle for anything less than Iran giving up all its defensive means (like Saddam did) and then as history has already shown they will still come up with an excuse to attack Iran afterwards just like they did with Iraq. Now the way they've figured it is that if Iran is not going to voluntarily surrender its defenses then they will economically weaken it to the point that they can then safely invade it. Either way, invasion and disintegration of Iran is in the plans.
Very much possible today. Still, Iran was in a much stronger position last year than it is now. When Trump got out of JCPOA, Iran could've immediately thrown him a crumb and made him sign another deal within weeks. Trump literally begged for it. He was looking for a "win" and Iran could've given it to him with little cost. Now Trump realizes this may take long and his advisors are advising him accordingly. This was a total failure on I.R's part. A missed opportunity.

The way Iran has figured it is "khodaa ra cheh didi?" by waiting this thing out as long as possible "shaayad faraji bereseh" and may be US would get bugged down with China or Russia or may be some global disaster might happen or may be by some miracle someone in Iran might be able turn the economy around and get it out of the current mess. Either way, if the end goal is disintegration of Iran, then might as well drag it out as long as possible and hope for a miracle to prevent it. Wouldn't you agree?
No. Logic and miracle don't go together. That's why miracles are miracles. They're illogical. "khoda ra che didi" is not a policy. It would be typical of a religious and ideological bunch like Akhoonds to think like that, but the world of politics, military and economics does not involve miracles. It only involves logic.

Logic says: You're not strong enough to fight the big dog yet. Throw him as many bones as needed while you get your shit together and rack up enough allies to finally tell him "enough is enough". Iran was nowhere near the point of claiming "enough is enough". It's downhill from here on.
 

ashtar

National Team Player
Aug 17, 2003
5,436
17
Not the same deal. Iran would also give up its Syrian stronghold and at worst, some of its long-range missile programs. Nothing else.
LOL at "Nothing else".

Before I go on further I should say we're trying to analyze this situation as political/historical enthusiast bystanders who obviously don't know all secrets and behind the scene deals and information. Essentially we're like a bunch of spectators watching a couple of players play chess. We're not privy to their inner thoughts nor are we admittedly as good a chess player as them. We just enjoy watching the game and commenting.

I think we have a fundamental difference in understanding of what is going on here. You seem to think that Iran is playing this chess game with the intent to beat its opponent and at the same time you seem to think that US is playing this game just for fun and is willing to let the game end in a tie only if Iran concedes to its demands and voluntarily removes some of its pieces from the chess board! My understanding on the other hand is that US is playing to win it all and will not be satisfied with anything but undisputed victory while Iran is playing just to stay in the match with some optimism that it could end in a tie and with a lot of luck and a lot mistakes by the opposite side it may even end up winning.

Now as spectators with the two different points of view mentioned above watching the game and seeing that US has all its pieces while Iran having only a few pieces on the board, you advise Iran that if it continues to play it will inevitably lose and so the best course of action is listen to US's demands and voluntarily give up its pieces and hope that US is sincere in its offer of not checkmating Iran (even though just one game earlier US made the same deal with its best friend named Saddam and ended up checkmating him anyway). I on the other hand see this game and as an spectator think that resistance and careful and deliberately slowly moving its pieces in order to buy time are Iran's best bet not only to stay in the game but also to try to make the other side tired and hope that it will make a mistake or two and at least concede to ending the game in a tie.



Have you heard of Iran's 40 years of "Down with USA" chants and how they want to turn every casino into a Hosseinieh? Who cares about Pompeo's demands or Iran's kos-sher? No one.
I can't believe that as a serious debater you just compared the chants of bunch of common people to the official demands of the Secretary of the United States. If you were comparing the comments of Iran's foreign minister to that of US secretary of state we might have something to talk about seriously but with this kind of mentality I'm afraid we're just reducing our discussion into a joke.



Very much possible today. Still, Iran was in a much stronger position last year than it is now. When Trump got out of JCPOA, Iran could've immediately thrown him a crumb and made him sign another deal within weeks. Trump literally begged for it.
Oh my, how forgetful you are, my friend. Before and right after Trump got out of JCPOA his motto was that Iran had to give up not only the nuclear power but also comprehensively giving up all its defensive means including missile program and its proxies across the region. When Trump got out of the JCPOA is when Pompeo came out with his 12 point precondition for any renegotiation. Only after Iran refused to renegotiate and only after Khamenei refused to hear Trumps message brought by Japan that the idea of negotiating without preconditions started floating around and only after downing of the drone last week is when Pompeo and Bolton essentially shut up and let the big boss officially announce that he was ready to "make Iran great again".


No. Logic and miracle don't go together. That's why miracles are miracles. They're illogical. "khoda ra che didi" is not a policy. It would be typical of a religious and ideological bunch like Akhoonds to think like that, but the world of politics, military and economics does not involve miracles. It only involves logic.
I was just speaking in common terminology for the sake of getting my point across more easily. But he strategy of patience, resistance, and waiting for an opportunity to make an attack or make a better deal is not based on Hocus Pocus but it's an actual military as well as political strategy and tactic.

Logic says: You're not strong enough to fight the big dog yet. Throw him as many bones as needed while you get your shit together and rack up enough allies to finally tell him "enough is enough". Iran was nowhere near the point of claiming "enough is enough". It's downhill from here on.
Yes, but there is also another logic that says that the more fear you show a dog the more aggressive it will get and if you stand your ground there might be a chance for the dog to back down.
 

Bache Tehroon

Moderator
Staff member
Oct 16, 2002
38,636
978
DarvAze DoolAb
www.iransportspress.com
if you stand your ground there might be a chance for the dog to back down.
My point is, when it comes to war, Iran has no ground to stand on. If your claim about USA wanting "total victory" is correct, then it's more reason for Iran to not stand its ground. Perhaps that way the US president (whoever it is or may be) cannot harbor sufficient domestic and international support for a war and passes the ball to the next president in line (giving Iran time). This is essentially what Obama, G.W.Bush and Clinton did. They knew Iran was a problem. Heck, Bush put Iran in the axis of evil, essentially making Iran the next target for war but Iran kept playing the victim, taking a page out of Israel's masterful book of victimhood. That gave Iran a relatively easy path towards the ultimate blackmail: Nuclear technology and long-range missiles. And when they got a bit of heat for this what did Obama do? He gave Islamic Republic even more freedom and reach in the region! All this happened because Iran did NOT stand its ground and never threatened war.

JCPOA was seriously flawed in Islamic Republic's favor. That's why they loved it so much. All Trump wanted was to ridicule Obama's soft approach (rightfully) and win some points. There's no sense in doubting his distaste towards war. The man can be figured out at least that much.

What exactly can Iran hope for in a war against the US? To down some planes during the first wave of attacks, drown a few boats and possibly kill a few hundred soldiers? Shoot some missiles towards Israel and possibly have a couple of them land in Tel Aviv? How is that gonna put a dent in the US resolve towards the absolute victory you speak of? If anything, it would guarantee a coalition of very strong forces having all the justification and motivation needed to carpet-bomb Iran into oblivion.
 

ashtar

National Team Player
Aug 17, 2003
5,436
17
My point is, when it comes to war, Iran has no ground to stand on. If your claim about USA wanting "total victory" is correct, then it's more reason for Iran to not stand its ground.
If I understand you correctly what you're suggesting is like TM conceding a loss before playing Brazil or Germany so as to avoid a possible total humiliation because on paper the other teams would be expected to beat Iran by a large margin.

Perhaps that way the US president (whoever it is or may be) cannot harbor sufficient domestic and international support for a war and passes the ball to the next president in line (giving Iran time). All this happened because Iran did NOT stand its ground and never threatened war.
Your mistake is in thinking that because Iran did not stand its ground it was able to get the JCPOA and that was supposed to be the end of it. There are very strong lobbyists both inside and outside of US that want to see Iran get disintegrated into many smaller countries and they have made sure this has become US's longterm strategy in that region (at least for the foreseeable future). To this end every president who comes to power will be provided with various tactics to achieve this strategy and depending on everything else that might be going on around the world at that time the individual presidents will choose a different tactic to achieve that goal.

Now, Obama's strategy was a slowly cutting Iran's head ("beh ghol e khodemoon ba panbeh sar boridan) in which the plan was to have Iran sign a "Barjam" and give it just a little bit of lifeline to convince it to slowly give up the rest of its defenses voluntarily by signing "Barjam 2" which would've addressed Iran's missiles and then "Barjam 3" which would've addressed Iran's proxies in the region and then after that Iran would've essentially been readied for either the US to invade alone without any cost or for Israel and Saudi Arabia to invade jointly without any fear of repercussions.

There were certain lobbyists and groups in US and abroad who did not like Obama's tactic and felt that it was too slow and taking too long and were wishing for Iran to sign a comprehensive JCPOA to get to the end goal right away instead of over the next few years.

Now with that end vision in mind Trump's tactic was that this thing is taking too long and said screw pussyfooting around the obvious and chose a tactic of direct confrontation and decided to move the US embassy to Jerusalem and recognize the Golan heights as of Israel's (that the others were planning to do over time) and to that end said screw the JCPOA1 and "Barjam 2 and 3" and lets get this deal done right away.

Some elements within Iran were planning to resist "Barjam 2 and 3" but the hope was the the domestic pressure would be so hight that it would give the "moderates" the upper hand and break the resistance of the "hardliners".

In essence, Trump was a blessing in disguise for the advocates of "resistance" in Iran because it has now convinced a much larger portion of the population that simple surrender will not get them anything better and that perhaps their best option is to choose the tactic of resistance.

What exactly can Iran hope for in a war against the US? To down some planes during the first wave of attacks, drown a few boats and possibly kill a few hundred soldiers? Shoot some missiles towards Israel and possibly have a couple of them land in Tel Aviv? How is that gonna put a dent in the US resolve towards the absolute victory you speak of? If anything, it would guarantee a coalition of very strong forces having all the justification and motivation needed to carpet-bomb Iran into oblivion.
You keep making it sound like Iran wants a war. It does NOT. That is why its defense strategy has been set to make any possible war with the US as wide, costly and long-lasting as possible in order to give the US and its allies a pause in choosing a military option against it.

Again, to use the chess analogy what Iran has done has been to go through the tedious and boring process of putting its king in a castle and fortifying that castle such that if the opponent would have to sacrifice a lot of pieces in order to break that castle to checkmate the king. You as a spectator make the observation that US has so many pieces that it can eventually penetrate that castle and still retain many of its pieces. The only issue in this chess game is that whatever pieces the US is left with is all that it would get in its next game against the next opponent like China, Russia or EU and it's not like it would have the option getting all its pieces back again. To that end the US has to be careful about how many pieces it is willing to sacrifice in order to checkmate Iran. That is why US wishes for Iran to give-up its defenses voluntarily so that US can get to the checkmate point with minimal cost.

BTW, as it stands Iran's options are not a mere few missiles towards Israel or a few hundred US casualties. There are plenty of analysis by various US generals regarding a possible war with Iran which I invite you to watch and invite others to chime in.

Millennium Challenge 2002 is just one of them:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Millennium_Challenge_2002
"An equivalent success in a real conflict would have resulted in the deaths of over 20,000 service personnel."
 
Nov 10, 2002
8,106
315
Analogy to chess game, Iran has very few options because it started with a7 to a5 in the first move (cornstalk defense) !!

You are fucked after that in a professional game
 

Gaines

Bench Warmer
Dec 30, 2014
591
107
If I understand you correctly what you're suggesting is like TM conceding a loss before playing Brazil or Germany so as to avoid a possible total humiliation because on paper the other teams would be expected to beat Iran by a large margin.



Your mistake is in thinking that because Iran did not stand its ground it was able to get the JCPOA and that was supposed to be the end of it. There are very strong lobbyists both inside and outside of US that want to see Iran get disintegrated into many smaller countries and they have made sure this has become US's longterm strategy in that region (at least for the foreseeable future). To this end every president who comes to power will be provided with various tactics to achieve this strategy and depending on everything else that might be going on around the world at that time the individual presidents will choose a different tactic to achieve that goal.

Now, Obama's strategy was a slowly cutting Iran's head ("beh ghol e khodemoon ba panbeh sar boridan) in which the plan was to have Iran sign a "Barjam" and give it just a little bit of lifeline to convince it to slowly give up the rest of its defenses voluntarily by signing "Barjam 2" which would've addressed Iran's missiles and then "Barjam 3" which would've addressed Iran's proxies in the region and then after that Iran would've essentially been readied for either the US to invade alone without any cost or for Israel and Saudi Arabia to invade jointly without any fear of repercussions.

There were certain lobbyists and groups in US and abroad who did not like Obama's tactic and felt that it was too slow and taking too long and were wishing for Iran to sign a comprehensive JCPOA to get to the end goal right away instead of over the next few years.

Now with that end vision in mind Trump's tactic was that this thing is taking too long and said screw pussyfooting around the obvious and chose a tactic of direct confrontation and decided to move the US embassy to Jerusalem and recognize the Golan heights as of Israel's (that the others were planning to do over time) and to that end said screw the JCPOA1 and "Barjam 2 and 3" and lets get this deal done right away.

Some elements within Iran were planning to resist "Barjam 2 and 3" but the hope was the the domestic pressure would be so hight that it would give the "moderates" the upper hand and break the resistance of the "hardliners".

In essence, Trump was a blessing in disguise for the advocates of "resistance" in Iran because it has now convinced a much larger portion of the population that simple surrender will not get them anything better and that perhaps their best option is to choose the tactic of resistance.



You keep making it sound like Iran wants a war. It does NOT. That is why its defense strategy has been set to make any possible war with the US as wide, costly and long-lasting as possible in order to give the US and its allies a pause in choosing a military option against it.

Again, to use the chess analogy what Iran has done has been to go through the tedious and boring process of putting its king in a castle and fortifying that castle such that if the opponent would have to sacrifice a lot of pieces in order to break that castle to checkmate the king. You as a spectator make the observation that US has so many pieces that it can eventually penetrate that castle and still retain many of its pieces. The only issue in this chess game is that whatever pieces the US is left with is all that it would get in its next game against the next opponent like China, Russia or EU and it's not like it would have the option getting all its pieces back again. To that end the US has to be careful about how many pieces it is willing to sacrifice in order to checkmate Iran. That is why US wishes for Iran to give-up its defenses voluntarily so that US can get to the checkmate point with minimal cost.

BTW, as it stands Iran's options are not a mere few missiles towards Israel or a few hundred US casualties. There are plenty of analysis by various US generals regarding a possible war with Iran which I invite you to watch and invite others to chime in.

Millennium Challenge 2002 is just one of them:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Millennium_Challenge_2002
"An equivalent success in a real conflict would have resulted in the deaths of over 20,000 service personnel."
First of all, interesting analysis. However, your main mistake is to over-estimating your debate counterpart, by assuming that his thoughts come from any sort of logical thinking. Nevertheless, interesting analysis.

I agree with your analysis that the main tool of IR is to make any attack very costly for the other side, to the point of making it irrational. It seems like someone(s) in IR have studied their game theory very well. As much as I detest IR, I have to admit that they have made some wise moves on the foreign policy side; engaging and even helping US when convenient, and then pulling back when needed. IR is in a much stronger position than it was 20 years ago.

Given your avatar, I assume you are a religious person. May be you can explain this to me. Why is it that the same people who have (up to now) masterfully played the long-game internationally, are so incompetent in managing domestic affairs. What is the benefit in turning the screws on the population? Why does IR gain by punishing people for hijab and other trivial stuff? What is the benefit of arresting academics or environmental activists? What is the point of letting the "morality police" loose on the population? What do they get by clamping down on dancing or other expressions of joy? Whats the point of disrupting weddings or music concerts? In the event of any skirmish, the best weapon IR has is a population that will support it. Why antagonize them at every opportunity?

And one more question: Why is it that a country that has enough tech savvy to build missiles to put objects in space, cannot produce a decent car? Why is it that it cannot solve the pollution problem in Tehran? Why is it IR sees the need to control all of the industrial sector knowing that this will impede creation of a vibrant economy?

Thanks in advance.
 
Likes: A8K
May 9, 2004
15,020
175
چرا نمیدونید که سیاست ترامپ چیه و به چی اهمیت میده؟ از این واضح تر؟ سیاستش تضعیف اقتصاد چین و بازگرداندن تسلط اقتصادی آمریکا بر دنیاست. هیچ سیاست دیگه ای اونقدر براش مهم نیست. برای همینه که زیاد با جنگ میانه ی خوبی نداره. برای همینه با اروپا اصلا حال نمیکنه (چون اروپا پول خاصی نداره و بدرد هیچ چیزی نمیخوره). چین و ژاپن رو هدف گرفته که ازشون تا میتونه اخاذی کنه و بدجوری هم داره میکنه. حالا این وسط باید به اسرائیل هم یه حالی بده (قانون نانوشته ی آمریکا) و اومده خودشو قاطی مسئله ی ایران کرده. باز هم از چه راهی؟ از راه اقتصادی نه از راه نظامی.

ترامپ فکر میکرد حکومت ایران اونقدر عقل داشته باشه که بعد از اینکه علنا اعلام شد قصد جایگزینی حکومت رو نداره خودشون با روی باز بیان به استقبال مذاکره و حالا با یکی دوتا چک و چونه زدن یه برجام دیگه بکنن تو پاچه ی ملت. مثلا ایران قرار بود چه چیزی رو از دست بده؟ چند کیلو اورانیوم و چند هزار موشک (که ساختن دوبارش کاری نداره). ترامپ فقط میخواست یه ذره لی لی به لالای اسرائیل بذاره که سریع برگرده سر مسائل اقتصادی مورد علاقه ش و ادامه ی بیرون کشیدن نیروهای آمریکا از منطقه

برای همینه که میگفتم ترامپ میتونست موهبتی الهی برای "جمهوری اسلامی" باشه نه برای ایران. ولی جمهوری اسلامی رید به همه چیز. این از سوئی باعث خوشحالیه چون رژیم ایران با این سیاست عملا عمر خودش رو خیلی کوتاه کرد. از یه طرفم باعث تاسف و تعجبه چون احتمالا ایران درگیر جنگ خواهد شد و اثرات سوء جنگ تا سالها با ایران خواهد بود. حتی اگر جنگ هم نشه اثرات این تحریمها ایران رو تبدیل به کشوری بسیار فقرزده و ناامن خواهد کرد (چه با جمهوری اسلامی چه بی جمهوری اسلامی)

حالا شما هی میگی ترامپ به قول خودش عمل نکرد. خوب نکرد که نکرد. اصلا از کی تا حالا قول های سیاستمدارها انقدر قابل اتکا شده که ما خبر نداریم؟

بعد هم اینکه شما به دیگران میگید "منتظرید آمریکا به ایران حمله کنه که باهاش دوماد بشید" درست نیست. اتفاقا تا همین چند ماه پیش کسی انتظار اینو نداشت که آمریکا به ایران حمله کنه. همه منتظر بودن ببینند پشت پرده ی مذاکرات ایران و آمریکا به کجا میرسه. همه منتظر برجام 2 بودند. تنها کسی که خواست از طریق تقابل نظامی با آمریکا دوماد بشه خامنه ای و سپاهی هاش بودند. هنوز هم همینو میخوان ولی ترامپ تا اینجا که رو نداده ولی اون بدبخت هم تا یه جایی میتونه از جنگ فرار کنه. از یه جایی به بعد هیچ چاره ای جز اقدام نظامی نداره. اقدام نظامی آمریکا هم نمیتونه از این عملیات های کوچولو موچولو باشه چون ایران شروع میکنه به کارهای انتحاری و عجیب غریب. بنابراین شما درست میگی که تقابل نظامی با ایران پرهزینه تر از کشورهای دیگه ی منطقه ست ولی این باعث نگرانی بیشتره نه خوشحالی. این رو هم باید توضیح بدم؟

بنده به نقاطی از پست شما که قرمز کرده ام جواب میدم
این نشان دهنده اینه که ترامب بلانسبت گه سیاست سرش نمیشه و فکر میکنه داره یک سوپرمارکت رو اداره میکنه
چون هیچ ادم باعقلی نمیاد باکسی که قراردادی رو که کشورش بسته و پاره کرده و زده زیرش دوباره بشینه سر میز مذاکرات
مخصوصا این اخوندها که می بایستی یک سیاست مدار درجه هفتم امریکا هم الان انها را شناخته باشه
چه رسیده به شخص اول مملکت
باز ترامپ این اخوندها رو نشناخته و اخوندها خوووب امریکا رو شناختند
زیرا هر قدمی که کشوری یا رئیسی مقابل امریکا عقب نهاد امریکا ده قدم جلو گذاشته
و رژیم ایران خوب میداند که اگر در اینجا یک قدم عقب بگذارد امریکا نه ده قدم بلکه صد قدم پیش خواهد گذاشت
مثال ان معمر قذافی در لیبی که داوطلبانه نیروگاه اتمی خودش را باز کرد هنوز چند ماهی طول نکشید بود که سرنگونش کردند
مثال دیگر صدام حسین که موشک هایب بابرد بیش از 200 کیلومتر خود را نابود کرد و بعد از چند ماه از رژیمش سقوط کرد
مثالهای دیگر مثل محمد مرسی و منصف المرزوقی در مصر و تونس
ایران هم خوب این را میداند که جریان به برد چند موشک خاتمه پیدا نخواهد کرد
چون بعد از ان می ایند و روی حزب الله می خواهند مذاکرات کنند و بعد حشد الشعبی و بعد حوثی ها
و نیروهای ایران در سوریه همینطور تا پر و بالهای ایران را خوب قیچی کنند و حمله کنند
شما نگاه کن به سیر حوادث میبینی که هرجایی که ایران سفت و سخت جلوی ترامپ ایستاده ترامپ عقب نشینی کرده
و هنوز عقب نشینی میکند
باور کن اگر ایران یکم ملایمت نشان میداد ترامپ خیلی قلدری میکرد
چنانکه همین عربستان یک نمونه ذلت در برابر ترامپ است که میبینیم چطور روز و شب انا را می دوشد
به نظر من خامنه ای کار بسیار خوبی کرد که حاضر نشد ایران با امریکا وارد مذاکره جدیدی بشنود
اگر یک کشور مثل امریکا چون رئیس جمهور عوض شده زیر توافقنامه های خود میزند فردا چه بسا رئیس جمهور دیگری بیاید زیر برجام دو سه چهار پنج همینطور برو تا بی نهایت بزند
در اخر هرچند ترامپ یک ادم سیاسی درجه یک نیست ولی فکر نکنم انقدرهم احمق باشد که ندادن وارد شدن در جنگ با ایران یعنی خسارت نفوذ امریکا در خاور میانه
ژنرالهای امریکایی خوب میدانند که وارد شدن به چنین جنگی یعنی چه
اگر امریکا توان انرا داشت صد درصد باور کنید به ایران حمله میکرد
ولی امریکا توان حمله به ایران راندارد
زیرا عرصه این جنگ از افغانستان تا لبنان
از یمن تا برخی از کشورهای افریقایی خواهد بود
و چنین جنگی در زمانی که روسیه و چین منتظر یک فرصت ناب هستند برای امریکا مصیبتی بزرگ به بار خواهد اورد
و برای چین و روسیه ایران و حتی ترکیه بهترین فرصت است که دست امریکا را در منطقه برای همیشه قطع کنند
خیلی ها ایران و عمق استراتژیک ایران را یا درک نمیکنند یا چشمهایشان را بسته اند و نمی خواهند باور کنند که جنگ با ایران حتی مثل جنگ در ویتنام و کره هم نیست
چه رسد به عراق و افغانستان
جنگ با ایران و این عمق استراتژیک و قدرت نظامی که در منطقه دارد ممکن نیست به سود امریکا پایان یابد
حتی برفرض محال خدای ناکرده اگر امریکا با بمب اتم تهران را نابود کند !!!آ
 

Gaines

Bench Warmer
Dec 30, 2014
591
107
Interesting read along the analogies of Ashtar....
https://www.fairobserver.com/region...-tanker-attacks-trump-middle-east-news-15421/

Iran’s attacks on oil tankers in the Strait of Hormuz were a sacrifice to lure Washington into a draw.

Iran’s botched operation in the Strait of Hormuz, in which the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) navy nearly got caught in the act of mining two tankers, brought the world to the brink of an accidental war. President Donald Trump’s policies have pushed Tehran to desperate measures, but Iran has shown that its long-term strategy is more than a match for Washington’s ill thought out campaign.

In a rare expression of faith in the CIA, President Trump said he agreed that Iran was behindthe recent tanker attacks. The concurrence of other independent Western intelligence assessments with this conclusion indicates that it is almost certainly true. Why would Iran recklessly provoke the US when tensions are already high? The answer is that Iran has learned how to play Trump. The Persians have been playing chess for over 1000 years and know a thing or two about gambits. The Iranians are aware they cannot win an all-out war with the US and its allies — Israel, Saudi Arabia and the UAE — but they can prevent one. Iran’s strategy is sophisticated and nuanced. The tanker attacks were a sacrifice to lure Trump into a draw.
.
.
The rest in the link
 

Bache Tehroon

Moderator
Staff member
Oct 16, 2002
38,636
978
DarvAze DoolAb
www.iransportspress.com
ولی امریکا توان حمله به ایران راندارد
زیرا عرصه این جنگ از افغانستان تا لبنان
از یمن تا برخی از کشورهای افریقایی خواهد بود
و چنین جنگی در زمانی که روسیه و چین منتظر یک فرصت ناب هستند برای امریکا مصیبتی بزرگ به بار خواهد اورد
و برای چین و روسیه ایران و حتی ترکیه بهترین فرصت است که دست امریکا را در منطقه برای همیشه قطع کنند
خیلی ها ایران و عمق استراتژیک ایران را یا درک نمیکنند یا چشمهایشان را بسته اند و نمی خواهند باور کنند که جنگ با ایران حتی مثل جنگ در ویتنام و کره هم نیست
چه رسد به عراق و افغانستان
جنگ با ایران و این عمق استراتژیک و قدرت نظامی که در منطقه دارد ممکن نیست به سود امریکا پایان یابد
حتی برفرض محال خدای ناکرده اگر امریکا با بمب اتم تهران را نابود کند !!!آ

ادعای شما اصلا جنبه ی علمی ندارد و بیشتر به شعار شبیه است

از نظر علمی بر تمام عالم و آدم مشهود است که جنگ نظامی رسمی بین ایران و آمریکا جنگی با هزینه ای متوسط (نه پایین نه بالا) است که نهایتا با پیروزی آمریکا و نابودی کامل زیرساخت های تاسیساتی و نظامی ایران همراه خواهد بود. در این درگیری احتمال کشته شدن بین 5 هزار تا 30 هزار آمریکایی و تعدادی نامعلوم (بسیار بیشتر از 30 هزار) ایرانی وجود دارد

از لحاظ تجهیزات مورد نیاز، به علت ضعف شدید پدافند هوایی ایران، دستیابی به سلطه ی هوایی برای نیروی هوایی آمریکا ماموریت نسبتا ساده ایست که احتمالا در کمتر از یک هفته امکان پذیر است. دقیقا به همین علت است که بسیاری معتقدند اصلا نیازی به تقابل زمینی بین طرفین نیست و نیروی هوایی آمریکا تمامی ابزار لازم برای از کارانداختن کامل ماشین نظامی ایران را دارد

درصورت اقدام ایران برای عملیات خرابکارانه توسط شبه نظامیان یمنی، لبنانی، سوری و یا عراقی تقریبا جای نگرانی خاصی برای آمریکا وجود ندارد چون با خیال راحت کشورهای دیگر منطقه را وادار به دخول به جنگ میکند و بدون نیازی خاص به خطوط نفتی خلیج فارس کشورهای چین، ژاپن و کره ی جنوبی را نیز مجبور به مداخله میکند. تقریبا میتوان گفت درگیری نظامی در خاورمیانه در شرایط کنونی در راستای تضعیف اقتصاد شرق آسیا با اهداف آمریکا همخوانی دارد . ولی این درگیری زیاد مورد علاقه ی شرکت های بزرگ نیست و دست ترامپ از لحاظ سیاسی در این مورد زیاد باز نیست. البته خود او هم نشان داده که با جنگ نظامی میانه ی چندان خوبی ندارد. از صحبتهای انتخاباتی او کاملا مشخص بود که حضور نظامی آمریکا در نقاط مختلف دنیا را اصلا نمیپسندد و آنرا دلیلی بر خونریزی اقتصادی آمریکا میداند (به درستی). بنابراین نمیتوان انتظار داشت که ترامپی که با شعار "جنگهای بی معنی بس است" و "بیایید بجای دیگران روی آمریکا تمرکز کنیم" ناگهان با چرخشی 180 درجه ای آغازگر یک درگیری نسبتا سنگین در خاورمیانه شود

دلیل خروج ترامپ از برجام ادعای اسرائیل و کشورهای دیگر منطقه مثل عربستان در مورد احساس عدم امنیت به دلیل موشک های دوربرد ایران و حضور پررنگ سپاه در سوریه و یمن بود. با شعارهای عجیب و غریب سران جمهوری اسلامی و فرماندهان سپاه در چند سال اخیر(پس از امضای برجام) میتوان گفت ایران باور خاصی به صلح در منطقه هم نداشت و بذر این ناامنی را ذره ذره کاشت تا حالا که فصل درو رسیده ادای مظلوم ها را دربیاورد. ایران پس از برجام باید تغییر رویه میداد نه اینکه تهدید موشکی و اعزام نیرو به سوریه رو جایگزین تلاشهای هسته ای کند

ترامپ هم اومد با رویه ی مورد علاقه ش (تعرفه و تحریم) اقتصاد کاملا مریض ایران را فلج تر هم کرد. انقدر این تحریمها خوب جواب داده که حتی خود ترامپ هم انتظار نداشت. چه دلیلی برای برهم زدن این معادله دارد؟

حالا این وسط ادعای "آمریکا نمیتواند به ایران حمله کند" رو شما از کجا میاری معلوم نیست. خوب معلومه که میتواند. حمایت و دلیل کافی برای آن ندارد. درضمن رئیس جمهور آمریکا با شعار مخالفت با جنگهای بی دلیل و بی پایان رای آورده. به همین سادگی نمیتوان آمریکا رو بعد از 20 سال درگیری در افغانستان، عراق و سوریه و کلی هزینه دوباره وارد جنگ کرد
 
Likes: Zob Ahan

A8K

Ball Boy
Oct 22, 2016
2,926
501
fuck.ir
Interesting read along the analogies of Ashtar....
https://www.fairobserver.com/region...-tanker-attacks-trump-middle-east-news-15421/

Iran’s attacks on oil tankers in the Strait of Hormuz were a sacrifice to lure Washington into a draw.

Iran’s botched operation in the Strait of Hormuz, in which the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) navy nearly got caught in the act of mining two tankers, brought the world to the brink of an accidental war. President Donald Trump’s policies have pushed Tehran to desperate measures, but Iran has shown that its long-term strategy is more than a match for Washington’s ill thought out campaign.

In a rare expression of faith in the CIA, President Trump said he agreed that Iran was behindthe recent tanker attacks. The concurrence of other independent Western intelligence assessments with this conclusion indicates that it is almost certainly true. Why would Iran recklessly provoke the US when tensions are already high? The answer is that Iran has learned how to play Trump. The Persians have been playing chess for over 1000 years and know a thing or two about gambits. The Iranians are aware they cannot win an all-out war with the US and its allies — Israel, Saudi Arabia and the UAE — but they can prevent one. Iran’s strategy is sophisticated and nuanced. The tanker attacks were a sacrifice to lure Trump into a draw.
.
.
The rest in the link
Think Taheri the journalist is also very clear on Irans strategy. As he pointed out IR want to show hormuz straight is not safe without them and small incidents & reports are great for internal consumption and headlines.
 

A8K

Ball Boy
Oct 22, 2016
2,926
501
fuck.ir
Sample of what they feed to hamvatan in IR world

واقعیت عقب نشینی ترامپ از حمله به ایران


آمریکا با در خواست پنتاگون در کاخ سفید تشکیل جلسه می دهد، برای زدن ۴نقطه در ایران به جمع بندی می رسند.
حمله ساعت ۳نیمه شب با پشتیبانی هواپیماها و سامانه موشکی تام هاوک از قطر،بحرین، امارات شروع خواهد شد و احتمال ۱۵۰۰کشته برای یگان موشکی و راداری ایران در نظر گرفته می شود...
خبری پنتاگون را غافلگیر می کند. رادارهای ناشناخته ای بر روی ناوها قفل شده و فاصله تا انهدام چند ثانیه است. اولین اتفاق انهدام ۱۵۰فروند هواپیما و ۶هزار تلفات در دو ناو و ۳پایگاه می باشد..

از مرزهای لبنان و سوریه خبر می رسد تحرکات شدید نیروهای حزب الله و جیش الوطنی، سپاه قدس در مرز اسراییل نشان از یک حمله قریب الوقوع به اسراییل می دهد.
حمله به حیفا با انهدام مخازن عظیم آمونیاک می تواند فاجعه ای را رقم بزند.

دو شی پرنده ناشناس در حوالی دیمونا مشاهده سپس از رادار محو می شوند، پس از یک ساعت دوباره برروی پدافند موشکی گنبد آهنین قفل راداری انجام می دهند.
خبر از طریق سنتکام و ائتلاف سازمان سیا و موساد به پنتاگون مخابره می شود، ایران آماده پاسخ کوبنده و جنگ بی انتهاست، با اولین موشک فاتحه اسراییل و ۵پایگاه آمریکا در منطقه خوانده می شود.

ترامپ سراسیمه دستور توقف حمله را در ساعت ۲.۵۰بامداد به ارتش سنتکام صادر می کند. سپاه پاسداران داغ ایرباس ۶۵۵ را تا حدودی التیام بخشید.. پیشرفته ترین پهباد های آمریکا گرفتار تور پدافندی ایران در ۳۵۰۰نقطه است.
شبکه عنکبوتی که هیچ پرنده ای نمی تواند به سلامت از آن عبور کند.
ایرباس در نقطه ای هدف قرارگرفت که پس از ۳۱سال گلوبال هاوک ساقط شد. امروز ویلیام راجرز تحقیر شد.

اس ۴۰۰روس هم نمی تواند گلوبال هاوک را ساقط کند.. تنها باور ۳۷۳ و سوم خرداد شاهکار تمدن غرب را خاکستر کردند.
 
May 9, 2004
15,020
175
Sample of what they feed to hamvatan in IR world

واقعیت عقب نشینی ترامپ از حمله به ایران


آمریکا با در خواست پنتاگون در کاخ سفید تشکیل جلسه می دهد، برای زدن ۴نقطه در ایران به جمع بندی می رسند.
حمله ساعت ۳نیمه شب با پشتیبانی هواپیماها و سامانه موشکی تام هاوک از قطر،بحرین، امارات شروع خواهد شد و احتمال ۱۵۰۰کشته برای یگان موشکی و راداری ایران در نظر گرفته می شود...
خبری پنتاگون را غافلگیر می کند. رادارهای ناشناخته ای بر روی ناوها قفل شده و فاصله تا انهدام چند ثانیه است. اولین اتفاق انهدام ۱۵۰فروند هواپیما و ۶هزار تلفات در دو ناو و ۳پایگاه می باشد..

از مرزهای لبنان و سوریه خبر می رسد تحرکات شدید نیروهای حزب الله و جیش الوطنی، سپاه قدس در مرز اسراییل نشان از یک حمله قریب الوقوع به اسراییل می دهد.
حمله به حیفا با انهدام مخازن عظیم آمونیاک می تواند فاجعه ای را رقم بزند.

دو شی پرنده ناشناس در حوالی دیمونا مشاهده سپس از رادار محو می شوند، پس از یک ساعت دوباره برروی پدافند موشکی گنبد آهنین قفل راداری انجام می دهند.
خبر از طریق سنتکام و ائتلاف سازمان سیا و موساد به پنتاگون مخابره می شود، ایران آماده پاسخ کوبنده و جنگ بی انتهاست، با اولین موشک فاتحه اسراییل و ۵پایگاه آمریکا در منطقه خوانده می شود.

ترامپ سراسیمه دستور توقف حمله را در ساعت ۲.۵۰بامداد به ارتش سنتکام صادر می کند. سپاه پاسداران داغ ایرباس ۶۵۵ را تا حدودی التیام بخشید.. پیشرفته ترین پهباد های آمریکا گرفتار تور پدافندی ایران در ۳۵۰۰نقطه است.
شبکه عنکبوتی که هیچ پرنده ای نمی تواند به سلامت از آن عبور کند.
ایرباس در نقطه ای هدف قرارگرفت که پس از ۳۱سال گلوبال هاوک ساقط شد. امروز ویلیام راجرز تحقیر شد.

اس ۴۰۰روس هم نمی تواند گلوبال هاوک را ساقط کند.. تنها باور ۳۷۳ و سوم خرداد شاهکار تمدن غرب را خاکستر کردند.

هرچند که این سناریو هم کس و شعره ولی باور کن واقعی تر از سناریو امریکا
و دستور توقف در ده دقیقه اخر بخاطر کشته شدن 150 نظامی ایرانی است
اخه کدام کس خلی دستور حمله میده بعد هواپیما ده دقیق مانده هدف را بزنه
میگه اها یادم اومد شما گفتید 150 نفر کشته میشوند
ژنرال : بله قربان
ترامب : الو خلبان
بله قربان : دست نگه دار اخه من چند تا رفیق ایرانی دارم می ترسم ناراحت بشوند اگر ببینید که 150 ایرانی را کشتم
خلبان : چشم قربان برگشتم
ترامب : چند دقیقه مانده بود تا بزنید
خلبان : ده دقیقه چرا قربان ؟
ترامب : اخه میخوام تویت کنم
 
Likes: Payandeh Iran

A8K

Ball Boy
Oct 22, 2016
2,926
501
fuck.ir
تفاوت یک دروغ در یک فیلم با یک فیلم تمام دروغی است. اینجا که ما بسیجی نیستیم مثل دکترین 'دکتر، عباسی با هزار دروغ داستان پیچیده و نتیجه .گیری شود. حیا هم خوب چیزیه
 
Nov 10, 2002
8,106
315
هرچند که این سناریو هم کس و شعره ولی باور کن واقعی تر از سناریو امریکا
و دستور توقف در ده دقیقه اخر بخاطر کشته شدن 150 نظامی ایرانی است
اخه کدام کس خلی دستور حمله میده بعد هواپیما ده دقیق مانده هدف را بزنه
میگه اها یادم اومد شما گفتید 150 نفر کشته میشوند
ژنرال : بله قربان
ترامب : الو خلبان
بله قربان : دست نگه دار اخه من چند تا رفیق ایرانی دارم می ترسم ناراحت بشوند اگر ببینید که 150 ایرانی را کشتم
خلبان : چشم قربان برگشتم
ترامب : چند دقیقه مانده بود تا بزنید
خلبان : ده دقیقه چرا قربان ؟
ترامب : اخه میخوام تویت کنم
He clarified that 10 minute before starting the operation, he stopped it. I.e. there was no plane in the air
 

A8K

Ball Boy
Oct 22, 2016
2,926
501
fuck.ir
He clarified that 10 minute before starting the operation, he stopped it. I.e. there was no plane in the air
Think I read some of planes involved in operations were lifted off already. But the 10 min itself is bogus. he Knew well ahead about the casualty possibility per routine standard briefings for the Perez in such operations.
 

tajrish

IPL Player
Oct 18, 2002
2,956
88
52
San Diego, California
You guys give too much credit to Trump. He is completely clueless about foreign policy (as well as domestic). He became the president by a stroke of luck and nothing else. If you believe that he has any measured policies regarding the Middle East, all you need is to listen to Kushner's Peace Plan speech a couple of days ago to realize this administration is a complete joke and simply incapable of making any coherent plans, let alone strategic long-term policy decisions in one of the most volatile regions in the world. Trump just doesn't know what he is doing. Akhoonds got him by his balls and he doesn't have an answer but to tweet bunch of kindergarten-liked empty threats to sound tough to his brainless base.
 

Zob Ahan

Moderator
Staff member
Feb 4, 2005
16,320
702
You guys give too much credit to Trump. He is completely clueless about foreign policy (as well as domestic). He became the president by a stroke of luck and nothing else. If you believe that he has any measured policies regarding the Middle East, all you need is to listen to Kushner's Peace Plan speech a couple of days ago to realize this administration is a complete joke and simply incapable of making any coherent plans, let alone strategic long-term policy decisions in one of the most volatile regions in the world. Trump just doesn't know what he is doing. Akhoonds got him by his balls and he doesn't have an answer but to tweet bunch of kindergarten-liked empty threats to sound tough to his brainless base.
Akhunds have no plan but to wait and see if Trump gets defeated in the 2020 election.
 
Likes: Bache Tehroon
Oct 18, 2002
16,193
152
You guys give too much credit to Trump. He is completely clueless about foreign policy (as well as domestic). He became the president by a stroke of luck and nothing else. If you believe that he has any measured policies regarding the Middle East, all you need is to listen to Kushner's Peace Plan speech a couple of days ago to realize this administration is a complete joke and simply incapable of making any coherent plans, let alone strategic long-term policy decisions in one of the most volatile regions in the world. Trump just doesn't know what he is doing. Akhoonds got him by his balls and he doesn't have an answer but to tweet bunch of kindergarten-liked empty threats to sound tough to his brainless base.
As somebody who agrees with trump on very few issues.

What I give him credit for is so far he has stayed to true to his campaign promise of being against useless wars.

we can argue that he lied about many other issues and his lack of knowledge on key areas (perhaps more importantly lack of interest).

But When it comes to not starting wars so far his instincts have been correct.

give him credit for meeting with North korean leader and not continuing the b.s from democrats and republicans that this gives them legitimacy and ....

as for who has whom with the balls. I am not sure. there are too many variables in play.