Middle East Running Iranian threat news and discussion thread

Reader mode
Marduk said:
A lot of the people were islamists or communists, true. And it's a good thing the Shah oppressed those.
Click to expand...
Agree in both cases - they should be oppressed.But ,in muslim countries,most populations are,well,islamists.You need secular dictator to keep them in check,not democracy - and tell me,who removed Saddam and introduced democracy/islamist to Iraq?
and who is supporting semocracy/islamists against tyran in Syria?

The same people who you support now.You want islamists killed in Syria? then support Assad there.Becouse in muslim countries there is no other choice.
 
ATP said:
Agree in both cases - they should be oppressed.But ,in muslim countries,most populations are,well,islamists.You need secular dictator to keep them in check,not democracy - and tell me,who removed Saddam and introduced democracy/islamist to Iraq?
and who is supporting semocracy/islamists against tyran in Syria?

The same people who you support now.You want islamists killed in Syria? then support Assad there.Becouse in muslim countries there is no other choice.
Click to expand...
Trump will most likely extent an olive branch to Assad since he put Tulsi in his cabinet, and she's known to not be above meeting with dictators whether they be US-aligned or otherwise while also being Anti-Islamist.
 
IndyFront said:
Trump will most likely extent an olive branch to Assad since he put Tulsi in his cabinet, and she's known to not be above meeting with dictators whether they be US-aligned or otherwise while also being Anti-Islamist.
Click to expand...
I hope so.
 
IndyFront said:
Trump will most likely extent an olive branch to Assad since he put Tulsi in his cabinet, and she's known to not be above meeting with dictators whether they be US-aligned or otherwise while also being Anti-Islamist.
Click to expand...
Her claim is that she isn't pro-Assad but anti-US involvement in Syria
 
Welp, the Pentagon has come out and said Drones are not from a foreign adversary. NO TRUTH to an Iranian Ship off the coast or any 'mothership' launching drones towards the US.
 
The Whispering Monk said:
Welp, the Pentagon has come out and said Drones are not from a foreign adversary. NO TRUTH to an Iranian Ship off the coast or any 'mothership' launching drones towards the US.
Click to expand...
I'm going to trust Congressmen Van Drew more than Biden's Pentagon, given how he and Obama shipped so much cash to Iran and have been playing footsie with Iran for so long.

My guess is the Pentagon got orders from on high to deny the mothership is out there, because if it is, it looks really bad for both the Biden Admin and Pentagon.
 
Bacle said:
I'm going to trust Congressmen Van Drew more than Biden's Pentagon, given how he and Obama shipped so much cash to Iran and have been playing footsie with Iran for so long.

My guess is the Pentagon got orders from on high to deny the mothership is out there, because if it is, it looks really bad for both the Biden Admin and Pentagon.
Click to expand...
Kinda like some random Chinese spy balloon.
 
The Whispering Monk said:
Kinda like some random Chinese spy balloon.
Click to expand...
Yep, Biden's Pentagon has negative credibility when it comes to addressing threats to CONUS itself in an honest fashion.

And the Biden Admin's record with Iran gives plenty of reason to not trust them on things related to Iran.
 
The Whispering Monk said:
why do you think Israel erased all of Syria's major air defenses?

Makes it much easier to get air assets into Iran. Set your watch on add'l strikes taking out Iran's nuke capabilities.
Click to expand...
They should go after Saudi Arabia too while they're at it. Honestly at this point Saudi Arabia scares me more than Iran, just look up 'Saud Rockefeller' or 'Bush Saud' and you'll see why.
 


Iran is running out of gas, and had to chose between using gas to heat people's homes, or use it to generate electricity for the nation, and chose the heating option.

So the country of Iran is now mostly without power, and the IRCG just recently took over full control of the countries gas supplies and infra.

I think that we may see a tectonic shift in Iran's domestic politics, with this going on just after Assad was pushed out of Syria, and Hamas and Hezbollah have been gutted, while Israel has effectively destroyed the Iranian air defense network with it's strikes.
 
**[AXIOS:](<https://www.axios.com/2025/01/02/iran-nuclear-weapon-biden-white-house?>) Biden discussed plans to strike Iran's nuclear sites if Tehran decided to advance towards a nuclear bomb before January 20th**
> White House national security adviser Jake Sullivan presented President Biden with options for a potential U.S. attack on Iran's nuclear facilities if the Iranians move towards a nuclear weapon before Jan. 20, in a meeting several weeks ago that remained secret until now, three sources with knowledge of the issue tell Axios.
>
> U.S. strike on Iran's nuclear program during the lame duck period would be an enormous gamble from a president who promised he would not allow Iran to develop a nuclear weapon, but who would also risk handing a fresh conflict over to his successor. Biden did not green light a strike during the meeting and has not done so since, the sources said.
>
> A U.S. official with knowledge of the issue said the White House meeting was not prompted by new intelligence or intended to end in a yes or no decision from Biden. Instead, it was part of a discussion on "prudent scenario planning" of how the U.S. should respond if Iran were to take steps like enriching Uranium to 90% purity before Jan. 20, the official said.
 
Zachowon said:
**[AXIOS:](<https://www.axios.com/2025/01/02/iran-nuclear-weapon-biden-white-house?>) Biden discussed plans to strike Iran's nuclear sites if Tehran decided to advance towards a nuclear bomb before January 20th**
> White House national security adviser Jake Sullivan presented President Biden with options for a potential U.S. attack on Iran's nuclear facilities if the Iranians move towards a nuclear weapon before Jan. 20, in a meeting several weeks ago that remained secret until now, three sources with knowledge of the issue tell Axios.
>
> U.S. strike on Iran's nuclear program during the lame duck period would be an enormous gamble from a president who promised he would not allow Iran to develop a nuclear weapon, but who would also risk handing a fresh conflict over to his successor. Biden did not green light a strike during the meeting and has not done so since, the sources said.
>
> A U.S. official with knowledge of the issue said the White House meeting was not prompted by new intelligence or intended to end in a yes or no decision from Biden. Instead, it was part of a discussion on "prudent scenario planning" of how the U.S. should respond if Iran were to take steps like enriching Uranium to 90% purity before Jan. 20, the official said.
Click to expand...
Idiots.What they want? another Iraq? notching would change,except ruined country taken by more aggressive islamists who would kill/exile christians there.
It seems,that USA for mysterious reason want all christians on Middle East killed.Dunno why,most of them are not even catholics.
 
As long as they don't put boots on the ground and keep it contained to the ruling elite (i.e. NOT recklessly bombing civilians like the retards in Israel) I don't really care what my government does to enemy governments/nation-states. I truly could not give a fuck less.
 
Reader mode
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 7 (members: 0, guests: 7)
Back
Top