Live Conflict Iran-Israel Conflict (2025)

TheInsider said:

For Iran, it is either unconditional surrender or carpet bombing with B-52s.

BTW, Israel is hitting defenses in Kirmanshah really hard; that city has a big Kurdish population. IMHO, Israel wants to trigger something.

Click to expand...

Rooxbar said:

Mazloum Abdi has told U.S. reps that they should not count on him if they expand the war to confront Iranian-backed militias in Syria and Iraq. If he's telling the truth (I doubt it), he must not be long for this world as the head of Syrian PKK, or may be the plan is to keep that organization safe and away from Iran's targeting, in case of clashes. Well they have bases inside Iran anyway, if Iran doesn't see them as a threat to itself, they are very happy to use it as a trump card against Turkey. It's very hard to develop a plan in juggling all of these possibilities.

My thesis that U.S. is preparing for a full-on war with Iran (despite most analysts thinking the opposite as they see the dem admin actually accommodating Iran based on superficial evidence), can be partially refuted if they stop Israel from making this a long-term thing and don't extend and elevate the level of engagement with Houthis, and militias in Syria (I say "partially", because if they don't do it now, they can always come back and do it later; so to fully refute it we have to see concrete steps by U.S. for rapprochement through JCPOA. As what I see is the exact opposite in U.S. abandoning JCPOA, I count this as an evidence for my hypothesis, based on the fact that a nuclear Iran will not be tolerated {since the risks of spillage with a nuclear Iran is real and unsustainable, unlike NK}, and on the other hand without JCPOA Iran will have no choice but to develop nuclear weapon). Since for U.S. and Israel to safely engage with Iran they have to clear its proxies first, this means moves against this goal will weaken my hypothesis, and naturally moves in keeping with this goal will strengthen it.

U.S. state department has opted to manifest a picture of what opinion on this matter (extending the war & carte blanche for Israel to continue) inside its halls are, as discordant and hesitant. But you never know if that's propaganda or real leaks. But sometimes the discord is real until an order to the contrary comes from some place else. I'd love to know where that some place is which can stifle any kind of discord so fast. Like how they have been avoiding the word "ceasefire" like the plague in a very wide geography. Would love to see how that's coordinated and where the actual decisions are made, or if it's only signalled from a central committee and everybody else recognizes the signals and conforms organically.

Click to expand...

Rooxbar said:

Although I have my premonitions that long-term planning in international affairs is neither practical nor sustainable, hence not believing in the efficacy or, in any chance, the seriousness and unity of will with which the "Great middle-east project" is being pursued, still the current situation in northern Iraq and Syria and the way the west has planned and conducted the invasion of Gaza and the long-term encroachment on the West Bank, bears some resemblance to the project being implemented, albeit in a haphazard and unsatisfactorily choppy manner. Given that reality, one must ask "what would have been the optimal response by Turkey to the incitement of a civil war in Syria?" if the goal of establishment of a part of "the great Kurdistan" could be anticipated? Could we block it?

We can repeat the same question for Iran. Iran is even more of a powederkeg than Syria. Its disintegration in the coming decade (or two, give or take) is, in my view, inevitable; which translates to "the advancement of the "great middle-east project in its next phase, aka Iran, is inevitable". Another Kurdish front will be formed. What is the optimal response to this inevitability? When this disintegration happens, the alternatives on the ground are several kurdish militias, who already have their eyes on Iran's western border with Turkey. Iran's internal pan-Iranists have helped them change the demographics of the region (which is called "Western Azerbaijan") from 90% Turkish thirty years ago, to 60% kurdish now; they have achieved this within the confines of the "Islamic" republic, that is presumably devoid of those Pan-Iranist sentiments. You have to have plan b about when shit hits the fan and the kurdish militias, attack and displace Azerbaijanis from South Azerbaijan. You have to have plans to be able to influence this process, even if you think it will not happen.

Your repsonse can be the passive, "no we don't want another Kurdish front to the east; we are opposed to disintegration of Iran, we support Iran's territorial integrity". I don't need to remind you of AKP's early policy towards disintegration of Syria. Then when the facts on the ground (YPG and U.S. support for it) hit them in the face, they changed that policy to "we support the territorial integrity of Syria". That posturing has no effect on the reality of a "northern authonomous Kurdistan region of Syria". In Iran's case as well, your moral outrage and moralistic support for territorial integrity will not amount to anything, when there's a fact of "Autonomous Kurdistan Region of Iran" under the auspices of U.S.

When you develop policy, you look at the stuff you can control, and the stuff you can't. Then you control the things you can, and develop reactions to influence the stuff you can't control.

Another alternative is dreaming about controlling the stuff you can't, and then when the reality of the fact that you can't control it hits you in the face, bury your head in the sand and repeat the same chorus as you were singing before that fact had become reality.

I do not have the perfect answers as to what kind of policy could have been drawn up in the face of the reality of YPG on the ground, and the ways to control it, diminish its influence and spread and dissuade the powers from collaborating and strengthening it. But one thing is for certain; if you didn't dream about a territorially intact Syria with an Islamic Brotherhood admin at the top, you could have devised realistic policy towards what was inevitable and outside your control.

"The great middle-east project" and its goals are not all out of control and inevitable. But the disintegration of the "Islamic Republic" regime is. Ask any Iran expert, who knows Persian and has lived in that country for some time and is familiar with the cultural outlook and the state apparatus. Hence you devise policy about "South Azerbaijan" and "East Kurdistan", given this reality, not given your dreams about the territorial integrity of Iran. Unlike in Syria and Iraq, there's a huge number of Turks in that region. If you pursue your dreams, you will not be able to influence the process, giving up the ground for Kurdish militias to completely occupy "West Azerbaijan" and beyond, as your government is singing the chorus about "territorial integrity of Iran". If instead of pursuing dreams however, you look at it realistically, you will try to plan ahead, the way Iran plans ahead for disintegration of Turkey, having back-channel communication with PKK and its offshoots, along with Hizbullah and its political offshoots. They have trump cards when dealing with you. What you got? Your country has banned the only South Azerbaijani T.V. channel, has had made zero efforts to prop up and support political parties there, and bans their major activists from entering the country.

Click to expand...

mehmed beg said:

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1934826593790152778

Click to expand...

sup_lol said:

5. Israel has been infiltrating iran for decades and has gotten into the very depths of their leadership. They don't need indians who will never get power.

Click to expand...

Philip the Arab said:

It’s fordover

Maybe if my dreams could come true there would be nuclear sharing from Pakistan to the rest of the countries of the Middle East but alathebissue t

Click to expand...

Philip the Arab said:

It’s fordover

Maybe if my dreams could come true there would be nuclear sharing from Pakistan to the rest of the countries of the Middle East but alas…

Click to expand...

Philip the Arab said:

The reason Mossad is so powerful is because they have a shared ethnic loyalty towards eachother.

Arabs, Iranians and others are all snakes and will betray eachother for a couple shekels. Jews wont betray eachother for a million dollars.

Click to expand...

sup_lol said:

The issue is that you are giving nukes to what is probably the second most unstable region on the planet after africa(the places with constant civil war) and the region with a lot of extremists who if given access to such equipment have a decent chance of causing mass casualties

Click to expand...

sup_lol said:

1. This acc seems to be kinda unreliable but who am I to judge but thats my personal opinion
2. Pakistani intelligence is not particularly neutral so i would take anything from them abt india with a massive grain of salt
3. It's seems to be a single acc or very few accs spreading this narrative do whatever you want with that info
4. This is not proof this is hearsay
5. Israel has been infiltrating iran for decades and has gotten into the very depths of their leadership. They don't need indians who will never get power.
6. In reference to my 5th point, indians are not treated particularly well in the middle East and even spies among them will struggle to cause an impact compared to the actual spies in the government.

Point 2,5,6 are important, the rest is js my opinion

@TR_123456 look into this since I will have a biased opinion but i don't think this counts as proof of large amounts of Indian spies in Iran and looks a lot like hearsay

Click to expand...

Zapper said:

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1933954602837389762

Click to expand...

TR_123456 said:

I am referring this to @Nilgiri ,he has more knowledge about the situation and knows what to do about it.

Click to expand...