2026 Israel - Iranian conflict [TEMP LOCKED]

Will Iran-Israel conflict start again?


  • Total voters
    155
  • Poll closed .
Status
Not open for further replies.

AlexYe

Senior Member
Registered Member
That's not really something that can be "surrendered" as those US bases and radars are already destroyed. I expect Iran will not accept anything less than lifting of sanctions, or at best for the US, something like a return to JCPOA, probably rebranded.
Iran has already sorta said what it wants, US bases in gulf countries to leave, reparations etc.


I have read somewhere USA want him to be taken over from his
father and surrender everything in initial negotiations under Oman.
Huh I didnt read it here, or I dont remember. Israel did try to bomb him tho but he survived.
Now they gotta keep this one safe,

Tons of Iranians are talking about him calling for a Jihad now and lifting nuke fatwa.
 

Gloire_bb

Colonel
Registered Member
Japan didn't surrender to terror bombings though? It took nukes and Soviets jumping in and taking Manchuria.

As a counterexample, they dropped more weapons than WW2 in Vietnam and still failed.
Yes, terror bombings fail - sometimes. Sometimes they also don't. It depends on circumstances. Classic example is 1871 bombing of Paris, which was opposed by military, but was forced by Bismarck and did indeed bring french government to negotiations.

Vietnam...was forced into letting US out by Linebacker 2 though. It wasn't US victory, but it's a clear coersion success story.
 

iewgnem

Captain
Registered Member
Yes, Russia can terror bomb Ukraine. It doesn't, it's neither moral nor it is efficient/useful.
No Russia can't do terror bombing as US/IS. No bandwidth.
And, unlike Russia, for US/IS bombing Iran into submission(which is terror bombing) is becoming viable strategy moving forward, as they appear to have lost their initial shock grasp on military victory.
The problem of course is that US don't really see military victory this way, and would rather use other methods (82th is on standby). But Israel - does.

it would be; this is not the way it works with US/Israeli SAR and/or revenge policies.

Winning through terror bombings is established pattern in wars. Strictly speaking, it's one of the first patterns of how air power first managed to become decisive back in 1920s(UK did that). And it mosrt certainly worked before - from Netherlands or Japan to Yugoslavia.
p.s. last time someone got angry at me i was labeled indian.

I am not sure if Iran will fight to the last man. Usually people most willing to fight to the last man sit in other countries before keyboards.
Iran fights now until there's a sensible chance of victory, and because indeed foreign invaders are objectively perceived worse than already unpopular own government. But Iranian own government, for all things, doesn't promise sessesions and civil war.
But this isn't endless state of affairs.
1 - Bandwidth, and to lesser extent fear of Iranian AD, is precisely what's preventing USIS from large scale terror bombing, while Russia can flatten Kiev in 2 month with just the FABs they are already producing and deploying. The consequence of losing access to all ME bases is direct physical reduction of bandwidth.

2 - Terror bomb is a basic instint of western culture and they attribute all results to it as a justification, but no terror bombing has never contibuted toward victory, and almost always delayed it or more often lead direct to defeat. Japan was defeated in WW2 after half a million American casualties, not because of terror bombing in Tokyo, terror bombing in Korea and Vietnam leads directly to defeats, Israli terror bombing in Gaza and Lebenon for decaedes couldn't break Palestenian resolve, and terror bombing directly contributed to US losing both Iraq and Afgahstan.

3. Its 9 days in, if you still think Iranian goverment is unpopular or waiting for a civil war you're more dellusional than even Israel. Iran fought Iraq for 8 years and lost >200k people throughout, it's not a hyptothical if they will fight to the last man, they have already.
 

Gloire_bb

Colonel
Registered Member
1 - Bandwidth, and to lesser extent fear of Iranian AD, is precisely what's preventing USIS from large scale terror bombing, while Russia can flatten Kiev in 2 month with just the FABs they are already producing and deploying. The consequence of losing access to all ME bases is direct physical reduction of bandwidth.
Iranian ADs don't prevent US/IS to bomb now at roughly x3 the average Russian rate, at most major targets in the country.
photo_2026-03-08_12-51-19.jpg
This is where things are over large part of the country today. Pay attention to the wings. Yes, it's F-35.
And no, Russia can't flatten Kiev in 2 months with just FABs. It never could(and frankly you can't really flatten city of this size in two months with existing VKS even with free access).
2 - Terror bomb is a basic instint of western culture and they attribute all results to it as a justification, but no terror bombing has never contibuted toward victory, and almost always delayed it or more often lead direct to defeat. Japan was defeated in WW2 after half a million American casualties, not because of terror bombing in Tokyo, terror bombing in Korea and Vietnam leads directly to defeats, Israli terror bombing in Gaza and Lebenon for decaedes couldn't break Palestenian resolve, and terror bombing directly contributed to US losing both Iraq and Afgahstan.
Terror bombing is nothing more and nothing less than extension of terror tactics. Those go from the dawn of history; 鸡犬不留 didn't appear first in western culture, after all.
3. Its 9 days in, if you still think Iranian goverment is unpopular or waiting for a civil war you're more dellusional than even Israel. Iran fought Iraq for 8 years and lost >200k people throughout, it's not a hyptothical if they will fight to the last man, they have already.
Iranian government went through massive civil unrest less than two months ago. US being even less popular(and foreign invaders) doesn't make Ayatollahs popular. This is chosing lesser evil(and your own bastard, however bad at governance, interested in well-being of the country, over the foreign one, who is specifically not interested in it)
 

FairAndUnbiased

Brigadier
Registered Member
Yes, terror bombings fail - sometimes. Sometimes they also don't. It depends on circumstances. Classic example is 1871 bombing of Paris, which was opposed by military, but was forced by Bismarck and did indeed bring french government to negotiations.

Vietnam...was forced into letting US out by Linebacker 2 though. It wasn't US victory, but it's a clear coersion success story.
linebacker 2 was a strategic failure though.

They traded by their admission 19 B-52s and 12 fighters for 3 PAVN fighters and a few thousand civilians that at the birth rates in 1972 Vietnam would've been replaced within a few years. Vietnam claims 80+ shot down.

19 B-52s represents 2.5% of all B-52s ever built in history lost in a single operation.
 

Gloire_bb

Colonel
Registered Member
linebacker 2 was a strategic failure though.

They traded by their admission 19 B-52s and 12 fighters for 3 PAVN fighters and a few thousand civilians that at the birth rates in 1972 Vietnam would've been replaced within a few years. Vietnam claims 80+ shot down.

19 B-52s represents 2.5% of all B-52s ever built in history lost in a single operation.
The goal wasn't trade, it was to force North Vietnam back to negotiating table; which they did, letting US out.
If we apply it to current situation, if US manage to achieve the same - it is a way out of it.
Most of the belt stretching from North-West to South-East. Hard to say from open sources with more precision, unless US/IS will be more open and share sensitive data. Or, well, Iranians will manage to have a good AD trap against manned FW aircraft.
 

FairAndUnbiased

Brigadier
Registered Member
The goal wasn't trade, it was to force North Vietnam back to negotiating table; which they did, letting US out.
If we apply it to current situation, if US manage to achieve the same - it is a way out of it.
But North Vietnam won a tactical victory with a very favorable trade. The interpretation of "North Vietnam going back to the negotiating table due to Linebacker 2" is simply an interpretation. Linebacker 2 occured in mid-late December 1972. It stopped before New Years of 1973.

In fact, the US itself judges the "Lineback 2 bringing North Vietnam to the table" interpretation as complete cope.

Here's the historical record:

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

The USAF Strategic Air Command (SAC) made some serious mistakes, suffered serious losses and their campaign came close to failure, yet after the war they launched a massive media and public relations blitz (and internal witch hunt) to prove that Linebacker II was an unqualified success that unfolded as planned.
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
US officials claimed that the operation had succeeded in forcing North Vietnam's Politburo to return to negotiating, citing the Paris Peace Accords signed shortly after the operation. Much of the American public had the impression that North Vietnam had been "bombed into submission".
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!


In Paris, the North Vietnamese refused to change the terms they had agreed to in the October 1972 agreement. When South Vietnam's President Nguyen Van Thieu objected to the terms, Nixon threatened to depose him like
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
.
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
In January 1973, the U.S. signed the agreement as the Paris Peace Accords. The main effect of the accord was to usher the United States out of the war.
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

So the story actually goes:

1. North Vietnam signs agreement first in October 1972.
2. US starts bombing North Vietnam... for apparently no reason... and gets 7:1 ratio'ed in air combat while only killing civilians.
3. It starts a media blitz to frame this operation as a complete success. Even US historians themselves say that this was a media blitz and complete cope.
4. It was unable to get North Vietnam to change any of its diplomatic positions.
5. It then signs the same treaty North Vietnam signed.

???????
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top