2026 Iran War Strategy and Analysis

[Cyclist]

Are you making excuses for why Isreal starts all the wars in the region while commiting rape and genocide? So that's why they need nukes to make them feel safe? Israel needs to be dismantled to be honest, and the land given to a Palestinian nation. That is the final peace.

I don't condone what atrocities Israel has done to Palestinian or other victims, but war is brutal and I also think there are victims on both sides. That's why we need to look for permanent peace that is fair to Israel, Palestinian and the neighboring nations.

I don't think we can have further discussion if your final answer is there is no Israel nation.

 

[_killuminati_]

It is exactly why there must be peace between Israel and Iran. If there is no peace guarantee for Israel, it will feel threatened by its neighbors (which launched wars against it in the past), that's why it wants to keep its nuclear weapon. Israel already has nuclear weapon since 1950s, so it has nuclear weapon before even some major countries.

Colonial settler feels threatened? Strange. Israel is, from it's inception, an expansionist state. The only reason why Israel doesn't want anybody else to have nukes is because it doesn't want anybody to resist it's colonial expansion. It's also why Israel doesn't allow Europe/US to sell weapons to Arabs (including friendly Arabs) that are on par or superior to the Israeli.

 

[Black Wolf]

@Cyclist ....

The reality is far more brutal than the “both sides are suffering equally” narrative often presented.

Since the creation of Israel, Palestinians have faced continuous displacement, military occupation, destruction of their towns and villages, illegal settlement expansion, blockades, mass arrests & repeated large-scale military assaults. Entire Palestinian communities have been erased, families wiped out & generations forced to live as refugees either within their own land or outside it.

Hundreds of thousands of Palestinians have been killed over the decades, while millions have been displaced from lands their families lived on for generations. Gaza has repeatedly been turned into rubble, civilians including women & children have been killed in massive numbers & basic necessities such as food, water, electricity & medical aid have frequently been restricted during conflicts. Meanwhile, Palestinian land has continued shrinking year after year under occupation and settlements.

The attached image clearly reflects this historical reality. What was once overwhelmingly Palestinian land has gradually been fragmented into isolated pockets under occupation, while Israeli control continuously expanded. This is why many people around the world see this not as a conflict between equals, but as the systematic destruction & dispossession of the Palestinian nation over decades.

Wanting justice for Palestinians does not mean rejecting peace. But peace cannot be built while ignoring the scale of Palestinian suffering, occupation & loss that has taken place for generations.

 

[Cyclist]

@Cyclist ....

The reality is far more brutal than the “both sides are suffering equally” narrative often presented.

Since the creation of Israel, Palestinians have faced continuous displacement, military occupation, destruction of their towns and villages, illegal settlement expansion, blockades, mass arrests & repeated large-scale military assaults. Entire Palestinian communities have been erased, families wiped out & generations forced to live as refugees either within their own land or outside it.

Hundreds of thousands of Palestinians have been killed over the decades, while millions have been displaced from lands their families lived on for generations. Gaza has repeatedly been turned into rubble, civilians including women & children have been killed in massive numbers & basic necessities such as food, water, electricity & medical aid have frequently been restricted during conflicts. Meanwhile, Palestinian land has continued shrinking year after year under occupation and settlements.

The attached image clearly reflects this historical reality. What was once overwhelmingly Palestinian land has gradually been fragmented into isolated pockets under occupation, while Israeli control continuously expanded. This is why many people around the world see this not as a conflict between equals, but as the systematic destruction & dispossession of the Palestinian nation over decades.

Wanting justice for Palestinians does not mean rejecting peace. But peace cannot be built while ignoring the scale of Palestinian suffering, occupation & loss that has taken place for generations.


View attachment 175109

I think I already said it before in my my first post in this thread. Israel should be checked and not let it expand further but must give back land that was taken. I did not deny any atrocities done by Israel and what retribution it should pay, but the current talking point where it can justify Iran to have nuclear weapon, I think it is just quite dangerous.

I just don't want one day to see Japan, South Korea, Vietnam, Philippines, or other countries in Middle East, Africa or Latin America to have nuclear weapons.

 

[Black Wolf]

I think I already said it before in my my first post in this thread. Israel should be checked and not let it expand further but must give back land that was taken. I did not deny any atrocities done by Israel and what retribution it should pay, but the current talking point where it can justify Iran to have nuclear weapon, I think it is just quite dangerous.

I just don't want one day to see Japan, South Korea, Vietnam, Philippines, or other countries in Middle East, Africa or Latin America to have nuclear weapons.

I think it is an assumption to frame “Iran potentially having nuclear weapons” as inherently more dangerous while ignoring the regional context in which this debate is taking place. From my perspective, it is fundamentally about strategic balance in a region where Israel already possesses nuclear weapons, with all aggressions & atrocities. That asymmetry is part of what drives these arguments in the first place.

In fact, the assumption that Iran having nuclear weapons is inherently more dangerous should be questioned in light of decades of regional aggression and military actions attributed to Israel. From that perspective, the concern is arguably the other way around — the real issue is the existence of an unchecked nuclear monopoly & the priority should be addressing & disarming that capability rather than focusing only on preventing Iran from acquiring deterrence.

It is also important to remember that nuclear weapons have only ever been used once in history, by US, a fact that is often left out in these discussions.

My point is that focusing solely on preventing Iran from acquiring nuclear capability, without addressing existing nuclear arsenals in the region, reflects an inconsistent application of non-proliferation principles.

A credible approach can't be selective; it has to consider disarmament or limitation on all sides rather than treating one actor in isolation.

 

[Cyclist]

I think it is an assumption to frame “Iran potentially having nuclear weapons” as inherently more dangerous while ignoring the regional context in which this debate is taking place. From my perspective, it is fundamentally about strategic balance in a region where Israel already possesses nuclear weapons, with all aggressions & atrocities. That asymmetry is part of what drives these arguments in the first place.

It is also important to remember that nuclear weapons have only ever been used once in history, by US, a fact that is often left out in these discussions.

My point is that focusing solely on preventing Iran from acquiring nuclear capability, without addressing existing nuclear arsenals in the region, reflects an inconsistent application of non-proliferation principles.

A credible approach can't be selective; it has to consider disarmament or limitation on all sides rather than treating one actor in isolation.

I have been quiet and not replying in this thread. I only reply when I think it is just quite dangerous because it seems many users are advocating for Iran to have nuclear weapon.

Israel already has nuclear weapon in 1950s, years before major countries have it and NPT agreement. It is already an established nuclear power. How many more countries will we allow to have nuclear weapon if this time we allow Iran to have it?

We do not know how Iran will behave when it has nuclear weapon, but why must we gamble with such thing if we can prevent it before it happen?

I already provided some suggestions so Iran can have nuclear guarantee without it to have nuclear weapon directly.

 

[wuguanhui]

I don't condone what atrocities Israel has done to Palestinian or other victims, but war is brutal and I also think there are victims on both sides. That's why we need to look for permanent peace that is fair to Israel, Palestinian and the neighboring nations.

I don't think we can have further discussion if your final answer is there is no Israel nation.

The nation of Israel should have been carved out of Germany for the sins of the Holocaust. I don't understand why Palestinians should suffer for German crimes.

I propose to carve a New Palestine out of Europe... oh I geddit now, so that's why they want more Muslim refugees. A Islamic Caliphate of Europe in return for a Greater Eretz Israel.

Fair enough.

 

[Cyclist]

The nation of Israel should have been carved out of Germany for the sins of the Holocaust. I don't understand why Palestinians should suffer for German crimes.

I propose to carve a New Palestine out of Europe... oh I geddit now, so that's why they want more Muslim refugees. A Islamic Caliphate of Europe in return for a Greater Eretz Israel.

Fair enough.

If we want to find the origin of all this mess, it all began with Ottoman Empire and then British Empire. I think this UN link is quite neutral to learn the origin on how the nation of Israel was established.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

 

[Black Wolf]

I have been quiet and not replying in this thread. I only reply when I think it is just quite dangerous because it seems many users are advocating for Iran to have nuclear weapon.

Israel already has nuclear weapon in 1950s, years before major countries have it and NPT agreement. It is already an established nuclear power. How many more countries will we allow to have nuclear weapon if this time we allow Iran to have it?

We do not know how Iran will behave when it has nuclear weapon, but why must we gamble with such thing if we can prevent it before it happen?

I already provided some suggestions so Iran can have nuclear guarantee without it to have nuclear weapon directly.

The argument being made reduces non-proliferation to a selective concern rather than a consistent principle.

You can't claim to support non-proliferation while treating one state’s potential capability as uniquely intolerable, while ignoring an already existing nuclear-armed state in the region. Israel already possesses nuclear weapons despite its long record of regional military operations & repeated large-scale atrocities. That reality is not peripheral—it is central to the strategic imbalance in the region.

At one place you argue that we are “unsure how a nuclear Iran would behave.” Yet on the other hand, we already have a live, historical & ongoing example of a nuclear-armed state "Isreal" in the same region & its pattern of military aggression and escalation. That contradiction can't be ignored when applying the same risk logic.

If the concern is truly about “unknown future behavior,” then applying that standard only to one actor while exempting another makes the argument inconsistent & politically selective rather than principled.

Security analysis can't be built on hypothetical risk for one side & real-world precedent being dismissed for another.

The reality is that nuclear deterrence already exists in the region. Any serious discussion about stability must start from that fact instead of isolating one potential actor as the sole or primary risk.

Framing this as a one-sided non-proliferation concern is not a neutral application of principle—it is selective reasoning.

 

[tankphobia]

Framing this as a one-sided non-proliferation concern is not a neutral application of principle—it is selective reasoning.

But the world is not fair. Any proliferation, whether it be Israel or Iran is tending towards normalisation of nuclear war. What would be the threshold for nuclear weapon usage in this scenaro if Iran gets the bomb? Israel continue with its plan to expand and Annex Palestine and beyond, would that lead to MAD? Iran continues to fund it's proxies in Lebanon, Yemen, Syria and Iraq which continue to harass Israel with rockets/missiles despite a peace deal after this current conflict, would Israel be right to fire a nuke in response?

There's not much levers that the world can pull to remove the nukes from Israel since its core to their country's survival, but there's plenty more the US can and will do for Iran to not get the bomb in the first place.

This is not even talking about GCC which will forever be under the dominion of Iran if they were to be constantly under the threat of nuclear annihilation from Iran in some shia/Sunni conflict.