2026 Iran War Strategy and Analysis

[wuguanhui]

China should offer the same deal to Israel, US, Britain and France. Give up all your nuclear weapons and we let you buy J-10.

 

[Black Wolf]

IMHO, for Iran to have enough deterrence, it does not need to be with nuclear weapon.

For example, make an arrangement where maybe China can provide advanced weapons like what China already provided Pakistan with J-10 and HQ-9, and later on Pakistan will also get J-35A and HQ-19 or any other type of weapons that Iran want to defense itself.

This will be my last post regarding this. I think I already made enough point for why there should be no Iran (or any other countries) with nuclear weapon which will potentially create a chain of reaction in the region and in the world.

You are still not answering the contradiction.

If Israel’s nuclear status is “irreversible” & can't be dismantled in the current world order, then stopping Iran permanently is also not a stable or principled endpoint — it is just power enforcement until conditions change.

You can't logically defend “Israel’s nukes are a permanent reality” while also insisting “Iran must never reach the same status.”

And to be direct: if Israel’s nuclear monopoly can't be undone, then Iran has every strategic right to pursue the same deterrent capability for its own security. We all know who's aggresser in the region & distruber of peace.

That is the unavoidable logic of your position, even if you refuse to accept it.

This will be my last post regarding this. I think I already made enough point for why there should be no Iran (or any other countries) with nuclear weapon which will potentially create a chain of reaction in the region and in the world.

Where are they?

 

[another505]

You are still not answering the contradiction.

If Israel’s nuclear status is “irreversible” & can't be dismantled in the current world order, then stopping Iran permanently is also not a stable or principled endpoint — it is just power enforcement until conditions change.

You can't logically defend “Israel’s nukes are a permanent reality” while also insisting “Iran must never reach the same status.”

And to be direct: if Israel’s nuclear monopoly can't be undone, then Iran has every strategic right to pursue the same deterrent capability for its own security. We all know who's aggresser in the region & distruber of peace.

That is the unavoidable logic of your position, even if you refuse to accept it.

Switching out Israel in your argument we see that since US has nuclear monopoly against non-nuclear states, then EVERY non-western aligned country in the world has strategic right to pursue the same deterrent capability.

You are right about that but as much as agree and I don't like US and Israel Pedo Alliance, I do not want to see Iran or other third world unstable countries to have it.

If anything, this war and May 7th skirmish has proven that conventional means still matter a lot while nuclear deterrence is only useful for handful of use cases. Iran is not doomed to die because US and Israel having nuke.

 

[Black Wolf]

Switching out Israel in your argument we see that since US has nuclear monopoly against non-nuclear states, then EVERY non-western aligned country in the world has strategic right to pursue the same deterrent capability.

You are right about that but as much as agree and I don't like US and Israel Pedo Alliance, I do not want to see Iran or other third world unstable countries to have it.

If anything, this war and May 7th skirmish has proven that conventional means still matter a lot while nuclear deterrence is only useful for handful of use cases. Iran is not doomed to die because US and Israel having nuke.

You’ve actually confirmed the inconsistency rather than resolved it.

You agree that if one nuclear monopoly is accepted, then other states logically acquire the same “deterrence right.” But then you immediately reject that conclusion based on subjective political labeling like “unstable countries.” That is not a principle — that is selective permission based on who is judged acceptable to possess deterrence.

Also, conventional war examples don’t replace nuclear logic. Nuclear deterrence is not about winning small conflicts; it is about preventing existential coercion in the first place.

Take North Korea as a simple reality check — would the US & South Korea realistically dare to launch a direct attack given its nuclear capability? That alone demonstrates the core function of deterrence, regardless of how the state is perceived politically.

So the position still stands: either deterrence logic applies universally, or it is being applied selectively to preserve existing nuclear hierarchies.

 

[another505]

You’ve actually confirmed the inconsistency rather than resolved it.

You agree that if one nuclear monopoly is accepted, then other states logically acquire the same “deterrence right.” But then you immediately reject that conclusion based on subjective political labeling like “unstable countries.” That is not a principle — that is selective permission based on who is judged acceptable to possess deterrence.

Also, conventional war examples don’t replace nuclear logic. Nuclear deterrence is not about winning small conflicts; it is about preventing existential coercion in the first place.

Take North Korea as a simple reality check — would the US & South Korea realistically dare to launch a direct attack given its nuclear capability? That alone demonstrates the core function of deterrence, regardless of how the state is perceived politically.

So the position still stands: either deterrence logic applies universally, or it is being applied selectively to preserve existing nuclear hierarchies.

It is inconsitent and i wont deny it. But geopolitics, human nature, and history is never entirely beholden by it.

You keep pushing things to be consistent when the world is clearly is never about that.

Do you really want some african state to develop a dirty nuke? Or gulf states to pursue it? Just for the sake of consistency, fact and logic?

I do not entrust my future generations from these state actors. Sorry that I care about my survival more than some el presidente wanting to hold in power.

You can keep arguing with your logic all you want. As I said, logically sound but I would not agree with it because we are human.

North korea was always under prc protection which gave them the time to create it. If not, it would have been attacked while developing a credible strike. No one is going to protect Iran for this. And NK was never attacked when it didnt have the nuke anyways... so your point is moot



.

About existential coercion. Except Iran has demonstrated it that conventional means still has purpose in existential war. This war is existential and they are winning without nukes. Because neither Israel and US has enough guts or craziness to push the button despite they have the most wacked admins.

 

[Black Wolf]

It is inconsitent and i wont deny it. But geopolitics, human nature, and history is never entirely beholden by it.

You keep pushing things to be consistent when the world is clearly is never about that.

Do you really want some african state to develop a dirty nuke? Or gulf states to pursue it? Just for the sake of consistency, fact and logic?

I do not entrust my future generations from these state actors. Sorry that I care about my survival more than some el presidente wanting to hold in power.

You can keep arguing with your logic all you want. As I said, logically sound but I would not agree with it because we are human.

North korea was always under prc protection which gave them the time to create it. If not, it would have been attacked while developing a credible strike. No one is going to protect Iran for this. And NK was never attacked when it didnt have the nuke anyways... so your point is moot
.

About existential coercion. Except Iran has demonstrated it that conventional means still has purpose in existential war. This war is existential and they are winning without nukes. Because neither Israel and US has enough guts or craziness to push the button despite they have the most wacked admins.

That is exactly why the consistency point matters — because once you abandon it, you are no longer applying a rule, just selectively deciding which states you feel comfortable allowing deterrence for.

On North Korea, your own framing undermines your conclusion: the reason it became a nuclear state without attack is precisely because nuclear deterrence changed the cost calculation. That is the entire point being made.

And on “existential war without nukes,” that is not a stable conclusion either — conventional conflict outcomes do not replace nuclear deterrence logic, they operate in a completely different risk category.

So, the question remains simple and unanswered in your framing: are nuclear weapons a universal deterrence mechanism that works regardless of who possesses them, or a selectively permitted privilege based on subjective trust in certain states?

 

[manqiangrexue]

As I said before, in the current world order it is still unrealistic to achieve what you want like remove Israel from Middle East and ask Israel to dismantle its nuclear weapon. That's why I said before, it is an impossible thing to do currently.

My suggestion is for us to settle current conflict, what is in front us that is more make sense to be achieved. Iran gets what it wants although not directly run by Iranian. US and Israel gets what they want. They all at least get partially what they originally want.

A compromise where both parties at least get something is the middle ground. It doesn't fix the historic injustices or satisfy the ideological desires of either side, but it stops the bleeding.

If Iranian can be patient, who knows maybe as you said in Pax Sinica world order, Iran does not even need nuclear weapon anymore.

Oh, you said you wanted to be fair. You clearly cannot achieve that. You meant to compromise so everyone might begrudgingly accept even if it is unfair for Iran. That is a very very difficult balancing act. I think a lot of people are trying and failing that act.

Rather another thing that is workable and fair is that Iran builds its nukes and both Israel and the US back off and go home. This is the most direct solution and it is guaranteed a permanent one because the US and Israel only honor agreements when it suits them.

IMHO, for Iran to have enough deterrence, it does not need to be with nuclear weapon.

For example, make an arrangement where maybe China can provide advanced weapons like what China already provided Pakistan with J-10 and HQ-9, and later on Pakistan will also get J-35A and HQ-19 or any other type of weapons that Iran want to defense itself.

This will be my last post regarding this. I think I already made enough point for why there should be no Iran (or any other countries) with nuclear weapon which will potentially create a chain of reaction in the region and in the world.

This opinion is wrong.
1. Right now, China is not willing or capable of acting as a long term security guarantor to Iran and whatever weapons we sell them can ultimately be overwhelmed by the US since they cannot afford much.
2. As long as Iran does not have a nuclear weapon, America and Israel will continue to think there is a chance to defeat Iran because they can escalate to nuke and Iran would have no answer. Only when Iran possesses the nuke will they understand that there is no endgame to such a conflict and therefore no reason to start it.

 

[another505]

That is exactly why the consistency point matters — because once you abandon it, you are no longer applying a rule, just selectively deciding which states you feel comfortable allowing deterrence for.

On North Korea, your own framing undermines your conclusion: the reason it became a nuclear state without attack is precisely because nuclear deterrence changed the cost calculation. That is the entire point being made.

And on “existential war without nukes,” that is not a stable conclusion either — conventional conflict outcomes do not replace nuclear deterrence logic, they operate in a completely different risk category.

So, the question remains simple and unanswered in your framing: are nuclear weapons a universal deterrence mechanism that works regardless of who possesses them, or a selectively permitted privilege based on subjective trust in certain states?

I never seek to apply a rule and let us be realistic, is giving nuke to UAE or Taiwan the same giving nuke to Brazil or Australia? It isn't. Of course it would be selective due to myriad of reasons.

For north korea? What? How does that even make sense? You argued that us and sk wont attack nk because they had nuke. I said they never were attack when they didn't have one anyways.
Now you're saying that it has nuclear deterrence that changed the cost calculation BEFORE they had or even attempt to create a nuke?

Of course nuclear deterrence logic is different than conventional, but you are arguing that Iran should have it because existential reason against Israel, but I am arguing in practice, right now, the best evidence, shows that it doesn't. It is already in an existential war not some theory arm chairing. Nuclear escalation from US and Israel aren't used except as a bluff which Iran agreed to the ceasefire and now they are choking the world supply of oil without needing a real fight. It practically gave Iran the win.

It is not and should not be a universal deterrence mechanism because not every state is stable or responsible and i am against nuclear proliferation. Selective countries have it because they have it by sufficient force and power, and/or protection from a greater country, not because they have the right or permitted.
They have it because they were able to have it.
Stop trying to apply logic or consistency in the world of geopolitics and power plays.

 

[Black Wolf]

I never seek to apply a rule and let us be realistic, is giving nuke to UAE or Taiwan the same giving nuke to Brazil or Australia? It isn't. Of course it would be selective due to myriad of reasons.

For north korea? What? How does that even make sense? You argued that us and sk wont attack nk because they had nuke. I said they never were attack when they didn't have one anyways.
Now you're saying that it has nuclear deterrence that changed the cost calculation BEFORE they had or even attempt to create a nuke?

Of course nuclear deterrence logic is different than conventional, but you are arguing that Iran should have it because existential reason against Israel, but I am arguing in practice, right now, the best evidence, shows that it doesn't. It is already in an existential war not some theory arm chairing. Nuclear escalation from US and Israel aren't used except as a bluff which Iran agreed to the ceasefire and now they are choking the world supply of oil without needing a real fight. It practically gave Iran the win.

It is not and should not be a universal deterrence mechanism because not every state is stable or responsible and i am against nuclear proliferation. Selective countries have it because they have it by sufficient force and power, and/or protection from a greater country, not because they have the right or permitted.
They have it because they were able to have it.
Stop trying to apply logic or consistency in the world of geopolitics and power plays.

So, your position basically comes down to this:
some countries can be trusted with nuclear weapons because they are already powerful, wealthy, or aligned with the existing order, while others can't.

But history itself completely undermines that confidence.

The only country that has ever actually used nuclear weapons against another nation was already one of the most powerful & supposedly “responsible” states in the world. Japan did not have nukes — the US did.

So clearly, nuclear danger is not magically removed just because the states holding them are Western-aligned or globally dominant powers.

And that is why I keep saying this debate is not really about universal non-proliferation principles. We know the world operates on power politics and selective enforcement.

My issue is with pretending otherwise.

Because whenever certain countries pursue deterrence capability, people suddenly invoke “global stability,” “rules-based order,” & “non-proliferation.” Yet existing nuclear monopolies are normalized, justified & treated as permanent realities when it suits geopolitical interests.

So at least let us be honest about the actual position:
it is not “nuclear weapons are universally unacceptable.”
It is “some states are allowed permanent deterrence because they already hold power, while states who pursue similar capability must be stopped from attaining it.”

 

[another505]

So, your position basically comes down to this:
some countries can be trusted with nuclear weapons because they are already powerful, wealthy, or aligned with the existing order, while others can't.

But history itself completely undermines that confidence.

The only country that has ever actually used nuclear weapons against another nation was already one of the most powerful & supposedly “responsible” states in the world. Japan did not have nukes — the US did.

So clearly, nuclear danger is not magically removed just because the states holding them are Western-aligned or globally dominant powers.

And that is why I keep saying this debate is not really about universal non-proliferation principles. We know the world operates on power politics and selective enforcement.

My issue is with pretending otherwise.

Because whenever certain countries pursue deterrence capability, people suddenly invoke “global stability,” “rules-based order,” & “non-proliferation.” Yet existing nuclear monopolies are normalized, justified & treated as permanent realities when it suits geopolitical interests.

So at least let us be honest about the actual position:
it is not “nuclear weapons are universally unacceptable.”
It is “some states are allowed permanent deterrence because they already hold power, while states who pursue similar capability must be stopped from attaining it.”

No, you don't get my point.

Iran can get its nuke if it can afford to and can defend itself. Not because of rights.
I am against Iran getting nukes because I am against nuclear proliferation. So I am against every country with it.
But I cant do crap to force them to not have nukes. I am just a single human. They have it cause they can and no other states can stop it. Simple as.

What I meant that some can be "trusted" and some cannot is because you attempted to give nuclear proliferation to every country in your argument "That is exactly why the consistency point matters — because once you abandon it, you are no longer applying a rule, just selectively deciding which states you feel comfortable allowing deterrence for."

You then seek to create a rule that every country should have it then. I told you, no, i don't want any country to have it. And I showed you it is a bad idea by giving examples of some countries vs others.

"It is “some states are allowed permanent deterrence because they already hold power, while states who pursue similar capability must be stopped from attaining it.”"

Yes, that is what I am saying. Never pretended other wise in some moral high standing. Perhaps the other guy responding to you did, idk.