2026 Iran War Strategy and Analysis

taxiya said:

Because these people believed US and Israeli propaganda. US achieved their objective of portraying defeat of Iran, capitulation of China, betrayal of China to Iran, win of US. Haven't people learnt anything from the past years of Trump propaganda?

Don't people have any memory of Biden's trick of Russia and China about Ukrain? China is part of it, so China is as evil as Russia. Whenever there is a pause of China's shipment of oil from Russia, it must be China capitulated to Biden's pressure and betrayed Russia. What do we see now?

Don't people have any memory of Obama's trick of NK/China? It goes like China owns NK therefor China must have pressed NK for anything that US "won", China must had obeyed to US order, China must have betrayed NK. What do we see now? NK's FM is soon to meet Wang Yi. China's FM spokeperson referred to western reporter's "NK missile" as "flying object".

It is a simple and CHILDISH trick. Even if it is difficult for someone to comprehend shouldn't people at least have a memory long enough to remember what just happened since 2020?

Click to expand...

Ultimately, there has to be some sort of resolution to the nuclear enrichment issue. Other issues can be negotiated, but the fundamental, nonreconciliable existential threat posed by Israel and Iran to each other can only be guaranteed with mutual nuclear deterrence.
My understanding is that all parties know implicitly that a nuclear attack on Iran by Israel would be blocked by a formal Pakistan nuclear umbrella pact with Iran. Well what if the US also joins in, then who would be there to back up Pakistan? China, of course. And there is already a prior example of this, the recent 2025 Saudi-Pakistan defence pact.
I would venture that is the only reassurance that China could have provided Iran to insist on starting negotiations with the US.

discspinner said:

Ultimately, there has to be some sort of resolution to the nuclear enrichment issue. Other issues can be negotiated, but the fundamental, nonreconciliable existential threat posed by Israel and Iran to each other can only be guaranteed with mutual nuclear deterrence.
My understanding is that all parties know implicitly that a nuclear attack on Iran by Israel would be blocked by a formal Pakistan nuclear umbrella pact with Iran. Well what if the US also joins in, then who would be there to back up Pakistan? China, of course. And there is already a prior example of this, the recent 2025 Saudi-Pakistan defence pact.
I would venture that is the only reassurance that China could have provided Iran to insist on starting negotiations with the US.

Click to expand...

It would be a huge departure from both a foreign policy perspective as well as long-established nuclear posture for China to extend a nuclear umbrella, so I find that extremely unlikely.

FriedRiceNSpice said:

It would be a huge departure from both a foreign policy perspective as well as long-established nuclear posture for China to extend a nuclear umbrella, so I find that extremely unlikely.

Click to expand...

What do you make of the Saudi-Pakistan defence pact? Obviously, Saudia Arabia is not afraid of India. It is to protect itself from Israel's nuclear weapons. And who would be backing up Pakistan in that situation? China has long given a nuclear umbrella to its allies, North Korea, and Pakistan. 2025 it was extended IMPLICITLY to Saudi Arabia.

The unfortunate reality for China is that it's nuclear arsenal is the only guarantor of security.

Iran really doesn't need to attack Israel right now. All of Europe is putting pressure on Israel to stop because Hormuz remains closed. That's more than what a few Iranian missiles could achieve. It's better to at least have one round of talks with the US on Friday

Minm said:

Iran really doesn't need to attack Israel right now. All of Europe is putting pressure on Israel to stop because Hormuz remains closed. That's more than what a few Iranian missiles could achieve. It's better to at least have one round of talks with the US on Friday

Click to expand...

Actually, even a few missiles prevent commercial shipping from delivery to Israel, whose dependence on import is much higher in proportion compare to Iran. Since Israel is running out of missile interceptors, continual damage will build popular discontent as Israel is powerless to stop this. And no one else is sympathetic -- even Trump is running out of patience. Israel is actually bending -- so called negotiation with Lebanon is a fig leaf over the fact Israel cannot sustain the offensive.

nemo said:

Actually, even a few missiles prevent commercial shipping from delivery to Israel, whose dependence on import is much higher in proportion compare to Iran. Since Israel is running out of missile interceptors, continual damage will build popular discontent as Israel is powerless to stop this. And no one else is sympathetic -- even Trump is running out of patience. Israel is actually bending -- so called negotiation with Lebanon is a fig leaf over the fact Israel cannot sustain the offensive.

Click to expand...

How many missiles and drones per day were reaching Israel before the ceasefire? 10 each per day? It's not that significant. Meanwhile, 2 additional weeks of blocking oil at zero cost for Iran, now including Saudi exports from the red sea, is much more powerful. Western regimens have oil reserves equivalent to 60 days of pre war Hormuz exports. Now we have 40 days of war plus 14 days of ceasefire. Western oil reserves will not be able to cover the shortfall for much longer.

Plus Iran is surely preparing a large salvo for when fighting restarts. Iran can quickly disperse and prepare a few hundred missiles in two weeks as long as there's no further attacks. The enemy can't produce the necessary interceptors in that time.

Pakistan has been trying to reach out to the US in order to make it clear that Lebanon was included in the ceasefire. I think a realpolitk angle to this is that Iran is refraining from kinetic action in order to give Pakistan face in these negotiations. Let's not forget, Pakistan has a security agreement with Saudi Arabia and Iran has been bombing Saudi Arabia during this war. Despite the alliance, owing to Pakistan's pan-Islamic ideaology and reliance on Iranian oil, they've been hesitant to get directly involved on Saudi Arabia's behalf with their current war against the Taliban the perfect excuse. Plus, Pakistan has been sending humanitarian aid to Iran throughout the course of the war. I think its an arrangement Iran would rather keep, so they have to let Pakistan do its thing to salvage the situation diplomatically rather than taking the bait in blowing up the negotiations and not just invite another round of bombardment, but also alienate Pakistan.

Meanwhile, the Strait of Hormuz remains closed and Iran has valuable time to regroup its forces, restock its arsenal, and also prepare if the next stage of the war in the event negotiations break down really is a US ground invasion.

TPenglake said:

Pakistan has been trying to reach out to the US in order to make it clear that Lebanon was included in the ceasefire. I think a realpolitk angle to this is that Iran is refraining from kinetic action in order to give Pakistan face in these negotiations. Let's not forget, Pakistan has a security agreement with Saudi Arabia and Iran has been bombing Saudi Arabia during this war. Despite the alliance, owing to Pakistan's pan-Islamic ideaology and reliance on Iranian oil, they've been hesitant to get directly involved on Saudi Arabia's behalf with their current war against the Taliban the perfect excuse. Plus, Pakistan has been sending humanitarian aid to Iran throughout the course of the war. I think its an arrangement Iran would rather keep, so they have to let Pakistan do its thing to salvage the situation diplomatically rather than taking the bait in blowing up the negotiations and not just invite another round of bombardment, but also alienate Pakistan.

Meanwhile, the Strait of Hormuz remains closed and Iran has valuable time to regroup its forces, restock its arsenal, and also prepare if the next stage of the war in the event negotiations break down really is a US ground invasion.

Click to expand...

That MI5 of a guy Shebab Shariz or whoever hell his real identity is, better read his drafts or tweets properly before sending it to his handlers in Washington.....that Lebanon is included. Given just a tiny little job of being mediator he also can fck it up. Nuts.

another505 said:

It is hard to imagine any US president to give up GCC, the strait and the basing, except this is Trump.

Click to expand...

When Trump the candidate complained about all these stupid wars, he probably should have known that all these stupid wars was to maintain the American Empire of US bases worldwide, in order to shape events with military actions if need be. That was the whole point of those bases, and the Americans would insist that should be how things are done.

Now President Trump is faced with the choice of doing a major war that will require maybe half a million or one million soldiers to invade Iran to reopen the Strait of Hormuz, in short, they got to do this if they want the American Empire to return to what it was last month. They need more bigger commitment to very long and bloody stupid war.

I think Trump will pass on that, MAGA does not want that.

another505 said:

2hrs ago this was reported.
What I am displeased that Iran will accept Israel to keep attacking Lebanon in this ceasefire, I hope that they are restructuring for a more potent response than the the usual few ballistic missile with submunitions that does minimal damage.

Click to expand...

Cannot have everything.

That's life.

Wrote this up in that other thread, then I remembered I was in that other thread, so post it here.

There will be no ground invasion, as it looks right now.

One key point: All your base belong to us!

If Iran wiped out all those heavily defended bases at the start of the war, now with ammo interceptors running low, no US base will survive.

There are no American tanks on the scene? For a ground invasion to happen, still need armour. Still need something to move the troops.

---

But we still get these Twitter post about troop movements and that the US has 50,000 troops in the region.

Pfff ... ...

Remember Saddam Hussein?

The Americans were bombing Iraq non-stop after the first Gulf War, from the UN sanctions that everyone agreed on.

Still, from the constant surveillance, still seemed like there was something going on.

Then in Gulf War 2, after they invaded and found no WMD, that was puzzling to the Americans.

Then Saddam Hussein was captured and later hanged.

Before that, the Americans asked him why were you doing that that cat and mouse stuff, trying to hide something? Saddam Hussein said he did not have WMD, but he moved things around and pretended he had something so others would think he was tough.

It was all fake.

Then they hanged him!