Iran War 2026 (AoR vs. West–“Sunni NATO”–Israel) [Official Thread]

[Northwest]

I think this merits a thread of its own, given that all signs point to a larger conflict soon. As never before, all the pieces are sliding into place, including the “Sunni NATO” the U.S. and Co. have been seeking for years. Plus, it fits into other developments, such as the ties between the “Sunni NATO” and Ukraine, the TRIPP agenda, the Abraham Accords, and U.S./EU plans to militarize the Arctic, starting with Greenland (i.e., the Golden Dome). On Iran there is now more unity among the players than in the past, likely due to interrelated trends I noted, such as the synchronization of alliances, priorities, and deals for a much wider conflict that extends to Russia, South-Central Asia, and eventually China. At stake was the sequence of targets; but now there seems to be a consensus that Iran is one of the very next on the list, as the U.S. is indicating.

Syria exemplifies this. The folding of the SDF in Syria was aided by U.S. support for Jolani’s centralist agenda, including control of the oil-rich Kurdish zones. In return, the U.S. and its client Turkey have brokered a joint Syria–Israel deal that will open diplomatic and economic ties, with Syria joining the Abraham Accords. In the meantime, the nascent “Sunni NATO” involves a Saudi–Pakistani defense pact that could involve nuclear-sharing, as well as a broader smoothing of GCC–Turkey ties. Turkey is already readying to deploy troops to northwestern Iran in the event of a regime “collapse,” while blaming Iran for its internal woes and external actions. Meanwhile its proxy-neighbor Azerbaijan (which, along with Pakistan, seems to have backed insurgency during the recent protests) is deepening its wide-ranging links to Israel.

Notably, Turkey claims Iran is spying on Incirlik Air Base, a key node for NATO activities in Syria, the MENA, and beyond (i.e., the South Caucasus). An all-out war with Iran would involve NATO air and other assets operating out of bases in Turkey, Azerbaijan, and Pakistan. These staging grounds could also coordinate with U.S.-backed militants such as the 7,000+ ISIS fighters that are being moved to Iraq as part of a U.S.–Syria agreement. Israeli media report that the UAE, Jordan, and many EU states (!)—such as the UK—will provide logistical and other support, including air defenses, to a U.S.–Israeli attack on Iran. All this coincides with the other geopolitical moves and dual-use coalitions that are being marshaled for future use against Russia and China as part of a build-up to a major conflict.

[Northwest]

I think one reason as to why a large-scale attack—as opposed to a more limited operation like the June ‘25 war—has been delayed is the state of the West’s defense-industrial base (DIB). Under Biden, for instance, the U.S. had to split its stockpiles among three theaters: Ukraine (Russia), the MENA (Israel–Iran), and Asia (China [i.e., the Taiwan Strait]). It was forced to alternate between conflicts, limiting the amount of air-defense systems, such as Patriot missiles, it could deliver at once to both Ukraine and Israel, for example—a factor of salience in any Israel–Iran conflict. Also, until now the framework to aid a full-scale war with Iran had not been implemented (i.e., Syria’s inclusion in a “Sunni NATO“ and the Abraham Accords). But now virtually all the preconditions are in place, such as a strong Saudi–Qatari–Turkish rapprochement, the ongoing HTS–Israel deal (in which the U.S. abandons the SDF), the role of Pakistan, and so on. Re: Syria, Israel’s only issue is with the Golan (Mount Hermon) and the Druze, but I think all sides are prioritizing the Iran war now; an HTS–Israel war and/or Kurdish revolt would spoil everything, as would renewed quarrels within the GCC (KSA/UAE).

Some caveats:

• Internal divisions within the Trump administration over Syria: supposedly only Special Envoy Barrack backed Trump’s deal with Jolani, with other advisers, CENTCOM, and GOP loyalists backing the original Israeli view(s), e.g., a decentralized Syria
• Divisions among the Kurds: pro-Turkish and/or anti-PKK (YPG/YPJ) Kurdish factions such as the Barzani clan, along with Iraq, are urging the SDF to agree with Jolani, but much of the rank and file, aligned with the PKK, backs an insurgency
  • In 2016 Iran and the PKK were at odds over the Turkish coup, with the Iranian leadership backing Erdoğan and the PKK opposing him—the latter (for ethnic reasons) fearing the long-term consequences of a Sunni Islamist regime entrenching itself in Syria
• The PKK has indicated that, were a war with Damascus to break out, it would seek support from anyone, including Israel and Iran (via the Iraqi PMUs), as part of a general minorities‘ revolt vs. Jolani’s Islamist (Salafi) regime
• Ironically, both Israeli factions and religious minorities, such as the Alawites, Christians, and Shia, find themselves in a similar position vis-à-vis HTS, but for very different reasons, so a tactical tandem might emerge
  •  Even Iran has tactically cooperated with or reached out to the U.S. and/or Israel in the past (vs. al-Qaida in 2001 and vs. Saddam at various points [Iran–Contra]), while not giving up its core principles

Some thoughts:

• Syrian minorities arguably had a better grasp of geopolitical nuance than Iranian officials, rightly discerning the future impact of Erdoğan’s regime surviving
• Iran’s support for the “Arab Spring” ended badly where ‘successful’, as ascendant Sunni Islamists such as Egypt’s Morsi persecuted Shia and other groups
• The West, as in the past, views Sunni Islamism as a better bet in countering rivals—such as Iran, Russia, and China—than secularist liberal democracy
  • Besides other factors, factionalism within the U.S. government alone makes it an unreliable partner
• Simplistic notions about any Islamism being “better” for Shia and other minorities than pluralistic secularism must be rethought or thrown out the window

[ServantOfMahdi]

TRIPP? What's that?

And also I didn't know about (na)pak hypocrites backing the regime change protests?

[Northwest]

5 minutes ago, ServantOfMahdi said:

TRIPP? What's that?

The Trump Route for International Peace and Prosperity

Quote

On January 13, US Secretary of State Marco Rubio and Armenian Minister of Foreign Affairs Ararat Mirzoyan announced a a detailed framework to implement the Trump Route for International Peace and Prosperity (TRIPP). ...

TRIPP could provide spillover benefits to Washington, Yerevan, and the broader Caspian region, as well. The US government has been quietly supportive of the Middle Corridor, a multi-modal trade route that connects Central Asia to Turkey and Europe via the Caspian Sea and infrastructure choke-points in Azerbaijan and Georgia. Washington and its European partners see the Middle Corridor as a way for overland trade with Asia to bypass Russia, including the potential export of critical minerals and rare earths from Central Asia. ...

Yet Russia is not the only neighbor disturbed by a growing US presence in the South Caucasus. Iran has consistently called any change of the status quo to its northern border with Armenia a “red line.” ...

Azerbaijan has begun to ship oil and gas to Armenia, driving fuel prices down by 15 percent. Meanwhile, incoming stability and regional integration with Azerbaijan and Turkey have the potential of transforming Armenia into a transit country and providing easy access to the European market. ...

Sidelining Russia and Iran in the process may also decrease their ability to exert economic pressure in the region, giving leaders such as Pashinyan and Aliyev a freer hand to exercise their sovereignty and pursue their countries’ best interests.

Source

5 minutes ago, ServantOfMahdi said:

And also I didn't know about (na)pak hypocrites backing the regime change protests?

Balochi separatist groups with Salafi ties such as Jaysh al-Adl and Jundallah have operated out of Pakistan for decades, with support from the U.S., U.K., Saudi Arabia, and Israel. Obviously these groups could not act without backing from Pakistan’s ISI and military as well, given their overlap with Taliban and al-Qaida factions. A few years ago Iran targeted militant bases on the Pakistani side of the border, indicating that Pakistan does little or nothing to curtail these entities. (During the June ‘25 war, moreover, Jaysh al-Adl called on Iranians to support its operations vs. the government.)

[Northwest]

Another hint that Iran is next on the list is the U.S.–China détente (the U.K. acting as mediator), with improved U.S.–Pakistan ties. The U.S. is also working on a Russia–Ukraine peace deal that freezes the fronts, allows NATO peacekeepers, and gives Ukraine time to rearm. Stiff tariffs on both states, along with low prices, did significant damage to their banking and energy networks, likely forcing them to compromise. All this makes sense in light of U.S. efforts to focus on Iran before targeting Russia and then China.

[Essentials123]

It seems to be a serious situation Iran is in. Thanks for sharing your analysis.

[Shaheed786]

Drop Site News, a reputable non-corporate news outlet that regularly does real and quality reporting on West Asia, has published an article in which they claim a White House source has confirmed that a US attack on Iran is imminent, possibly coming as soon as this weekend. The article link is below. Please pray for our brothers and sisters who are on the front lines. Don't forget Dua #27 from Sahifa Sajjadiyya (Dua for the people on the frontiers). 

Whatever happens in the near term, don't lose hope or fall prey to despair, that is the weapon of the Shaytaan. Truth and righteousness in the end will prevail. The Zionist and Dajjalic projects will fail. The groundwork for the reappearance of the Imam of our time is being laid as we speak. 

https://www.dropsitenews.com/p/united-states-iran-imminent-attack-strikes-trump-israel

[Northwest]

5 hours ago, Shaheed786 said:

Drop Site News, a reputable non-corporate news outlet that regularly does real and quality reporting on West Asia, has published an article in which they claim a White House source has confirmed that a US attack on Iran is imminent, possibly coming as soon as this weekend.

https://www.dropsitenews.com/p/united-states-iran-imminent-attack-strikes-trump-israel

@Shaheed786 The U.S. leadership evidently thinks it can repeat the June ‘25 war (or the Venezuela strikes): a “surgical“ attack that does not involve masses of ground forces. It then expects anti-regime “protesters” to start a revolt that would topple the government (though *no one* came out against the regime in June). If so, then Trump thinks he can earn a cheap win that does not require a real investment. Honestly, I am stunned that no one in his military or diplomatic corps, much less his Israeli allies, learned a lesson from last June, not to mention the Millennium Challenge (2002) war-games. Iran is so well guarded—by geography, demographics, popular support, ideology, and other factors—that a serious effort at regime change would need an invasion from adjacent states (at least on par with Iraq’s force in the 1980s), both on land and at sea. Yet Trump does not seem to realize any of this, thinking he will only need peacekeepers (at best) after the fact. Is the quality of his advisers and/or his IQ so poor?

Edited January 31 by Northwest

[AbdusSibtayn]

Great analysis.
I also have observations to add-

1. 

On 1/30/2026 at 4:56 AM, Northwest said:

Simplistic notions about any Islamism being “better” for Shia and other minorities than pluralistic secularism must be rethought or thrown out the window

This is the conclusion I have come to as well, after what may easily be years of observation, study and contemplation. The doctrine of 'exporting the revolution' (the pan-Islamist version of the Molotov/Marshall Plan) has been a geopolitical failure. Pakistan, Afghanistan and the Middle East were the main theatres where this project played out. If the experience with the Pakistani Sunni/Deobandi Islamists gave early signs of this project's inherent bankruptcy, Morsi's Ikhwani Egypt displayed the cracks in the open, and Syria put the logical nail in its coffin. It was a political absurdity from the get go. Expecting Salafi-Deobandi jihadists to be wingmen in some pan-Islamist, Shi'a/Iran-friendly 'revolutionary' project is a pipe-dream, and the sooner this death wish is gotten rid of by Tehran, the better.

2. It will be noteworthy to observe what the Sunni powers finally do. Yes, they are eager and more than happy to get rid of Iran and Shi'i influence. They'll be glad for Israel and the US to do the dirty job for them. But I think they are wary of an uncontained Israel after the Qatar Hamas headquarters bombing too, and they are also anxious not to be caught in the crossfire if war breaks out. I am told that one of the reasons why a US attack hasn't materialized yet is because Turkey and the Sunni Arabs have repeatedly been telling Trump a categorical 'no'. They don't want to let the Americans use their airspace. But whether all of this is deception to lull Iran into lowering their guard, or if they will finally buckle under US-Israeli pressure, only time will tell.

I am now seriously thinking that for the next few years Iran needs to curtail its international involvements significantly and focus inwards, on urgent domestic things which need attention (the economy, environment, dealing with internal security threats, cleaning up the country of Mossad operatives etc). By the looks of it, Hamas is going to be disarmed sooner than later. Hezbollah is also very much contained and weakened, and domestically in a bad spot in Lebanon, so they'll also be recuperating for years easily. The Houthis might reach some kind of agreement/tacit settlement with the Saudis. Democracy in Iraq is stabilizing and they have their favorite Nouri al-Maliki set to be PM again. Time is ripe to disentangle and fix things at home. Otherwise it will always be them firefighting one war or color revolution to another for the rest of their existence.
 

Sayyid Khamenei (ha) needs a new set of advisors, ones who are neither reformist capitulationists/defeatists nor delusional revolutionary nostalgics still stuck in the late-80s, but brutally honest realists who have an ear to the ground and are aware of what is happening around them.

[Northwest]

Given all the planning that has been made to date, I think the rumors of the Sunni states’ ‘neutrality’ are PSYOPs. They reflect an effort to a) lull Iran and b) limit the scope of its response. I will explain why.

Given the scale of the likely attack (dubbed “unprecedented” by reliable sources), I think that the chance of a tactical nuclear strike on Iran are nonzero. This brings me back to the massive Saudi–Pakistani defense deal that Turkey has just joined. By all accounts this pact seems to involve nuclear-sharing among the parties listed. Both the KSA and Turkey have shown an interest in nuclear capability, the former to deter Iran; Pakistan could certainly act as supplier and/or proxy. Furthermore, Israeli actors have implied that they would back such an extreme measure as a last resort. (Recall Trump backer and Netanyahu ally Sheldon Adelson’s nuclear threats vs. Iran.) Low-yield nukes might be used to hit sensitive targets such as the remaining nuclear bases.

Plans for a joint Sunni–U.S.–Israeli nuke strike on Iran—along with an alleged ‘R2P’ partition agenda by Turkey, Azerbaijan, and/or Pakistan—certainly would warrant putting a lid on the full scope of the agenda.

[Haji 2003]

Criticism of Pezeshkian

https://x.com/jedaaal/status/2018670331888537708

 

[Haji 2003]

On 1/28/2026 at 12:29 PM, Northwest said:

I think this merits a thread of its own, given that all signs point to a larger conflict soon.

While there may be a conflict, I don't think it will be existential (for Iran). That i think will happen in a year or two, once the Venezuelan oil industry has been fully brought back online.

I think Iran would have made clear that if there is an attack that has the potential to change the government, the Straits of Hormuz will go offline, which would be catastrophic for everyone.

To that end, I believe Iran does not need a nuclear weapon; it can bring the world to a halt with conventional missiles directed at specific oilfields. And I believe it can do that even if the Americans take out entire leadership structures, because there'll be enough operatives stuck out in the desert, who'll have been instructed to act independently in case the government is killed and who believe in the WeF to carry out that instruction.

That's one key difference between Iran and all the other countries that the West has attacked over the past couple of decades.

[Haji 2003]

37 minutes ago, Haji 2003 said:

I think Iran would have made clear that if there is an attack that has the potential to change the government, the Straits of Hormuz will go offline, which would be catastrophic for everyone.

 

I think the following sounds about right:

Quote

Saudi Arabia expects Iran would limit any strikes to US bases in Saudi territory and across the Gulf, while Riyadh would remain neutral and refrain from retaliating against Iran There are indications that Saudi Arabia and other Gulf countries have warned Iran privately: while they seek to stay neutral and avoid hosting US offensive operations, significant Iranian attacks on Gulf states themselves or major strikes on US bases there could force a response or intervention. This creates a conditional neutrality—tolerating limited hits on US assets (to avoid broader war) but not unlimited aggression.

https://x.com/Globalsurv/status/2019062008390324726

 

If the US does pin[Edited Out] attacks on Iran, the response may well be very limited strikes on Saudi, specifically US airbases.

But if the US/Israel do more than that, then Iran has nothing to lose by knocking out Saudi infrastructure, even if it means Saudi Arabia responding in kind. In fact, at that point, Iran may as well knock out the entire GCC.

[coldcow]

6 hours ago, Haji 2003 said:

But if the US/Israel do more than that, then Iran has nothing to lose by knocking out Saudi infrastructure, even if it means Saudi Arabia responding in kind. In fact, at that point, Iran may as well knock out the entire GCC.

Would rather see them go all out and launch everything at Israeli infrastructure than Saudi.  If they are able to hit a few power plants and desalinization plants, then Israel is cooked.  

[coldcow]

It's all connected.  No surprise to anyone here.  But I think she makes good videos.  

[Eddie Mecca]

^^^The Shirazis are Israel First 

[Eddie Mecca]

[Northwest]

On 1/31/2026 at 7:29 AM, AbdusSibtayn said:

I am now seriously thinking that for the next few years Iran needs to curtail its international involvements significantly and focus inwards, on urgent domestic things which need attention (the economy, environment, dealing with internal security threats, cleaning up the country of Mossad operatives etc). By the looks of it, Hamas is going to be disarmed sooner than later. Hezbollah is also very much contained and weakened, and domestically in a bad spot in Lebanon, so they'll also be recuperating for years easily. The Houthis might reach some kind of agreement/tacit settlement with the Saudis. Democracy in Iraq is stabilizing and they have their favorite Nouri al-Maliki set to be PM again. Time is ripe to disentangle and fix things at home. Otherwise it will always be them firefighting one war or color revolution to another for the rest of their existence.

@AbdusSibtayn I think Iran and the AoR’s plight is a bit more fluid than it might appear. A saving ‘grace’, if one may so call it, is the still-unsettled NATO–Russia war in Ukraine. There is a nonzero chance that it develops into a direct clash, with all that entails for the world. A full-on MAD would take out Israel’s Western patrons, while Iran and Co. would lose or gain little from Russia’s unraveling. Plus, any nuclear fallout would mainly affect areas northward vs. more-equatorial regions like the MENA. (Of course, I am assuming here that Trump and Co. are dumb enough to launch WWIII before finishing off Iran or installing the Golden Dome [still a few years off] to intercept Russia’s now-invincible hypersonic missiles. Another prospect is that the U.S. could botch the planning of its Iran War 2.0, thinking it need only repeat the June episode to ensure regime change.) In a way, world war diverts forces from Iran’s frontline neighbors; therefore, I would not despair if I were Iran or its allies.

On 2/3/2026 at 9:42 PM, Haji 2003 said:

Criticism of Pezeshkian

https://x.com/jedaaal/status/2018670331888537708

@Haji 2003 Pezeshkian has also been in charge of the nuclear talks, choosing staff, dictating Iran’s case, etc. This could explain the varying reports—now over a year or so—about the terms Iran has (or has not) agreed to as part of a ‘deal’. Some insiders want to ban enrichment outright, echoing the U.S. view, while others prefer limited or no bargains; (maybe) Pezeshkian’s reformists want the former. Russia has offered to restore the JCPOA format whereby Iran conveyed uranium to third parties; the U.S. has outlined a consortium, under its aegis, that would do so, in return for joint power generation. At any rate, I do wonder why the leadership is allowing Pezeshkian leeway to oversee talks, given the ‘results’ of the last such meeting(s).

[Haji 2003]

Angry Kittens

Interesting analysis from someone who is sensible (IMHO).

 

[Haji 2003]

Made sense to me

Full article is worth a read.

Quote

We know that Trump’s real motivation for the Iran strikes is not US’s own intelligence regarding some nonexistent Iranian potential, but rather the pressure from Israel. That means for Trump the main operative goal is to somehow satisfy his Israeli superiors and relieve the pressure, rather than achieving any one particular military objective. As long as he can give them a good “college try” and prove his loyalty with a thrashing of Iran, he may deem his debt paid and pull the plug. Israel, of course, will never be fully satisfied until Iran is entirely destroyed, but this is simply how the game works: Trump relieves pressure by striking Iran even if it doesn’t entirely satisfy Netanyahu. After some kinetic fanfare, Israel is left with less credible leverage of its own, particularly when Trump is able to twist headlines to “prove” how far his “devastating” strikes were able to set Iran back, which Israel would then be unable to credibly gainsay without directly challenging his narrative.

It should also be noted that some are convinced Tucker Carlson has just single-handedly saved Iran from destruction by outing Israel’s true plans in his interview with ultra-Zionist Mike Huckabee, US’s ambassador to Israel.

https://simplicius76.substack.com/p/the-strategic-dilemma-at-the-heart

[Silas]

Despite Israel's machinations against Iran, I don't think this potential war is "about Iran"

it is about Russia

With peace talks collapsing and the war dragging in in Ukraine, the US has embarked on a new strategy: eliminating Russian allies around the world, destroying its shadow-fleet, and pressuring those who buy its oil.

Years ago, on this forum, I warned that increasing involvement and arms trade between Iran and Russia was going to get the Islamic Republic in serious trouble, and put it in the crosshairs of the US. Iran supplies Russia with arms (especially drones), purchases its natural resources, engages in technological trading, logistics, etc. It is therefore viewed as an indirect participant in the Ukraine conflict, and a legitimate target.

does Iran gain from a Russian relationship? Sure --but Putin is an absolute gangster and international pariah. If he thought he could get away with it, he would roll tanks into Iran and grab territory. He is no one's friend, and a huge, ultimate liability.

Trump and his advisors want to eliminate Iran as a Russian ally and supplier. This will either be done diplomatically (I hope) or militarily. 

we can argue about the ethics of all of this and complain about Zionism, whatever, but this is the reason for the huge military build-up in the region. 

[Abu Hassanain]

On 2/26/2026 at 10:32 AM, Silas said:

Despite Israel's machinations against Iran, I don't think this potential war is "about Iran"

it is about Russia

With peace talks collapsing and the war dragging in in Ukraine, the US has embarked on a new strategy: eliminating Russian allies around the world, destroying its shadow-fleet, and pressuring those who buy its oil.

Years ago, on this forum, I warned that increasing involvement and arms trade between Iran and Russia was going to get the Islamic Republic in serious trouble, and put it in the crosshairs of the US. Iran supplies Russia with arms (especially drones), purchases its natural resources, engages in technological trading, logistics, etc. It is therefore viewed as an indirect participant in the Ukraine conflict, and a legitimate target.

does Iran gain from a Russian relationship? Sure --but Putin is an absolute gangster and international pariah. If he thought he could get away with it, he would roll tanks into Iran and grab territory. He is no one's friend, and a huge, ultimate liability.

Trump and his advisors want to eliminate Iran as a Russian ally and supplier. This will either be done diplomatically (I hope) or militarily. 

we can argue about the ethics of all of this and complain about Zionism, whatever, but this is the reason for the huge military build-up in the region. 

Salam

years ago was a young seminary student. I asked me Iranian brothers. Why are you on? Does not scream deaf to Russia and death to China

My friend looked at me serious and said religiously. We should oppose all Tyrann and unjust dates, but politically we cannot scream death to everyone.

The US because it’s behold, the Israel will never accept a strong independent Islamic Iran, if they’re able to destroy it

Even if Russian and China weren’t  there, Us they would never be a friend to the Iranian people

They say they wanted democracy and a secular government, but in 1953 they overthrow the Democrat elected and secular government because they lean socialist wouldn’t give oil concessions or independent and wouldn't bow and installed one of the most brutal dictatorships in Middle Eastern history

we do have the nonaligned movement and talk of an independent block, but realistically most countries are either aligned politically with the eastern block or the western block
 

Realistically, if it wasn’t for the fact that hatred of the family of the prophet, peace and blessings upon them is in their system down to a cellular level. The Gulf states should unite with Iran as well as North Africa to form a common Islamic block against Israel for political reasons.

But they also hated the family of the prophet also hate their followers those who hated the family of the prophet three great idols were the worst of people

Those three idols were guilty. The worst since homosexuality during their daughter’s life stealing public funds, ignoring the prayers drinking a abomination, and you see these characteristics and their followers.

That is why they complained about the commander of the faithful peace of Pat. We cannot allow him to rule. He is too just he gives us to the Arab in the non-Arab equal equally, etc..

So the followers of the three idols live one way, and the followers of the 14 live another way, and due to religious differences, it seems almost impossible to have political cooperation

Therefore, the strategy of Islamic community may have worked on an individual level. It didn’t work on a state level.

Therefore, your own has no other choice, but either align with the western block or the eastern block politically for survival

wallahu Alam 

[Haji 2003]

16 hours ago, Silas said:

it is about Russia

 

Well, and China as well ... if the following is correct, we should see an Iranian focus on American ships in any conflict and less of an attempt to target Israel and Arab states.

Overall, the logic in the text below makes sense to me.

As we know Russia and China are no friends of Iran, but they do sometimes have overlapping interests and in this case it serves both of them to see the US defanged somewhat.

 

Quote

Russia and China do not need Iran to win. They need America to spend. Every Tomahawk fired at Isfahan is absent from a Taiwan contingency. Pentagon insiders admitted 7 to 10 days of munitions. Moscow and Beijing are ensuring those days cost the maximum in precision stockpiles that take years to replenish. Iran is not being defended. Iran is being instrumented. Armed enough to bleed. Informed enough to prepare. Equipped enough to threaten. Not enough to win. The optimal outcome for Moscow and Beijing is a war America wins at a price it cannot afford to pay twice.

https://x.com/shanaka86/status/2027288988399378766

 

[Northwest]

16 hours ago, Silas said:

Despite Israel's machinations against Iran, I don't think this potential war is "about Iran"

it is about Russia

@Silas I think Russia and Iran are distinct concerns for the U.S.; they certainly are for Israel. In fact Putin has long had a good rapport with Netanyahu; Russia–Israel ties are multivalent, not least due to the Jewish diaspora (Biden’s efforts to sever this link strained U.S.–Israel ties). In the early 2000s Putin strongly backed U.S. efforts to pressure Hamas, denuclearize Iran, and minimize Shia influence in Iraq, as former Bush officials attest. Russia also allowed Israeli strikes on Iranian interests in Syria. Overall, Russia has no interest in empowering a historical and ideological rival.

16 hours ago, Silas said:

With peace talks collapsing and the war dragging in in Ukraine, the US has embarked on a new strategy: eliminating Russian allies around the world, destroying its shadow-fleet, and pressuring those who buy its oil.

I would not call Iran a Russian ‘ally’, given that it lacks a military treaty with the latter. Also, Russia, like China, trades far more of its energy with states other than Iran, while the latter has enough supplies of its own. India is far closer to Russia than the latter is to Iran, yet its trade with Iran is almost minuscule (and India is now distancing itself from Russian energy). Therefore, the U.S. campaign against Iran has more to do with other factors than Russia. To some extent Iran benefits from a strong Ukraine, given that a NATO–Russia war would divert focus from its own territory.

16 hours ago, Silas said:

Years ago, on this forum, I warned that increasing involvement and arms trade between Iran and Russia was going to get the Islamic Republic in serious trouble, and put it in the crosshairs of the US. Iran supplies Russia with arms (especially drones), purchases its natural resources, engages in technological trading, logistics, etc. It is therefore viewed as an indirect participant in the Ukraine conflict, and a legitimate target.

Aside from drones (?), Iran’s role in Ukraine is not very significant; Israel has never given it much attention, despite its ties to Russia. Zelensky, on the other hand, has complained that the Gaza war and Israel–Iran standoff absorb U.S. hardware that would otherwise be sent to Ukraine. Iran is also disappointed in Russia’s willingness to let Israel to strike its nuclear sites (Putin even sent a congratulatory message to Netanyahu’s office), so it is less willing to lend diplomatic support to Russian positions. Most Iran-friendly circles tend to view Russia negatively.

16 hours ago, Silas said:

does Iran gain from a Russian relationship? Sure --but Putin is an absolute gangster and international pariah. If he thought he could get away with it, he would roll tanks into Iran and grab territory. He is no one's friend, and a huge, ultimate liability.

Trump and his advisors want to eliminate Iran as a Russian ally and supplier. This will either be done diplomatically (I hope) or militarily.

I partially agree with this, but Ukrainian behavior leaves much to be desired. Its military and intelligence elites have openly talked about using WMD in false flags to implicate Russia, such as strikes on critical nuclear and other infrastructure. Even pro-Ukraine sources have more or less admitted to some of these tactics, along with Ukraine’s use of human shields, Syria-like stunts (like the Bucha incident), and so on. (Also, Ukraine has never concealed its desire to join NATO, which antedates the current war.) Neither side has used its full power, obviously.

16 hours ago, Silas said:

we can argue about the ethics of all of this and complain about Zionism, whatever, but this is the reason for the huge military build-up in the region. 

Even if Israel were not a factor, U.S.–Iran relations would be strained due to the nature of the Iranian system. Americans still do not forget the embassy crisis or Iran’s support for actors such as Cuba and Venezuela, both of which have been linked, rightly or wrongly, to drug trafficking. If Israel were eliminated, the U.S. would be Iran’s next target. It would still be the ‘main foe’ or ‘Great Satan’—with or without Zionism. Trump has his own reasons to back a strike on Iran, quite apart from Israeli pressure (though the latter plays a role too).

[Diaz]

The war has officially started, may Allah (سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى) protect our brothers and sisters in Iran and the Middle East. The terrorists Israel and USA has attacked.

[Northwest]

Since this thread came first (i.e., before this one), shouldn’t it be the main one? All war-related posts could go here.

[Northwest]

Once again the Anglo-Israelis and their Sunni clients seem to have succeeded in lulling the Iranians, using talks as cover, hence the large numbers of key casualties. FM Araghchi is already admitting, indirectly, the deaths of defense minister Nasirzadeh, IRGC commander Pakpour, and Defense Council head Shamkhani. There are also reports of other IRGC and/or senior officials’ deaths. This is very similar not just to the July war, but also the ‘negotiations’ the West proposed before sanctioning the IDF’s moves on Lebanon in 2024 (including the Nasrallah killing, the pager attacks, and so on). Also, so far Iran has not managed to close the Strait of Hormuz, giving the attackers a further advantage. A question is whether neighboring states such as Azerbaijan and Pakistan will also send in proxy forces to foment ‘civil war’ or insurgency.

[Silas]

22 minutes ago, Northwest said:

Once again the Anglo-Israelis and their Sunni clients seem to have succeeded in lulling the Iranians, using talks as cover, hence the large numbers of key casualties. FM Araghchi is already admitting, indirectly, the deaths of defense minister Nasirzadeh, IRGC commander Pakpour, and Defense Council head Shamkhani. There are also reports of other IRGC and/or senior officials’ deaths. This is very similar not just to the July war, but also the ‘negotiations’ the West proposed before sanctioning the IDF’s moves on Lebanon in 2024 (including the Nasrallah killing, the pager attacks, and so on). Also, so far Iran has not managed to close the Strait of Hormuz, giving the attackers a further advantage. A question is whether neighboring states such as Azerbaijan and Pakistan will also send in proxy forces to foment ‘civil war’ or insurgency.

things could, and probably will, spin completely out-of-control in the region.

conservatives here in the states are mostly outraged --although a minority support the war. Most are saying "we didn't vote for this"

some Democrats, including Sen. Kim, have denounced the attacks

as I have said on this forum many times: Israel dictates US foreign policy, buys off our politicians, and controls our culture. 

[Panzerwaffe]

On 2/5/2026 at 12:38 AM, Eddie Mecca said:

Not true at all 

mongols win that prize 

second place maybe Timur or Atilla distant third perhaps conquistadors or imperial Japanese 

[Haji 2003]

Bahrain internal politics

 

 

[Haji 2003]

Trolling the Bahrain Ministry of Information

This post is a request for people not to post videos of Iranian missiles hitting Bahrain, so people post videos as replues to the thread.

 

 

[Shaheed786]

10 hours ago, Northwest said:

Once again the Anglo-Israelis and their Sunni clients seem to have succeeded in lulling the Iranians, using talks as cover, hence the large numbers of key casualties. FM Araghchi is already admitting, indirectly, the deaths of defense minister Nasirzadeh, IRGC commander Pakpour, and Defense Council head Shamkhani. There are also reports of other IRGC and/or senior officials’ deaths. This is very similar not just to the July war, but also the ‘negotiations’ the West proposed before sanctioning the IDF’s moves on Lebanon in 2024 (including the Nasrallah killing, the pager attacks, and so on). Also, so far Iran has not managed to close the Strait of Hormuz, giving the attackers a further advantage. A question is whether neighboring states such as Azerbaijan and Pakistan will also send in proxy forces to foment ‘civil war’ or insurgency.

I don't think they were lulled into anything. They knew this war was coming and that the talks would go nowhere. If anything, both sides used the talks to buy time and prepare more. 

[Haji 2003]

Good analysis but misses a key point

I'd agree with this, but there is a key piece of the jigsaw that is missing.

In order to have an entity that works on the basis of such a high level of decentralisation you need to have a glue that keeps the different parts together. In a hierarchy such as a traditional army (command and control based entity) that glue is power and the threat of dismissal or worse.

But when you have an organisation based on the premise that the central authority may no longer function, but the outlying parts will need to continue to operate autonomously you need another glue.

You need an unfaltering belief in an ideology. You need belief in a higher authority to whom you'll ultimately be responsible.

https://x.com/tchaloyi/status/2028423502030618898

 

[Haji 2003]

Egypt public opinion

 

 

[Haji 2003]

Losing your dignity is worse than dying

Text from Twitter post, link at end

I am Iranian-American. I have studied philosophy, theology, and jurisprudence in both the US and Iran. I want to tell you what Iran is actually doing. Sheikh Mohammad Ali Shomali — one of the most serious Shia scholars alive — argues that the highest human right is not life. It is dignity. He asks the question plainly: if you are kept alive but degraded, humiliated, treated as less than human — what is the value of that life? He roots this in Quran 57:25. The mission of every prophet was justice. And dignity falls directly under justice. To be just is to treat human beings as deserving of honour. Not life first. Dignity first.

This is how he reads Karbala. Imam Hussein knew he could live if he submitted to Yazid. He could have worshipped in peace. But a life of worship without dignity — having surrendered to an oppressor — had no value. Hussein ranked it plainly: "Death is better than losing your honour. And losing your honour is better than going to hell." Most people think death is the worst thing that can happen to you. Hussein is saying it's the lightest of three doors. Losing your dignity is worse than dying. And surrendering to an oppressor — legitimizing tyranny — is the kind of spiritual corruption that leads to hellfire. So submission is both the loss of honour and the road to hell. They collapse into each other. Death becomes the only clean door. Not a tragedy. A choice.

This is the operating principle of Iran right now. Iran — the country, the civilization, the idea — is fighting for human dignity. That is what Khomeini's vision was. That is what the revolution was for. That is why Iran does not capitulate when every Western analyst says it should. When bombs fall on Iranian soil, the question the Islamic Republic asks is not "how do we survive." It is "how do we refuse to be humiliated." These are different questions. They produce different answers. Does that mean the Islamic Republic — a government of millions of people operating for 47 years — has not made mistakes? Of course it has. Governments are human institutions. They fail. They overcorrect. They harm people they are supposed to protect. I am not here to tell you the IRI is flawless. I am here to tell you what it is for.

Every civilization carries a gift. Greece gave us philosophy. Rome gave us law. The Islamic civilization of Iran carries this: we are the bearers of human dignity as a principle worth dying for. That is Karbala. That is our inheritance. That is the ordinance. You know the movie It's a Wonderful Life? Iran is George Bailey. Flawed, exhausted, sometimes broken — but standing between the people and Potter. And the United States, with its sanctions and its strikes and its blank check to the entity leveling Gaza — the United States is Potter. Respectable. Powerful. And hollowed out. The February 28 strikes did not break Iran. They will not. Because you cannot bomb dignity out of a civilization that has made dignity its reason for being. You can destroy infrastructure. You can kill people. But the idea that human beings deserve to be treated as human beings — that does not have a military solution. That call has not expired. Listen to the lectures as you drive, walk, touch grass. — Sheikh Mohammad Ali Shomali, "Spiritual Struggle of Karbala" (Muharram 1433/2011) & "Honour and Dignity in Islam" (Ramadan 2015). Published in Message of Thaqalayn. Full texts at http://al-islam.org.

https://x.com/iran_amazing/status/2029437021807362071