Iran Crisis & the 2026 War between Iran and the United States, Gulf States, and Israel - Please focus on news and coverage, not argumentation.

[Clyde Cash's Left Teste]

If Iran uses an ICBM that ends up hitting the UK or somebody, how do you think people will react to it?

 

[mindlessobserver]

Insane footage from today's massive US/Israeli attack on the Vahdati Air Force Base in Dezful, Iran's Khuzestan province.️ The shockwaves from the impacts can clearly be observed.

Thats a big kaboom.

 

[MetokurGroomedMe]

Counterargument, if those missiles had had nuclear warheads nobody would have attacked Iran.

Guys... We just gotta let every country that hates us arm themselves with Nuclear Weapons! They aren't building missiles that can reach White countries- oh, wait, they are doing that... Well, surely they wouldn't get pissed off if that White country didn't listen and fire missiles at them if they were allied- oh wait, they were shooting missiles at the Gulf states WHILE they were refusing to allow America to use bases we built in those countries to launch attacks.

You are either a Muslim, or stupid. I am not trying to be insulting, I mean that in a completely sincere way. You are either someone who is lying for the benefit of your region, or you are someone who does not comprehend the problems involved with allowing a country like them to have nuclear weapons. Please educate yourself on what the Quran commands these people to do before you start discussing their geopolitics. It is so obvious you have NEVER read the Quran, and it means you don't understand the core of Iran's government.


You can call it dumb all you want, but they have ICBMs or maybe had them, and they have shown that they will strike states they are neutral with to punish them for even having RELATIONS with a country they are hostile toward. What, exactly, would stop Iran, armed with nuclear deterrence, from firing missiles at Europe every time Europe has some agreement with the US, or when Europe punishes Shia terrorists, or when Europe wants to negotiate better oil prices? Why, in any world where they have now revealed that they had a dead man's hand in place to attack everyone, even people uninvolved in the conflict, LITERALLY the exact same concept as the Samson Option rumored to be in doctrine under the Israelis, would they not be doing that? They did it in this conflict, and so far you have never posted any evidence that the Iranians are a calm and collected people.

Why did they launch an ICBM on Diego Garcia, Ducktator? The Britoids have been, if anything, the most outspoken of our 'allies' in how much they oppose this action, so why target them? It's because it's merely punitive because they weren't given immediate and wholehearted international capitulation, which is what you are asking for. "Allow the rogue state to have nukes, and then give into every single one of its demands forever after that."

Why would you ask us to do that if you are not a Muslim, or genuinely stupid?

If Iran uses an ICBM that ends up hitting the UK or somebody, how do you think people will react to it?

They already did try that. The UK acted like complete faggots and reiterated that we would not be allowed to launch strikes from Diego Garcia, despite Iran having launched two missiles AT Diego Garcia.

 

[Snekposter]

If Iran uses an ICBM that ends up hitting the UK or somebody, how do you think people will react to it?

Considering how the Brits bitched out and did nothing after Cyprus got attacked until everyone else held their feet to the fire?

They'll apologize to the Iranians and tell the whole world its Trump's fault Iran was forced to attack them.

 

[ThisIsGonnaBeGood]

If Iran uses an ICBM that ends up hitting the UK or somebody, how do you think people will react to it?

Most Americans would laugh, and most Europeans would cry at how it could possibly lead to a rise in Islamophobia.

 

[Smashed & Slamed]

If Iran uses an ICBM that ends up hitting the UK or somebody, how do you think people will react to it?

>They target London
>Some 30 people die
>Not a single native British person gets even mildly inconvenienced

 

[这次我发誓死不发帖]

Three weeks being called the midpoint of what was always advertised as a 4-6 week war tracks about right.
Wyświetl załącznik 8734226
Source | Archive

Despite all the massive gains by the US and the Israelis, the Iranians have increasingly made it easier and easier for the US to stay in the war indefinitely. The longer it goes without additional US casualties, the less emotional impact it will have on the US public. Swaying American civilians emotionally was *always* the most plausible Iranian route to victory. If the media moves on and people don't care, then the US can be as cautious as it likes and continue a high intensity air campaign more or less indefinitely.

As the cost drops, the cost benefit analysis pushes further and further towards prolonging the war.

In that case, it's not a question of if US objectives are reached, but when. It's been claimed that Iranian strikes on neighboring countries are intended to cause international pressure on the US, but it's possible that the objective is to paint a picture of the Iranians as not merely toothless, for the benefit of the American audience at home.

 

[WelfareNiggerQueen]

If Iran uses an ICBM that ends up hitting the UK or somebody, how do you think people will react to it?

Major cities are always the target so it'd pretty much solve the muslim problem that they have.

 

[The Great Ducktator]

Please educate yourself on what the Quran commands these people to do before you start discussing their geopolitics. It is so obvious you have NEVER read the Quran, and it means you don't understand the core of Iran's government.

If Iran wanted nukes to wage an offensive war on Europe they could have developed any number of WMDs. Nukes are big bombs. Chemical and biological weapons, or even just a bunch of ordinary missiles can be just as devastating. Iran, on one hand, so fanatic that they will use nukes for a Jihad, but also so zynical about religion that they break their own religious fatwa forbidding the use of nukes. You little jester you.

 

[draggs]

Counterargument, if those missiles had had nuclear warheads nobody would have attacked Iran.

Counterargument, if those missiles had had nuclear weapons there would not currently be an Iran. There'd be The Radioactive Glass Factory Formerly Known as Iran. The "North Korea got nukes so they're safe from Murican imperialism, everyone should get nukes so they're safe from Murican imperialism" ignores the fact that after North Korea got nukes, US policy changed to prevent that situation from ever happening again

but also so zynical about religion that they break their own religious fatwa forbidding the use of nukes.

https://blogs.icrc.org/law-and-policy/2017/03/14/ihl-islam-overview/

1. Protection of civilians and non-combatants​

Islamic law makes it abundantly clear that all fighting on the battlefield must be directed solely against enemy combatants. Civilians and non-combatants must not be deliberately harmed during the course of hostilities. According to the Qur’ān 2:190: “And fight in the way of God those who fight against you and do not transgress, indeed God does not like transgressors.” Several reports attributed to the Prophet in which he specifically mentioned five categories of people who are afforded non-combatant immunity under Islamic law: women, children, the elderly, the clergy, and, significantly, the ʻusafā’ (slaves or people hired to perform certain services for the enemy on the battlefield, but who take no part in actual hostilities).

The ʻusafā’’s various duties on the battlefield at the time included such things as taking caring of the animals and the personal belongings of the combatants. Their equivalent in the context of modern warfare would be medical personnel — military and civilian — military reporters and all other categories of people in the army of the adversary party that do not take part in actual hostilities; these people, too, cannot be targeted. The companions of the Prophet and succeeding generations of jurists grasped the logic guiding the prohibition against targeting these five categories of people, and provided non-combatant immunity for other categories of people as well, such as the sick, the blind, the incapacitated, the insane, farmers, traders, and craftsmen.

However, members of these categories of protected people will lose their non-combatant immunity if they take part in hostilities. Classical Muslim jurists investigated various interesting cases involving participation by such protected people in hostilities and deliberated on the permissibility of targeting these people.

These cases included the following: a woman who actually fights on the battlefield or throws stones at Muslim army soldiers or patrols the enemy’s forces or uses her own money to finance the enemy’s army; and a hermaphrodite (whose appearance gives no conclusive proof of gender) encountered during combat. Other cases involved a child or an elderly person taking part in direct hostilities, and an elderly person brought to the battlefield to plan the enemy’s operations. Regardless of the nuances of their deliberations and their different rulings on the permissibility of targeting these protected people, the mere fact that they investigated these cases and reflected on them proves beyond doubt that the principle of distinction and the doctrine of non-combatant immunity were major concerns for the majority of classical Muslim jurists.

2. Prohibition against indiscriminate weapons​

In order to preserve the lives, and the dignity, of protected civilians and non-combatants — and even though the weapons used by Muslims in the seventh and eighth centuries were primitive and their destructive power limited — classical Muslim jurists discussed the permissibility of using indiscriminate weapons of various kinds, such as mangonels (a weapon for catapulting large stones) and poison-tipped or fire-tipped arrows. According to the Qur’ān 5:32: “For that We have decreed upon the children of Israel that whosoever kills a human soul except in retribution of committing fasād (destruction, damage) in the land, it shall be as if he killed all of humanity, and whosoever saves it [a human soul] it shall be as if he saved all of humanity.” The fact that these indiscriminate weapons were the subject of discussion also indicates a genuine concern for enemy property and a wish to protect it, as shown below.

It should be added here that the permissibility of using such indiscriminate weapons was investigated in connection with situations other than those involving combat between individuals. For instance, jurists considered whether such weapons may be used against an enemy fighting from fortified positions. In situations like these, it would obviously be extremely difficult to avoid causing incidental harm to protected people and objects. All this again goes to show that the principle of distinction was the rationale for discussing the permissibility of using these indiscriminate weapons.

Balancing this humanitarian principle with that of military necessity, most of the jurists permitted shooting at the enemy fortifications with mangonels, but they disagreed sharply on the permissibility of shooting fire-tipped arrows at enemy fortifications: one group prohibited it, another expressed its dislike for this method of warfare, and a third permitted it in those instances when military necessity called for it or when it was retaliation in kind. Conflicting rulings of this kind create major difficulties when the Islamic law of war is used as the source of reference in contemporary armed conflicts, because they can be used selectively to justify attacks against protected civilians and objects.

3. Prohibition against indiscriminate attacks​

Motivated by the same concerns that led them to investigate the rightness of using mangonels and poison-tipped or fire tipped-arrows (means of warfare), classical Muslim jurists also discussed the permissibility of two potentially indiscriminate methods of warfare that could result in the killing of protected persons and damage to protected objects: al-bayāt (attacks at night) and al-tatarrus (the use of human shields).

The rationale for studying the lawfulness of night fighting — an issue that first arose during a discussion between the Prophet and his companions — was that it did not involve fighting between individuals because they cannot see each other at night. Mangonels and similar weapons were mainly used against an enemy at night, which increased the risk of protected persons and objects being harmed. Similarly, they found that attacking human shields might also cause incidental harm in two instances they studied: to persons protected from the enemy or to Muslim prisoners of war.

Time and again, the need to balance the humanitarian principles of distinction, proportionality and precaution with the principle of military necessity, led the jurists to make contradictory rulings: some of them prohibited attacks made at night or against human shields, others disliked these methods, and still others were willing to permit them, but only when absolutely required by military necessity. They also disagreed about what constituted military necessity. There was, however, no difference of opinion among them on the fundamental point: that protected persons and objects were not to be deliberately harmed.

Now you tell me: when Shiite militias were murdering dozens of Sunnis a night and leaving the bodies in the streets to be found in the morning in Iraq, when Sunnis were exploding truck bombs in Shiite markets and sending suicide bombers into Shiite mosques in Iraq, in Israel when Palestinians were blowing themselves up at a discotheque, on civilian buses, in restaurants, at a Passover seder, when the Assad government dropped fuel-air bombs and chemical weapons on cities, when all the other thousands of other examples I could cite happened, when Iran blew up the AIMA building in Argentina in 1994 killing 85 innocent people, were they following Islamic law proscribing targeting protected persons, indiscriminate weapons, and indiscriminate attacks? Were they listening to the Koran, the hadiths, the fatwas?

Please, give us some more of your retardation about Muslim adherence to their proclaimed religious proscriptions on this, that, and the other thing when jihad is involved

 

[The Great Ducktator]

Counterargument, if those missiles had had nuclear weapons there would not currently be an Iran. There'd be The Radioactive Glass Factory Formerly Known as Iran

We are all familar with MAD. Your point?

 

[MetokurGroomedMe]

If Iran wanted nukes to wage an offensive war on Europe they could have developed any number of WMDs. Nukes are big bombs. Chemical and biological weapons, or even just a bunch of ordinary missiles can be just as devastating. Iran, on one hand, so fanatic that they will use nukes for a Jihad, but also so zynical about religion that they break their own religious fatwa forbidding the use of nukes. You little jester you.

This is gishgalloping bullshit. I asked you why they would be trustworthy with nuclear weapons in a world where we know what they had planned for everyone. I want you to answer my question posed, not a question you made up to try and get away from it.

Why, after showing that it will bomb civilian infrastructure to punish its surrounding neighbors, should Iran be trusted with a nuclear weapon? Why, after showing that they will bomb INNOCENT third parties who do not participate in an attack on them purely to try and push international pressure against their enemy, should they be trusted with a nuclear weapon? Why would they not then use THAT NUCLEAR WEAPON to start pressuring everyone even further? The idea that they want one is long-established. They refuse IAEA monitoring, because they know the IAEA would prevent them from enriching to weaponized levels, and they have promised that the 61% enrichment was not the highest they would achieve (See: Bigger and Better nuclear program after the destruction of Fordow). You are presenting very dishonest arguments in a very dishonest way.

 

[The Evil Midnight Bomber]

honestly I think Trump just needs to go full on Conquest right now after Iran and Cuba just fucking Annex Canada then Mexico. He can appoint Ralph as the leader of Mexico and Wayne Gretzky the leader of Canada.

Viva la revolución! Viva la Mexico!

 

[Foley]

I really, really doubt that European leaders really care if some American soldiers get missiled in Europe.

Considering how the Brits bitched out and did nothing after Cyprus got attacked until everyone else held their feet to the fire?

I mean c'mon. This is the type of eurobashing that just goes over the top and is completely detached from reality. How is a British foreign base in Cyprus comparable to if a missile lands in the British Isles? And you don't really think that European countries would react, if Iran actually shot missiles at European soil? NATO soil?

There would absolutely be a reaction and retaliation. As cucked as you might think some European leaders are, there's a line that you can't cross. The reputation of NATO would be at stake there.

 

[Harambe]

Counterargument, if those missiles had had nuclear warheads nobody would have attacked Iran.

Given their pattern of arming paramilitaries to attack countries they only had abstract problems with, I suspect if Iran had nuclear warheads they’d have attacked first.

also so zynical about religion that they break their own religious fatwa forbidding the use of nukes. You little jester you.

What was all the highly enriched uranium for? It sure as fuck wasn’t for reactors. Strategic ambiguity as a deterrent is the same as plausible deniability, which is not the same as not pursuing the bomb. “We’d never want nukes, the Supreme Leader who rules by diktat made a diktat saying no!” “What if he changed his mind?” “Then we would take our highly enriched uranium which we’ve been working on for decades against sanctions and constant sabotage and threats, and enrich it for a few weeks to weapons grade and make a bomb, we’ve been developing delivery vehicles that can threaten anyone in the world for decades just in case that old bastard changes his mind. Also we’d never let anyone take our HEU, even though it’s just a massive attack-me-before-it’s-too-late sign.” Perhaps you can see this is practically the same as not complying with the fatwa.

 

[EpicGamerMoment]

Currently, they seem to be busy targeting residential areas because killing civilians with no military value is fun.
Wyświetl załącznik 8734849
Source | Archive

Israel has declared a mass casualty event and according to the Likud-run civil defence there are people stuck under the rubble. Such a shame that the IDF uses their people as human shields and build their military bases next to civilian areas on purpose.

 

[Burnt Fish]

There would absolutely be a reaction and retaliation. As cucked as you might think some European leaders are, there's a line that you can't cross. The reputation of NATO would be at stake there.

To say it without the theatrics of making fun of the Euros (which I mean come on guy you're in a thread on the farms some of it is just funposting you gotta understand)

I have my reasons to doubt the Euros for now, but I will be happy to be proven wrong should the situation arise.

 

[Gay Sex Enjoyer]

I mean c'mon. This is the type of eurobashing that just goes over the top and is completely detached from reality. How is a British foreign base in Cyprus comparable to if a missile lands in the British Isles? And you don't really think that European countries would react, if Iran actually shot missiles at European soil? NATO soil?

There would absolutely be a reaction and retaliation. As cucked as you might think some European leaders are, there's a line that you can't cross. The reputation of NATO would be at stake there.

Iran just needs to strike a group of British girls being trafficked by Muslim migrants.

Then the government will do everything in it's power to not talk about it.

 

[1999 prick]

Speaking of large cities getting targeted.
Now Iran is issuing warnings to cities rather than ports

Casualties of both attacks on Arad and Dimona.
We are so going to have boots on ground and defends our ally the anti-war spergs said so!


EDIT:
Just fucking now they withdrawn the evacuation warning.

 

[Super-Chevy454]

>They target London
>Some 30 people die
>Not a single native British person gets even mildly inconvenienced

I wonder if the same could be said about Paris, Marseille, Stockholm, Berlin?