Mike
Iran
- Onderwerp starter 100leven
- Startdatum
Mike
Mike
️
BREAKING:The U.S. is moving electronic warfare assets toward the Middle East signaling a high possibility of an imminent strike on Iran.
Four KC-46A Pegasus tankers (callsigns GOLD31, GOLD32, GOLD41, GOLD42) departed Pease Air National Guard Base, crossing the Atlantic while escorting six EA-18G Growler aircraft, the “discombobulator”, from NAS Oceana to Morón Air Base, with Rota serving as a key staging hub.
Credit/Source: @MenchOsint
Mike
28/01 – IRAN SIGNALS READINESS FOR CONFRONTATION THROUGH COORDINATED DETERRENCE AND REGIONAL ESCALATION
Assessment note (through 10 February):
The probability of an Israeli or U.S. initiated strike on Iran is assessed at around 70 percent in the short term. This estimate reflects not only current military positioning and escalation dynamics, but also the decision-making patterns of key leaders. Both Donald Trump and Benjamin Netanyahu have a long record of treating Iran as a central strategic obsession, favoring shock, deception, and decisive action over prolonged signalling. Historically, periods of public ambiguity, diplomatic noise, and military exercises have preceded action rather than restraint. The present environment combines elevated readiness, a narrative of Iranian vulnerability, compressed timelines, and leadership incentives that prioritize credibility and dominance over escalation management. While retaliation risks remain substantial, the psychological and political drivers significantly raise the likelihood of authorization even in the absence of a clear triggering incident.
The recent Iranian moves reflect a calculated deterrence posture aimed at signaling readiness for confrontation while attempting to shape the rules of escalation rather than initiate direct conflict.
First, the public warning by the Revolutionary Guards that a U.S. aircraft carrier would become a legitimate target if it enters Iranian territorial waters represents a clear red-line declaration. This is not rhetorical posturing but a deliberate attempt to raise the cost of U.S. military proximity and deter operational freedom near Iran’s borders. By tying military engagement explicitly to territorial violation, Tehran frames its position as defensive while underscoring full military readiness.
Second, Iran’s emphasis on full control over the Strait of Hormuz, coupled with assurances that it does not seek to harm the global economy, delivers a dual deterrence message. It reassures international actors while simultaneously reminding adversaries that Iran retains strategic leverage over a critical global chokepoint. References to additional capabilities to be revealed at the appropriate time reinforce strategic ambiguity, a core component of effective deterrence.
Third, the reported intensive coordination meetings of the Axis of Resistance under direct supervision of Quds Force leadership mark a further step in escalation. These meetings go beyond routine contingency planning and point to an operational shift toward collective deterrence. By planning responses across multiple fronts, Iran signals that any confrontation would not remain limited to Iranian territory but would expand into a regional, multi-front scenario.
The transition from internal coordination to public declarations by allied actors in Iraq, Yemen, and Lebanon reflects an effort to demonstrate credibility. This messaging indicates that deterrence is operational rather than symbolic, with defined roles and response mechanisms across multiple arenas.
Finally, Iran’s parallel diplomatic engagement, including outreach to Saudi Arabia, functions as a stabilizing counterweight to its military signalling. This combination suggests an attempt to limit regional spillover while preserving escalation dominance vis-à-vis the United States.
Taken together, these developments constitute another step up the escalation ladder, rooted in deterrence rather than imminent attack. Iran is seeking to redefine the confrontation framework by setting explicit red lines, demonstrating regional coordination, raising the anticipated cost of military action, and maintaining plausible deniability regarding the initiation of war.
Mike
Assessment note (through 10 February):
The probability of an Israeli or U.S. initiated strike on Iran is assessed at around 70 percent in the short term. This estimate reflects not only current military positioning and escalation dynamics, but also the decision-making patterns of key leaders. Both Donald Trump and Benjamin Netanyahu have a long record of treating Iran as a central strategic obsession, favoring shock, deception, and decisive action over prolonged signalling. Historically, periods of public ambiguity, diplomatic noise, and military exercises have preceded action rather than restraint. The present environment combines elevated readiness, a narrative of Iranian vulnerability, compressed timelines, and leadership incentives that prioritize credibility and dominance over escalation management. While retaliation risks remain substantial, the psychological and political drivers significantly raise the likelihood of authorization even in the absence of a clear triggering incident.
The recent Iranian moves reflect a calculated deterrence posture aimed at signaling readiness for confrontation while attempting to shape the rules of escalation rather than initiate direct conflict.
First, the public warning by the Revolutionary Guards that a U.S. aircraft carrier would become a legitimate target if it enters Iranian territorial waters represents a clear red-line declaration. This is not rhetorical posturing but a deliberate attempt to raise the cost of U.S. military proximity and deter operational freedom near Iran’s borders. By tying military engagement explicitly to territorial violation, Tehran frames its position as defensive while underscoring full military readiness.
Second, Iran’s emphasis on full control over the Strait of Hormuz, coupled with assurances that it does not seek to harm the global economy, delivers a dual deterrence message. It reassures international actors while simultaneously reminding adversaries that Iran retains strategic leverage over a critical global chokepoint. References to additional capabilities to be revealed at the appropriate time reinforce strategic ambiguity, a core component of effective deterrence.
Third, the reported intensive coordination meetings of the Axis of Resistance under direct supervision of Quds Force leadership mark a further step in escalation. These meetings go beyond routine contingency planning and point to an operational shift toward collective deterrence. By planning responses across multiple fronts, Iran signals that any confrontation would not remain limited to Iranian territory but would expand into a regional, multi-front scenario.
The transition from internal coordination to public declarations by allied actors in Iraq, Yemen, and Lebanon reflects an effort to demonstrate credibility. This messaging indicates that deterrence is operational rather than symbolic, with defined roles and response mechanisms across multiple arenas.
Finally, Iran’s parallel diplomatic engagement, including outreach to Saudi Arabia, functions as a stabilizing counterweight to its military signalling. This combination suggests an attempt to limit regional spillover while preserving escalation dominance vis-à-vis the United States.
Taken together, these developments constitute another step up the escalation ladder, rooted in deterrence rather than imminent attack. Iran is seeking to redefine the confrontation framework by setting explicit red lines, demonstrating regional coordination, raising the anticipated cost of military action, and maintaining plausible deniability regarding the initiation of war.
Mike
Mike
Mike
Mike
Mike
Mike
American airstrikes on Iran are not imminent, U.S. officials say, because the Pentagon is moving in additional air defenses to better protect Israel, Arab allies and American forces in the event of a retaliation by Iran and a potential prolonged conflict, officials tell the Wall Street Journal.
The U.S. military could conduct limited airstrikes on Iran if the President were to order an attack today, officials say, but the kind of decisive attack that President Trump has asked the military to prepare would likely prompt a proportional response from Iran, requiring the U.S. to have robust air defenses in place to protect Israel as well as American troops across the Middle East.
Mike
The U.S. military could conduct limited airstrikes on Iran if the President were to order an attack today, officials say, but the kind of decisive attack that President Trump has asked the military to prepare would likely prompt a proportional response from Iran, requiring the U.S. to have robust air defenses in place to protect Israel as well as American troops across the Middle East.
Mike
Mike
If you’ve been skeptical of the widely-circulating claim that Iran killed an astronomical 30,000 civilians in a handful of days, you’re not alone.
We dug into the source of the alleged death toll and discovered who’s behind it: a diehard opposition surgeon working for Iran’s wannabe king Reza Pahlavi, and an Indian fashion columnist with no apparent ties to Iran or knowledge of Farsi.
Mike
We dug into the source of the alleged death toll and discovered who’s behind it: a diehard opposition surgeon working for Iran’s wannabe king Reza Pahlavi, and an Indian fashion columnist with no apparent ties to Iran or knowledge of Farsi.
Mike
Mike
Mike
Mike
️BREAKING: Iran’s Supreme Leader Ayatollah Khamenei:When you hear them occasionally talking about war as saying that they will come with airplanes and do this and that this is nothing new.
In the past as well, Americans repeatedly threatened in their statements that “all options are on the table.” “All options” includes the option of war. They have always said this.
Now this individual also constantly claims that yes, we brought ships and did this and that…
In my view, the Iranian nation should not be frightened by such things. The Iranian nation is not influenced by these words. It does not fear standing up for what is right.
We are not the initiators. We do not wish to oppress anyone. We do not seek to attack any country. But in the face of anyone who harbors ambitions, wants to attack, and seeks to cause harm, the Iranian nation will deliver a crushing blow.
The US should know: If they start a war this time, it will be a regional war.
Mike
️BREAKING: Iran’s Supreme Leader Ayatollah Khamenei:That Americans sometimes talk about war - saying we will come with warships and aircrafts - is nothing new. The Iranian nation is not affected by such talk. They shouldn't try to intimidate the Iranian nation with such things.
We are not the initiators of war. We do not seek to oppress anyone. We do not seek to attack any country. However, anyone who seeks to attack or cause harm will face a decisive blow from the Iranian nation.
Mike
Mike
Forum statistieken
