Brace Yourselves For War Between Iran and Israel

[whitecoast]

It is actually. You claim that Iran would not benefit from a ceasefire as much as Israel, while for some reason ignoring that a US attack would be devastating to Iran. A ceasefire means no attack from the US, which is clearly what Iran would prefer (unlike Israel).

Fair enough. Thanks for following up.

 

[Nević Nenad]

It was the August 14, 2006 ceasefire to help Israel getting out of Lebanon when they were practically beaten there by Hezbollah. I remember the footage of weeping Israeli soldiers riding home on their tanks to Israel.

Point is: they were forced to do that. No one still forces them to do that now.

 

[mabar]

He didn't just say they are fighting the same forces, the most interesting part IMO was that he said:

Russia is being attacked by and defending itself against the same forces that are attacking Iran, and that those forces operate from "behind the scenes".

a) 2 weeks is yet another ruse and a big surprise bombing on Iran (and subsequent escalation) will happen within the next 24hrs.

b) Trumps 2 weeks promise is legit and things will stay on the current trajectory for 2 weeks.

regarding a) people (including me) reasonably point out that, after the first deception, the Iranians would be made to believe the 2 weeks thing, and it must be another ruse. However, you could just as 'reasonably' say that Trump would be smart to play the ruse card again because no one in their right mind would be stupid enough to try to play another ruse card, so Trump must be serious this time.

a) But not sure, yet? about the next 24 hrs, perhaps 72 (almost to the point of the ending of the 2W)

I do not think Iranians believe about the 2 weeks. they are making people believe that Iran is interested.

I wonder if the forces that operate from behind are pursuing another huge refugee crisis, Trump's main objective, as previous presidents have done, is regime change in Iran, using nuclear weapons as justification. Whether through military attack or a “spontaneous” uprising to overthrow the current government, in both cases, a repetitive pattern, and this is no exception.

Trump's contradictory ruse/actions can be taken at face value, as Trump is unpredictable to ordinary citizens. For others, such as Putin, they are expressed with subtlety. And Iranians know it as well.

From Tasnim News Agency Telegram, Iran agrees to participate in talks, but does not yield to pressure, What difference could Trump make besides threatening them?

Araqchi: We welcome and support the continuation of dialogue with the three European countries and the European Union

Our country's Foreign Minister told reporters after a joint meeting with the European delegation in Norway: Today, we met and talked with the Foreign Ministers of Britain, France, Germany, and the High Representative of the European Union in Geneva.

At this meeting, the Islamic Republic of Iran expressed serious concern over the three countries' lack of action to condemn the Zionist regime's act of aggression.

It was also emphasized that Iran's nuclear program is peaceful and is under the supervision of the International Atomic Energy Agency. Therefore, an attack on Iran's peaceful nuclear facilities is considered a major crime and a serious violation of the peremptory rules of international law. If the aggression stops and the aggressor is held accountable for the crimes it has committed, Iran is ready to consider diplomacy.

 

[whitecoast]

From Tasnim News Agency Telegram, Iran agrees to participate in talks, but does not yield to pressure, What difference could Trump make besides threatening them?

If the aggression stops and the aggressor is held accountable for the crimes it has committed, Iran is ready to consider diplomacy.

I wonder what type of accountability from Israel would be deemed satisfactory to the Iranian state at this point?

 

[Mike]

I think this is the case. Nothing that comes from western leaders and countries can be trusted at this point. Actually, many should have understood that this was the case for 20 years or more. I don't know if it will happen within the next 24 hrs, though.

a) 2 weeks is yet another ruse and a big surprise bombing on Iran (and subsequent escalation) will happen within the next 24hrs.

 

[WhiteMountain]

Another betting option:

a) 2 weeks is yet another ruse and a big surprise bombing on Iran (and subsequent escalation) will happen within the next 24hrs.

b) Trumps 2 weeks promise is legit and things will stay on the current trajectory for 2 weeks.

regarding a) people (including me) reasonably point out that, after the first deception, the Iranians would be made to believe the 2 weeks thing, and it must be another ruse. However, you could just as 'reasonably' say that Trump would be smart to play the ruse card again because no one in their right mind would be stupid enough to try to play another ruse card, so Trump must be serious this time.

Game theory 101.

A) Trump is probably looking at how successful the first ruse was and thinks just try it again. I mean why not? The US already has no credibility so it is not like they have anything to lose :). As soon as all the ships and planes are ready, they will attack. My bet is still on this weekend. Hell, the way Trump treats Tulsi Gabbard publicly seems to indicate that he has total contempt for those who actually preach reason.

 

[WhiteMountain]

I wonder what type of accountability from Israel would be deemed satisfactory to the Iranian state at this point?

Some level of reparations for the unjustified attack and getting the hell out of Gaza to start. Maybe even a trip by senior Israeli leaders to the ICC to be prosecuted as they should be for war crimes (doubt they would get that). Gaza might be on the table though. I imagine at this point the majority of Israelis have had it with the amount of grief that war has caused them in terms of international prestige and economic stability even if they don't have a conscience. Maybe add Israel having to agree to the NPT if they are so concerned about the Iranian nuclear program :)

 

[seek10]

Interesting article (longer one) on chronological history of Iran's position on nuclear weapons through religious Fatwas as a mask and 'strategy'.

Khamenei's fatwa against nukes: Did Iran sell a lie to the world?​

More than two decades ago, Hassan Rouhani, a top Iranian negotiator, told global powers that Iran's Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, had issued a fatwa against nuclear weapons. Rouhani later admitted that the idea came to him during the 2004 talks. Amid the Israel-Iran conflict over nukes, a look at if the fatwa exists or is a bid at deception.

"When preserving Muslim blood becomes obligatory for everyone, if preserving the life of one Muslim depends on you, even lying becomes obligatory for you," said the founder of the Islamic Republic of Iran, Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini. This willingness to lie in times of threat and danger is seen by many as an intrinsic part of the Islamic Republic's strategy. That same obfuscation has shaped Iran's decades-long nuclear narrative, toggling between a claimed religious restraint and strategic aggression, centred around one claim: a "fatwa" or a religious decree by Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei banning nuclear weapons.

At the heart of this narrative is a claim by a top Iranian official, who went on to become its president.

"The idea struck me to introduce the concept of a fatwa during the 2004 nuclear negotiations. There was no prior coordination," recalled Hassan Rouhani, then Iran's then-chief nuclear negotiator, in a 2012 interview with the BBC. He was the cleric who later served two terms as Iran's president from 2013 to 2021.

Later, speaking to the Iranian magazine Mehrnameh, Rouhani described how, during talks with the foreign ministers of France, Germany, and the UK, he said, "The Supreme Leader has issued a fatwa declaring the acquisition of a nuclear bomb forbidden. This fatwa is more important to us than the NPT or any additional protocol. It matters more than any law."

This was 2004, and Iran was under scrutiny over its nuclear programme, which it claims is for peaceful, civilian use.

With the US invading Saddam Hussein's Iraq over its alleged stockpiling of weapons of mass destruction (WMD) in 2003, the heat was on Iran. The Islamic Republic's two undeclared nuclear facilities were also revealed by an Iranian opposition group.

Since then, the "Khamenei fatwa" has become a central diplomatic tool wielded by Iran at nuclear talks, invoked to signal moral clarity while maintaining strategic opacity.

It's yesterday once again -- after over two decades.

The foreign ministers of Germany, France and Britain are likely to hold nuclear talks with their Iranian counterpart on Friday (June 20) in Geneva, Reuters reported, quoting a German diplomatic source.

The meeting will come as the Israel-Iran conflict enters its second week.

On June 13, Israel launched "Operation Rising Lion", a coordinated strike targeting Iran’s nuclear and military infrastructure across multiple cities, including Tehran, Natanz, Shiraz, Kermanshah, and Esfahan. Iran retaliated with more than 400 missiles. Some evaded Israel’s Iron Dome and caused civilian fatalities.

Israel has been secretive about its nuclear facility in Dimona too.

Combined with Iran's threats to annihilate Israel, its nuclear programme has been seen suspiciously by the West.

However, Iran has claimed its right to civilian nuclear energy, and has time and again referred to the fatwa to claim that it would never go for nuclear-grade uranium enrichment.

What has been referred to as the fatwa are remarks by Khamenei. It's technically not a fatwa, but Iranians say since the advice was from the Supreme Leader, it should be considered so.

"Fatwas can change," warned Mehdi Khalaji, an Iran expert and former seminarian. "Khamenei can easily issue another one."

So, is the Khamenei fatwa more of a political valve than a theological wall?

IRAN'S DIPLOMACY ON N-PROGRAMME AND THE FATWA​

The turning point came in 2002, when the exiled opposition group National Council of Resistance of Iran (NCRI) publicly revealed that the country had two undeclared nuclear facilities in Natanz and Arak.

The disclosures were confirmed by satellite imagery and later by International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) inspections, which uncovered advanced uranium enrichment activities and heavy water production, sparking international fears that Iran's nuclear programme was not strictly civilian.

With tensions mounting, the regime moved to craft a moral defence.

In late 2003, amid the early phase of the nuclear standoff, Khamenei declared that the production and use of nuclear weapons were haram (forbidden).

In October 2003, under growing global pressure, Khamenei gave a speech declaring weapons of mass destruction forbidden. "We don't want a nuclear bomb These things don't agree with our principles."

This was a calculated move to present Iran's nuclear posture as rooted in morality.

This coincided with the US invasion of Iraq, which heightened Iranian fears of becoming Washington’s next target.

Tehran responded by projecting religious restraint: a deliberate attempt to frame its position not as a result of geopolitical pressure, but of Islamic principles.

Rouhani, in 2004, presented those remarks as Khamenei's fatwa.

Then, in August 2005, Iran formally cited the fatwa at an IAEA meeting in Vienna, claiming Islamic teachings prohibited such weapons.

The fatwa was never an irreversible decree. Instead, it was a result of political expediency, most notably a 2010 message where Khamenei called the use of nuclear weapons haram but said nothing about building or storing them.

WHAT EXACTLY IS THE KHAMENEI FATWA?​

What Iranian diplomats later hailed as a "fatwa" began as the final paragraph of a 2010 message Khamenei sent to a Tehran disarmament conference. This was not a formal religious ruling, but a political statement repurposed as theology, according to a report by an American think-tank, the Atlantic Council.

The portion of that message, promoted by Iranian diplomatic missions as a binding fatwa, reads:

"We believe that adding to nuclear weapons and other types of weapons of mass destruction, such as chemical weapons and biological weapons, are a serious threat to humanity. The Iranian nation, which itself is a victim of the use of chemical weapons, feels more than other nations the danger of the production and accumulation of such weapons and is ready to put all its resources in the way of dealing with it. We consider the use of these weapons to be haram (forbidden), and the effort to protect mankind from this great disaster is everyone's duty."

Though framed as a definitive religious decree, this statement was part of a broader diplomatic message.

Nonetheless, Iranian embassies abroad repeatedly marketed it as such, turning it into a central piece of Iran’s diplomatic arsenal during nuclear talks.

According to the Foreign Policy magazine, Khamenei actually issued an anti-nuclear fatwa in the mid-1990s upon a request for his religious opinion on nuclear weapons. It says the Khamenei letter was never made public as then Iran President Ali Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani argued against nuclear weapons, and the fatwa's publicity was deemed unnecessary then.

RELIGIOUS FATWA AND RATIONAL FATWA: KHAMENEI​

The Supreme Leader's official website has multiple pages dedicated to his views on nuclear weapons, including a list of 85 statements he's made on the subject.

Out of those, the word haram appears only three times, and always in reference to the use of nuclear weapons, never their production or storage. He has, in two cases, also described the use of weapons of mass destruction as a "great sin".

The only instance in which Khamenei explicitly used the word "fatwa" appears in a 2015 speech:

"We don't want a nuclear weapon. Not because of what they say, but because of ourselves, because of our religion, because of our rational reasons. This is both our religious fatwa and our rational fatwa. Our rational fatwa is that we don’t need nuclear weapons today, tomorrow, or ever. Nuclear weapons are a source of trouble for a country like ours."

Under Sharia, actions are ranked from obligatory to forbidden.

Khamenei has never labelled the production of nuclear weapons as haram — only the use, and even that rarely.

This vagueness is strategic, say some experts. It lets Iran look peaceful while keeping the door open. For hardliners, it's enough to justify moving forward.

Shia fatwas are flexible by design. In the 1890s, a tobacco-ban fatwa sparked a revolt, then quietly disappeared once it served its purpose.

Political observers argue that Khamenei's "fatwa" is the same — a political signal, not a religious block, meant to calm the world, not limit Iran.

WHO BELIEVED IN IRAN'S NUCLEAR FATWA?​

For years, Iran's nuclear fatwa drew little notice.

But between 2013 and 2015, as Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) talks intensified, it became central to Tehran's diplomatic messaging. Iranian officials pushed it hard, and soon US diplomats and media echoed the claim that Iran was religiously bound to avoid nuclear weapons.

This was no accident. As revealed in diplomat-academic Javad Zarif's memoir The Undisclosed Secret, the fatwa was a calculated tool, used to boost Iran's credibility and ease Western fears.

The strategy worked.

In 2014, US Secretary of State John Kerry said: "I have great respect for a fatwa. A fatwa is a very highly regarded message of religious importance. And when any fatwa is issued, I think people take it seriously, and so do we, even though it's not our practice... President Obama and I both are extremely welcoming and grateful for the fact that the supreme leader has issued a fatwa", according to Iran International.

In the next few years, Iran shifted from nuclear restraint under the JCPOA to renewed defiance after the US exited the deal in 2018.

In May 2018, President Donald Trump pulled the US out of the JCPOA, calling it a "disastrous deal." He argued it failed to address Iran's missile programme, had weak enforcement, and gave Tehran sanctions relief without stopping its regional aggression or long-term nuclear potential.

Here on, Iran gradually ramped up its nuclear activity, enriching uranium beyond the deal's limits, installing advanced centrifuges, and restricting access to international inspectors.

The economic pressure fuelled domestic unrest, and by 2020, following events like the killing of General Qassem Soleimani and the assassination of nuclear scientist Mohsen Fakhrizadeh, Iran's posture grew more defiant, signalling a shift away from earlier restraint.

NUCLEAR CAPABILITY OF 'CORNERED CAT' IRAN​

Iranian officials have hinted for years that the religious prohibition could disappear if the state is threatened.

In 2021, Intelligence Minister Mahmoud Alavi warned, "The Supreme Leader has explicitly said [nuclear weapons] are religiously forbidden. But a cornered cat may behave differently." If the West pushed Iran too far, he suggested, Iran might have no choice, according to a New York Times report.

That posture hardened further in 2023. Khamenei warned that world powers "cannot stop" Iran if it chooses to build a bomb.

Former Minister of Foreign Affairs of Iran, Ali Akbar Salehi, claimed all technical components were in place.

In March 2024, cleric Mohammad Fuker Meibodi argued the Quran "commands Muslims to possess weapons that instil fear in enemies", hinting that nuclear arms now fit that command, according to the report by the Atlantic Council.

Mahmoud Reza Aghamiri, a nuclear scientist close to Khamenei's office, declared in 2022 that Iran could enrich to 99% and build a nuclear warhead "like North Korea".

Two years later, he said Iran "has the capability" to build the bomb and that "the supreme leader could tomorrow change his stance".

The rhetoric intensified even more after April 2024, when Iran conducted missile and drone strikes on Israel. Within days, Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) nuclear security chief Ahmad Haghtalab warned of a potential doctrinal shift if Israel targeted Iran's nuclear infrastructure.

The Islamic Republic of Iran Broadcasting (IRIB) broadcast his remarks in full.

On April 20, 2024, the reformist Hammihan daily declared that proxy warfare had run its course, and Iran now needed deterrence, possibly through nuclear ambiguity or even armament.

IS THERE AN ACTUAL NUCLEAR THREAT FROM IRAN?​

Just days later, IRGC officer and MP Javad Karimi Ghodousi claimed Iran could test a bomb within a week "if [the supreme leader] issues permission".

On April 23, he went further, saying a warhead could be assembled in half a day. The Foreign Ministry scrambled to contain the fallout, with spokesperson Naser Kanani insisting nuclear weapons "have no place" in Iran's strategy.

Finally, in May 2024, Kamal Kharrazi, top adviser to Supreme Leader Khamenei, reinforced the ambiguity.

In an interview with Al Jazeera, he said, "We have no decision to build a nuclear bomb but should Iran's existence be threatened, there will have no choice but to change our military doctrine."

Throughout late 2024 and early 2025, Iran steadily enriched uranium to 60% at Fordow and Natanz using advanced centrifuges, accumulating a stockpile sufficient for multiple warheads, according to the Arms Control Association.

Though it claimed peaceful intent under the NPT, officials began alluding to "special measures", a veiled reference to weaponisation or relocating stockpiles.

By May 2025, the IAEA reported Iran had amassed enough 60% enriched uranium for nine bombs and, for the first time in two decades, declared Tehran non-compliant with safeguards, according to a BBC report.

On June 12, the IAEA formally cited Iran for the breach. Tehran responded by announcing a new enrichment facility, likely fortified and concealed, though nominally under IAEA oversight.

A Khamenei fatwa on nuclear weapons might exist, but what is more pertinent for discussion is the purpose why it was publicised later during negotiations, and what was achieved through it.

So, the fatwa, it seems, was never a brake on Iran's nuclear ambitions, it was a mere cover. Framed as a moral prohibition, it served as a political tool to ease international pressure while Tehran expanded its nuclear capabilities in the shadows. Now, with officials openly hinting at weaponisation and enrichment levels reaching weapons-grade thresholds, the myth of religious restraint has collapsed. What remains is the reality: the fatwa was not a boundary, but a diplomatic deception. It was a lie used not to prevent a bomb, but to hide it.

Are we to believe that no professional keeping tracking of these statements (or gradual change of Iran's posture- irrespective of circumstances) and conclude that Iran didn't have nuclear bomb? But C's say US and Israel suspect of bomb. i.e. they don't have concrete proof. i.e. Iran did a pretty good job of keeping it secret despite having strong relations during old shah establishment (and recent events related to Solemani killings expose some serious connections). i.e Iranians played West's wishful thinking of 'invincibility' with their own religious leader's 'fatwa' - 'wise as serpent, gentle as dove'.

Today's news item - Iran could build nuclear bomb in a couple of weeks, says White House Are we to believe that white house don't know that Iran already have a bomb? They know it and pressures acting on them is so great that they have to 'act'.

Let's consider US enters the war, uses their bunker buster bombs and destroy whatever nuclear facility. Will they be able to backout after that? Will Bibi be happy after that? If they know Iran has nuclear bomb, why to release nuclear radiation? This nuclear thing is a such a charade ( from all sides) to start with for public consumption particularly when Russia helped to build nuclear reactors in 30 countries. They are civilian stuff. One way or other people try to make bomb, if they are cornered. From copilot:

How many countries Russia helped with nuclear reactors

Russia has played a major role in exporting nuclear technology, particularly through its state-owned company Rosatom. As of recent data, Russia has helped build or is actively involved in nuclear reactor projects in over 20 countries.

Some of the key countries include:

• India – Kudankulam Nuclear Power Plant
• China – Tianwan and Xudapu Nuclear Power Plants
• Turkey – Akkuyu Nuclear Power Plant (Russia is building, owning, and operating it)
• Iran – Bushehr Nuclear Power Plant
• Egypt – El Dabaa Nuclear Power Plant
• Bangladesh – Rooppur Nuclear Power Plant
• Belarus – Astravets Nuclear Power Plant
• Hungary – Paks II Nuclear Power Plant
• Vietnam, Algeria, and Argentina – Agreements or preliminary cooperation

In total, Russia has had reactor construction, fuel supply, or cooperation agreements with more than 30 countries, and at one point had 39 reactors under construction or planned overseas.

Today's live update from this page - gives some 'interesting' view placed in sequence (old to new)- only headlines I thought relevant

• French foreign minister on Iran talks: All sides agreed to keep talking - fair enough in the right spirit.
• Donald Trump says Europe will not be able to play major role in Iran-Israel conflict - If some body serious about war, why he wants to snub Europe instead of taking them along with him? Probably, some deep state factions stuff going on? Whoever is responsible for steering the wheel, it's the caption that gets blame or credit. He was supposed to 'manage' the situation.
• Trump says he won’t urge Israel to stop attacking Iran while it’s 'Winning' - does it mean asking Israel to stop as it is losing?
• Trump says Israel lacks capability to destroy Iran’s nuclear site - discouraging Israel from bombing or finding a excuse for US to enter?
• Arab leaders gather in Istanbul to do an emergency meeting - understandable, But, they are not taking initiative for a solution. Instead they are differing it to Trump and EU.
• Israel has delayed Iran’s nuclear bomb by 2–3 years, says Foreign Minister - Israel's excuse for doing what they want to do.
• Explosions rock Tel Aviv as Iran fires missiles at Israel
• Israel targets Iran’s missile facilities as new strikes begin

None of them has the ability to stop Bibi's madness, even Trump. Every body is differing to Trump or at least he is taking ownership either by compulsion or ignorance or duty or some combination. It looks to me that the stage is more or less set for 'dumping' Israel.

 

[Windmill knight]

a) 2 weeks is yet another ruse and a big surprise bombing on Iran (and subsequent escalation) will happen within the next 24hrs.

b) Trumps 2 weeks promise is legit and things will stay on the current trajectory for 2 weeks.

I'm inclined towards option a, first because of Seymour Hersh's reporting, and second because I don't think Trump will be able to delay it for too long or simply say no if he wanted. Too much pressure around him.

Also, the current negotiating with the Europeans is just silly. Previously they said Iran had to accept 0% enrichment. Naturally, they said no. Now, the Europeans say they want to negotiate again and what do they propose? 0% enrichment. Well, what do they expect.

On the other hand, probably Trump himself doesn't even know if it's a or b. He's just waiting for his inner genius to let him know, only to change his mind a couple of days later.

 

[seek10]

Jon Stewart style

https://twitter.com/x/status/1935165863948337316

 

[iamthatis]

John Helmer disagrees with the idea that Russia will not support Iran, and more specifically, disagrees that there is no agreement for military support between the two.

https://www.unz.com/article/the-presidents-of-russia-and-china-announce-the-cardinal-points-of-the-obvious/

It was just before high noon in Moscow on Thursday, June 19, when President Vladimir Putin initiated his telephone call to President Xi Jinping of China. A read-out by Putin’s foreign policy assistant, Yury Ushakov, followed almost immediately.

Xi did not authorize his summary for twenty-four hours until the Chinese official media organ, Global Times, published an editorial titled “The ‘four-point proposal’ injects stabilizing force into the crisis in the Middle East”. Another official version from Beijing, delayed for nine hours, can be read here.

In between Putin’s read-out and Xi’s editorial, the Russian General Staff leaked its assessment that the US, Israel and their allies are demonstrating in the Iran war, as they have already demonstrated in the Ukraine war, that negotiations for a ceasefire, a truce, or a peace agreement are pointless now.

Pretending this isn’t so is the Kremlin consensus for the time being. According to Xinhua, repeating the pretence in public is also the Bejing consensus.

Before he called Xi, Putin told the Xinhua press agency and other reporters: “we are ready and substantively guide the [Ukraine war] negotiations on the principles of settlement…We are in contact, our negotiation groups are in contact with each other. Only just now [Kremlin negotiator Vladimir] Medinsky asked — he says that only today he was talking to his counterparties from Kiev. In principle, they agree to meet after June 22.”

Unspoken in public for the time being is the discussion among Russian political and military leaders on what Putin’s surprise statement revoking the terms of the Russian pact with Iran means to the remaining treaty allies, China and North Korea. “With regard to the Strategic Treaty,” Putin has announced for the “Treaty on the Comprehensive Strategic Partnership between the Islamic Republic of Iran and the Russian Federation” he signed on January 17, 2025 — “there are no articles related to the defence sphere.”

Moscow knows this is false.

According to a well-informed source, “the Iranians have assured Putin through the security people that they are able to hold out. Putin is not calling out Trump’s lies because there will be no burning of bridges with Trump for as long as possible. Nothing will be gained from this. Calling Putin out on Israel is something everyone is avoiding here and might be the most sensitive nerve. So it’s best avoided.”

Putin revealed at his meeting with international news agencies after midnight on June 18 that some time earlier, he had discussed with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu the Israeli plan of attack on Iran’s nuclear reactors and nuclear fuel plants. Putin did not say he had told Netanyahu not to attack. Instead, Putin told the press, “more than 200” Russians are working at the Bushehr reactor in southern Iran, and that with Netanyahu “we have agreed with the leadership of Israel which will ensure their security.”

The full Russian text of Putin’s remarks at the press conference was delayed in publication by the Kremlin for twelve hours. The official English version of what the President said has not been fully disclosed on the Kremlin website after twenty-fours.

The Xinhua news agency, which attended the presser, reported what had been said after six hours of delay. But the Chinese report has omitted to record Putin’s reactor targeting deal with Netanyahu.

The Reuters news agency, which also asked questions at the presser, published its report of Putin’s statements three hours after they were made.

According to the Reuters report, “asked if Russia was ready to provide Iran with modern weapons to defend itself against Israeli strikes, Putin said a strategic partnership treaty signed with Tehran in January did not envisage military cooperation and that Iran had not made any formal request for assistance.”

According to the Kremlin’s version of what Putin said translated unofficially into English, Putin was asked by Karim Talbi, the Agence France Presse (AFP) representative at the meeting: “There is a Strategic Partnership Agreement between Russia and Iran. It does not provide for the protection of Iran from the outside Russia, but still there is a question of weapons. Given the severity of this situation, are you ready to provide new weapons to Iran so they can defend themselves from Israeli strikes?”

Putin replied: “You know, we once offered our Iranian friends to work in the field of air defence systems. The partners did not show much interest at that time, that’s all. With regard to the Strategic Treaty, about the partnership you mentioned, there are no articles related to the defence sphere. That’s the second point. Third, our Iranian friends don’t ask for that. So there’s almost nothing to discuss.”

The official Kremlin version in English has not yet been published. In AFP’s published record, Talbi failed to report Putin’s reference to the Russia-Iran pact.

The Russia-Iran pact was signed on January 17, 2025 in three languages – Russian, Farsi and English. Click to read this for detailed analysis.

In the official Iranian version of the treaty in English, Articles 4, 5, and 6 set out defence provisions. “[1] In order to enhance national security and confront common threats, the intelligence and security agencies of the Contracting Parties shall exchange information and experience and increase the level of their cooperation.[2] The intelligence and security agencies of the Contracting Parties shall cooperate within the framework of separate agreements.”

Putin, who signed the pact with Iranian President Masoud Pezeshkian, committed his officials to signing side agreements in secret. Article 5 (1) says: “In order to develop military cooperation between their relevant agencies, the Contracting Parties shall conduct the preparation and implementation of respective agreements within the Working Group on Military Cooperation.” Article 5 (4) amplifies: “The Contracting Parties shall consult and cooperate in countering common military and security threats of a bilateral and regional nature.” Article 6 (1) adds: “Within the framework of a comprehensive, long-term and strategic partnership, the Contracting Parties shall confirm their commitment to develop military-technical cooperation based on respective agreements between them taking into account mutual interests and their international obligations and shall consider such cooperation as an important component in maintaining regional and global security.”

At any rate, there is a lot of bluffing going on, just like in the lead-up to WW2.

 

[ApotheosisMMC.]

Bear in mind that there may be more options between going all-in on Iran and not going at all.
How about taking a middle way that half-contents everyone, i.e. a military operation only focused on taking full military control of the Strait of Hormuz and vicinity, letting only the ‘Arab allies’ oil tankers through, and waiting a few months for Iran to choke economically until it accepts your terms? And while you're at it, you shut off China's oil supply ...
I am beginning to think that this may be on the table.

They did badly against the Houthis in Yemen, with Iran there is the possibility that the attacks they receive will be even worse.

Follow up to my post earlier, I read this from Middle East Spectator (a Telegram channel based in Iran which have found to be reliable and honest).



Indeed we have seen several videos now of near (and some not so near) misses in the vicinity of obvious high value targets. The main issue for Iran is less likely the size of their stockpiles but more their capacity to actually stage and launch them without serious retaliation from Israeli strikes.

Iran has the advantage of being such a huge country. Israel has air superiority some parts of the West, like the regions bordering Iraq, for obvious reasons. Their claim to have control over the skies of the whole country is nonsense, as it is vast.

Anyway, it's near impossible to know how long Iran can keep up an effective rate of fire, and whether the reduction in the number of launches is intentional or forced upon them. Not to mention further damage that could happen at any time. They can hopefully continue to produce the more advanced missiles or receive equivalents from Russia and China. If some of those high value targets had been destroyed then it might have had some deterrent effect by now, but who knows? Doesn't seem like Israeli rationality is worth betting on at this point.

It took Russia over a year to neutralize Ukraine's air defenses, and it hasn't even done so completely. Hiding, camouflaging, and rotating air defenses is quite effective.
Israel was afraid to even enter Syrian airspace, where air defenses of this type were even fewer and weaker. It's likely that Iran has mobilized its various systems toward the East, since the few videos (some duplicated and modified to make them look like another event) show old and decoy systems. The S-300 and Bavar-373 systems, which are the mainstay, haven't been destroyed, otherwise they would have been promoted to exhaustion. Rezaei said that they prepared since February-March in view of the imminent war, so they moved their systems knowing that Israel cannot endure a long-term conflict, in fact that is why the decrease in attacks by Iran, wants to keep them suffering in front of the media probably, but does not want to bomb them intensively to give a justification to the USA to enter the conflict.

New comments by Trump:

Among other things he is saying, paraphrasing, that he always wants to be a peacemaker but sometimes you need a bit of force to achieve it while he says that American ground troops are out of the question and that they might not need to do something (meaning, really get involved in any official capacity?). And 2 weeks is to let people come to their senses. And also that he doesn’t believe that Israel can do it without US support. And that the intelligence community is wrong, and specifically Tulsi, about their assessment of what Iran has or is doing.

At the end of the video, he is asked if he will conduct a full investigation and present it transparently in the event that Iran carries out an attack on US assets, and he responds that if that happens, with today's modern means, they will know who did it and that those people will be very unhappy. He quickly adds that reporters are in danger by being near him... perhaps it is very far-fetched since it is clear that he is referring to Iran, but he has not directly named them as the people who will be unhappy if an attack is carried out and he added, without being asked, that they are in danger by being near him.

He knows that they will try to kill him and he could be urging them not to do it because they will know who is behind it if they try (or so he believes, and only if the attack is thwarted because if they continue, obviously the truth will not come out). He also stressed that Israel does not have the capacity to destroy the Iranian Fordow base on its own and that it does not intend to use ground forces, which is what they have tried to sell to it in order to complete this operation. I don't know if it also knows that announcing what you will attack, despite saying it to intimidate, is a terrible idea if you tell your enemy where to watch and aim with their anti-aircraft defenses, which, as we have seen, are largely intact. It also doesn't help that you have to carry out several B-2 attacks on the same point, since the penetration of these bombs does not exceed 60 meters or so.

Perhaps, as already mentioned here, all this talk this week, where he seemed really angry and crazy (I don't doubt he feels really pressured and, lacking a longer-term vision or a good enough plan, resorted to getting angry, as those lacking certain skills tend to do when cornered), was nothing more than an attempt to force Iran to negotiate, but given how confident they are and how dangerous the operation would be, he decided to stick with giving them more time.

Perhaps he's aware that Israel could lose strength or just wants to see if something more favorable comes out for him without risking so much yet. Especially since he already knows that Rezaei has expressed that his allies offered to help them, but Iran has told them not yet, which implies that they could join quickly if they ask.

Well, I still bet something "dirty" will happen. If you say no to psychopaths when they're cornered, they resort to more desperate (and error-prone) acts.

 

[luc]

Another betting option:

a) 2 weeks is yet another ruse and a big surprise bombing on Iran (and subsequent escalation) will happen within the next 24hrs.

b) Trumps 2 weeks promise is legit and things will stay on the current trajectory for 2 weeks.

I think we should keep many options open here. The way I read Trump (if that's even possible) is that he is conflicted: he clearly has a bunch of warmongers whispering in his ear, probably telling him all kinds of things - how this is the last chance to prevent Iran from becoming nuclear, how war games show that a nuclear Iran could nuke Americans and that the Mullahs will definitely do it, how it will destroy America's strength and economy, how it will affect his domestic policy negatively, how it will destroy his legacy, etc. Since Trump is gulliible (as the Cs said), he probably believes a lot of it.

The neocons seem also desperate: on a deeper level probably because of grand plans and cosmic forces, but also, as was pointed out in Tucker's interview with Dan Caldwell, because they clearly see that younger people don't buy the nonsense anymore, and therefore it's their last chance to finally topple Iran.

On the other hand, we know that the likes of Steve Bannon and Tucker recently talked to Trump, probably among other more reasonable voices, who I'm sure told him all about how unpopular this all is among his base, how it will destroy his legacy, how it will affect his domestic policies, and so on. No doubt Trump takes some of this seriously, especially where it affects his ego and legacy. So this contributes to his wavering back and forth, trying to leave options open, maybe rationalizing it by thinking he's a master strategist.

So we don't really know how it will shake out, and it might not be binary either: in the past, you could trust that once the neocon war machine is on, the regime change/escalation script will just run its course. But there are many more variables these days. Maybe even if there's a strike against some supposed nuclear facilities, it might not escalate: maybe the Mullahs don't retaliate against American bases, and even if they do, it's not so easy anymore to sell a carpet bombing campaign much less a ground invasion. There are folks in the Trump administration who don't want escalation, whether they are open about it or not.

Of course, things could also go horribly wrong in ways we can't even see right now. I think we are in for a surprise or two, and more twists and turns.

 

[Cosmos]

I think we should keep many options open here. The way I read Trump (if that's even possible) is that he is conflicted: he clearly has a bunch of warmongers whispering in his ear, probably telling him all kinds of things - how this is the last chance to prevent Iran from becoming nuclear, how war games show that a nuclear Iran could nuke Americans and that the Mullahs will definitely do it, how it will destroy America's strength and economy, how it will affect his domestic policy negatively, how it will destroy his legacy, etc. Since Trump is gulliible (as the Cs said), he probably believes a lot of it.

The neocons seem also desperate: on a deeper level probably because of grand plans and cosmic forces, but also, as was pointed out in Tucker's interview with Dan Caldwell, because they clearly see that younger people don't buy the nonsense anymore, and therefore it's their last chance to finally topple Iran.

On the other hand, we know that the likes of Steve Bannon and Tucker recently talked to Trump, probably among other more reasonable voices, who I'm sure told him all about how unpopular this all is among his base, how it will destroy his legacy, how it will affect his domestic policies, and so on. No doubt Trump takes some of this seriously, especially where it affects his ego and legacy. So this contributes to his wavering back and forth, trying to leave options open, maybe rationalizing it by thinking he's a master strategist.

So we don't really know how it will shake out, and it might not be binary either: in the past, you could trust that once the neocon war machine is on, the regime change/escalation script will just run its course. But there are many more variables these days. Maybe even if there's a strike against some supposed nuclear facilities, it might not escalate: maybe the Mullahs don't retaliate against American bases, and even if they do, it's not so easy anymore to sell a carpet bombing campaign much less a ground invasion. There are folks in the Trump administration who don't want escalation, whether they are open about it or not.

Of course, things could also go horribly wrong in ways we can't even see right now. I think we are in for a surprise or two, and more twists and turns.

Good summary IMO and my bet is also towards something like that.

 

[ennygmma]

I suspect he knows about 9/11 and that is one of the bribery tactics used against him. I don’t see how it would get him out of any manipulation if he knew, what could he do? Tell the world what Israel is really up to? Then what? Just sounds like a festival of killing for the psychopaths to enjoy if their true face is revealed. There’s nothing stopping the hyperdimensional gods from pulling the plug on their whole earth experiment and going somewhere else, that’s surely an option the have up their sleeve if all else fails.

Every trump card in the sleeve is greater power in the relationship, having evidence of responsibility for the demolition of the twins is something that Trump will not pass over as a patriot, and this frees him from the promise of aid to Israel. This information might not be released to the public, but it would certainly change Trump's opinion and with it his reaction. I don't know what the gods will do with the earth, but I know that they too need to weigh very wisely before reacting due to responsibility. Only love is outside the law, or maybe love is the first law. P.S. The Cassiopeians stated in one session that Putin has evidence of Mossad's involvement in the overthrow of the Twins. In this war between Israel and Iran and all the potential countries that could intervene, only Iran defends itself, the others have a choice that will depend on the interests of that country. Israel's attack on Iran has put everyone in an unfavorable situation, and somehow it seems to me that I am the most myself. It would not surprise me if those who are now friends of the USA and Israel become enemies, and those who are now enemies of Sunnis and Shiites become friends. Not all the cards are on the table yet, and the players and the stakes are high.