news

한어Русский языкEnglishFrançaisIndonesianSanskrit日本語DeutschPortuguêsΕλληνικάespañolItalianoSuomalainenLatina

there is one intriguing detail about iran.

in recent years, every time the jamkaran mosque in iran has been humiliated and suffered a heavy blow, it has raised its flag.

sometimes, the “red flag of revenge” is raised;

sometimes the "black flag of revenge" is raised.

however, whether it raises a red flag or a black flag, iran will raise it high and lower it gently every time.

what was agreed upon - "revenge"?

at the beginning, there were still a bunch of self-media and netizens shouting that iran would "amplify its moves" and excitedly predicting that "there must be a war" and "the middle east will fall into a long-term melee."

but gradually, no one seems to care much about iran raising the black or red flag.

after all, in the past four years, iran has raised this red "blood flag of revenge" at least six times.

but in terms of substantive actions, it is still “no action”.

even if there were only a few "actions", the basic operation was nothing more than firing a few missiles at the "enemy". either hit the open space, or be intercepted, or at least wipe out a little bit of the wall...

however, compared with before, iran's "retaliation" this time is very unusual.

before that, iran did not raise its flag, not even the black or red flag.

in addition, the amount of missiles "brushed" to israel this time is huge. according to multiple media reports, at least 200 were launched.

what is even more different from the past is that israel's anti-missile system seems to be performing very poorly.

although the hit rate of iranian missiles may not be as impressive as "more than 80%" as stated by their own media, some details are still very revealing.

according to foreign media reports, the israeli military immediately issued a ban - "anyone who publishes a video of the missile landing will be arrested."

however, concealment itself may mean heavy losses.

in fact, when it comes to medium-range missiles, it is not too difficult for an industrial country to build them, but it is more difficult to intercept them. even the united states and the soviet union had a headache about this.

for example, a medium-range ballistic missile is equivalent to the ak-47 among missiles. it is a mass-produced killer weapon that is high in quality and low in price.

i can make them in large quantities, you can make them in large quantities, and he can also make them in large quantities. then no one has an ideal way to deal with this kind of missile... in the end, no one has any choice. when the united states and the soviet union discussed it, neither of us wanted to do it. once you have done this, it will be easier to destroy it.

this is the 1987 intermediate-range nuclear forces treaty.

okay, let’s go back to iran.

iran has been building medium-range missiles for many years.

the target is israel.

obviously, if you say iran is going to fight israel, then how? will iran come over, or will israel come over?

the straight-line distance between the two countries is 1,800 kilometers. have you considered the feelings of the middle countries?

medium-range missiles are the most suitable.

the early warning time of medium-range missiles is very limited. coupled with the low flight altitude and the curvature of the earth, the distance to detect the incoming missile will be shorter, which further reduces the early warning time. therefore, as mentioned before, intercepting medium-range missiles is still very difficult. even the united states and the soviet union did not have any good methods.

unless...you can predict the time and target location of the missile attack in advance.

so, let’s look at israel.

the iron dome system we often hear about is not actually used to deal with missiles. it is mainly used to intercept short-range rockets from hamas and hezbollah.

israel's anti-missile system is another set of things, consisting of three layers of defense forces-arrow, david's sling and patriot-3 missile systems.

among them, the "arrow-2" and "arrow-3" are high-altitude ballistic missile defense systems, mainly responsible for long-range air defense and high-altitude anti-missile, and can intercept medium- and long-range ballistic missiles with a range of 1,500 to 3,500 kilometers; the "david's sling" missile the defense system is mainly responsible for medium- and high-range air defense and anti-missile interception of short-range ballistic missiles with a range of 350 to 500 kilometers; the patriot-3 is used as a supplement to the "david's sling" (mainly used to deal with short- and medium-range missiles by the houthi armed forces in yemen). surface-to-surface missiles).

obviously, in israel's air defense system, the only ones that can deal with iran's medium-range missiles are the "arrow-2" and "arrow-3".

the embarrassing thing is that the anti-aircraft missiles used by the "arrow" system to intercept medium-range ballistic missiles are more expensive than iran's medium-range missiles themselves, and are subject to fire channel restrictions, so the number of targets that can be fought simultaneously is limited.

therefore, once iran suddenly launches a saturation attack, the "arrow type" will easily become ineffective.

israeli anti-aircraft missiles intercept iranian medium-range missiles

what is strange is that although israel has been hit by iranian missiles more than once before, it has never encountered the current situation.

this time, in addition to the large quantity, what was more important was the suddenness of the attack.

compared with before, iran was often very high-profile before taking action. it would first raise a "flag of revenge" to tell the world, and make harsh words days or even weeks in advance, almost just notifying the other party directly of the time and specific details of the attack it was about to launch. coordinate location.

but this time, a few hours after the israel defense forces received the intelligence report from the united states, the missiles came over. it was still a "saturation" attack and there was no time to prepare.

iran's operations are very unusual.

in fact, although iran keeps talking harshly, they almost never do anything they are unsure of, unless... they let the arabs do it (such as hamas, hezbollah, houthi armed forces).

although iran has also "brushed" missiles to israel before, its more intention is to give an explanation to the people internally - we are full of blood and we fought back; to remind the outside world - we have no intention of starting a war, but the united states must keep an eye on israel, don't let it go crazy and bite people.

therefore, the "long-term self-restraint" mentioned in iran's statement is not an exaggeration at all.

over the years, iran's experience can be described as the most vicious oaths and the harshest slaps.

the united states and israel killed soleimani in iraq, and iran tolerated it; israel assassinated haniyeh on the day of the presidential inauguration in tehran, the capital of iran, and iran also tolerated it;

two months later, israel launched another pager and walkie-talkie bombing attack on hezbollah, and iran chose to "continue to tolerate".

even at this sensitive juncture, iran's new president pezeshchiyan went to the united nations general assembly in person and publicly stated that iran is ready to cooperate with world powers to end the nuclear standoff with the west, and promised not to carry out military operations against russia. assistance.

of course, you can say that pezeshchiyan is a pro-western moderate. but don’t forget that the ultimate boss of the iranian government is the supreme spiritual leader ayatollah ali khamenei, who is the one who truly grasps the overall situation.

if khamenei did not relent, pezhichiyan would never dare to say that.

originally, iran, which was "restrained", was already preparing to repair its relations with the west. unexpectedly, israel directly killed nasrallah, the top leader of hezbollah, which became the straw that broke the camel's back.

at this point, if iran continues to tolerate it, iran's prestige and leadership in the middle east will definitely disappear.

however, even so, iran's retaliation was relatively restrained. it only attacked military targets. it was clear that it did not want to escalate the situation.

after all, the successive assassinations have proved that iran may have been seriously penetrated inside, and the united states and israel may even have the ability to "behead" any senior iranian figure at any time. if a war really breaks out, whether the ruling group can be preserved is a question.

in fact, as the old saying goes, whether you are willing to admit it or not, the fact is that in many cases, none of those anti-american countries or organizations really want to have a good relationship with the united states from the bottom of their hearts!

you see, the afghan taliban, since returning to power in 2021, have been seeking to ask western countries led by the united states to come back and reopen their embassy in kabul. it has never given up any opportunity to negotiate with the west.

there was also russia back then. it had shown goodwill and made concessions to the west time and time again, but in exchange, apart from a few sweet words, it continued to prove that it was "silly and naive."

russia finally woke up and realized that kneeling was useless. even if he knelt, he would still receive an iron fist, so he quickly stood up again.

because europe must have an enemy.

only with enemies can there be contradictions, only with contradictions can there be wars, and only with wars can there be a strong united states.

after all, there is peace, who will sell the weapons it makes, and what is the point of forming an alliance with the united states?

therefore, no matter how hard russia kneels, it will still be positioned as a "villain" by the united states.

in the same way, the middle east must have a decent enemy, just as europe must have an enemy that looks fierce.

therefore, for the united states, iran's role as a "villain" can only be weakened, but it cannot cease to exist.

it has never been the iranians who have the final say on when to make peace or when to lift the table.

original article, no reproduction or adaptation in any form without authorization!