The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > Article Comments > Assault or diplomacy: Washington’s deliberate mixed signals to Tehran > Comments

Assault or diplomacy: Washington’s deliberate mixed signals to Tehran : Comments

By Syafruddin Arsyad, published 2/2/2026

Washington is pressuring Iran with warships and words. But without a clear endgame, coercive diplomacy risks signaling resolve and confusion at the same time.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. All
"The absence of a clearly articulated endgame complicates Washington's signaling."

When the U.S. decides it wants regime change, there's no negotiations.

This isn't about what is best for the Iranian people.
The West will destroy Iran like it did Syria, because that suits its ends.
You don't plan something like this for decades than change your mind at the finishing line.

A weak and broken country that is no longer supportive of Palestinians or a threat to Israel, one no longer aligned with allies Russia and China or a threat to the U.S. being a part of BRICS, balkanised by regional sectarian groups like Kurds and Baluchs.

Basically either installing someone loyal to U.S. and Israeli interests like the Shah, or a collapsed failed state torn apart by internal conflict, either one would be a success in the eyes of the U.S. and Israel.

When the West says it's 'negotiating', what they're saying is that they're issuing demands and putting assets in place, but Iran aren't backing down. They're not going to give up their nuclear program entirely or their ballistic missiles.

If I was Iran, I'd be planning to firstly attack the radar and communications of the Lincoln, (and other U.S bases) sending it blind and more susceptible to sustained attack, maybe try to put a hypersonic missile through the flight deck and prevent combat operations leaving it a sitting duck.

I'd be attacking U.S. bases and the oilfields of any nation that supported an attack against it, I'd be targeting Israeli infrastructure, like the 5 desalination plants that provide Israel 85% of it's water.

The coming attack against it will probably target Khomeini and the IRGC and Iran's ability to both retaliate and keep order, no doubt well see all the groups the west has armed and prepared start attacking Iran internally.
Israeli society doesn't have the stomach for direct attacks against it .
Posted by Armchair Critic, Monday, 2 February 2026 9:45:36 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Seriously, if it had've been me, I would've already responded to the Israeli and U.S. attacks in June as a provocation, by rescinding the fatwa on nuclear weapons, gone ahead and assembled a nuclear weapon after the last attack against it, and I would've detonated a small one in the Arabian Sea in the direction of Diego Garcia to demonstrate the capability, close enough so that all of the Gulf states paid attention.
Posted by Armchair Critic, Monday, 2 February 2026 10:01:17 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
There are no mixed signals. The message is clear; the dictates are unmistakable.
Posted by diver dan, Monday, 2 February 2026 1:15:50 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy