2026 Iran War Strategy and Analysis

[NorthKimBestKim]

Yikes! Couldn't be more wrong.

Ok, modern history and facts for the past 35 years tells a different story.

All these were smoked more or less since 1991: USSR, SFR Yugoslavia, Somalia, Sudan, Iraq, Libya, Yemen, Mali, Syria, Palestine, Lebanon - and now Iran is under attack second time since last year. Cuba getting starved even more with brutal sanctions and Venezuela's president kidnapped and its oil stolen.

The Empire still stands. All those I just mentioned are in ruins, if not 100%, the percentage is still high. All of those I just mentioned are, considerably weaker today compared to 35 years ago.

And then you have Afghanistan. Their situation is crappy over the past 35 years anyway. U.S. did its part for 20 years with warfare and keeping the country down at the buttom.

 

[Serb]

Ok, modern history and facts for the past 35 years tells a different story.

All these were smoked more or less since 1991: USSR, SFR Yugoslavia, Somalia, Sudan, Iraq, Libya, Yemen, Mali, Syria, Palestine, Lebanon - and now Iran is under attack second time since last year. Cuba getting starved even more with brutal sanctions and Venezuela's president kidnapped and its oil stolen.

The Empire still stands. All those I just mentioned are in ruins, if not 100%, the percentage is still high. All of those I just mentioned are, considerably weaker today compared to 35 years ago.

And then you have Afghanistan. Their situation is crappy over the past 35 years anyway. U.S. did its part for 20 years with warfare and keeping the country down at the buttom.

I am sure that the late Roman Empire, and every other declining empire in history, was massacring the hell out of some random people, in their periphery, during their twilight years, but this doesn't change the fact that they were all pretty ill inside, and that's what matters the most. What use is this short-term infamy, like kidnapping Maduro or starving Cuba, if you collapse in the next few years? In fact, it might just embolden you to take even more catastrophic steps, like faceplanting into Iran, and expediting your decline, which is what is happening. Iran is stronger than all of those you mentioned combined, barring the USSR. But the USSR was an empire on its own, with its own lifespan and structural weakness compared to the US. And paradoxically, winning the competition with the USSR made the US nuke its own middle class over the coming years and go full parasitic oligarch mode, which set the stage for the current collapse. Also, what new innovations did the US military introduce in these last few decades? Are they stronger or weaker? In fact, they are just a very downscaled version of that same military they used decades ago, in a dynamic, not static world, where nations like Iran, Russia, and China have fully awakened and adapted far better in the meantime. That's why this war in Iran is not the American "Suez moment", but the direct removal of the fundamental blocks on which the US exists on.

 

[Africablack]

Ok, modern history and facts for the past 35 years tells a different story.

All these were smoked more or less since 1991: USSR, SFR Yugoslavia, Somalia, Sudan, Iraq, Libya, Yemen, Mali, Syria, Palestine, Lebanon - and now Iran is under attack second time since last year. Cuba getting starved even more with brutal sanctions and Venezuela's president kidnapped and its oil stolen.

The Empire still stands. All those I just mentioned are in ruins, if not 100%, the percentage is still high. All of those I just mentioned are, considerably weaker today compared to 35 years ago.

And then you have Afghanistan. Their situation is crappy over the past 35 years anyway. U.S. did its part for 20 years with warfare and keeping the country down at the buttom.

You want China to go the same route as the former Soviet Union by spending more and more or defense? As it stands today nobody can outspend the US on defense as long as the dollar remains the world's reserve currency. The US is a declining empire that's simply lashing out, no need to play the game they want you to play.

 

[manqiangrexue]

You're way too optimistic and there is a difference between "wishing" U.S. Empire to collapse versus if it actually ever happens in our lifetime.

The only way to break the Empire is for PRC to spend more on defence than the U.S. That will break them eventually, otherwise, Iran is not "breaking" anything alone by itself.

The problem is, the PRC is not taking responcibility as to what they should spend on defence.

Russia is taking responcibility and spending over 6% of GDP on defence. DPRK has always Boss Level spending about 30% - massive double digits. Pakistan is spending what it can, Algeria is spending about 8% of GDP on defence and bying Russian and Chinese weapons, but the PRC isn't spending that much. PRC can't even bother to spend 4%, not to mention 5%. I can never criticize DPRK, Russia, Algeria etc when it comes to defence as they are doing their part, as they should.

PRC, on the other hand, is almost at the level of Bolivia and Venezuela when it comes to defence spending, and as a superpower in 2026, that is unacceptable low level defence spending.

The U.S. empire that kills without mercy can only be checked by brutality and no mercy in return. It only respect power - and nothing else.
However, underestimating the Empire is a big mistanke. Iran already did a mistake by not getting nukes. But I believe that we are also partially here because PRC defence spending is so low, because PRC should have had more than twice of everything compared to what they have today as of 12th of April 2026.

The point is: when the Empire goes to war, it always counts first what Russia and PRC has, before it decides to rape and destroy one of Russia's and PRC allies or friends.

It is not just about "quality of the weapon", it will always be also about the numbers - quantity. Why, because 1.000.000 drones is always better than 1.000 drones. There is simply no discussing around it. 1 million drones ALWAYS WINS against 1.000 drones - period, the same way 1.000.000 conventional missiles will always win against 1.000 conventional missiles.

The same way 1.000.000 soldiers always wins against 10.000 soldiers. Etc.

Having 1.000.000 bullets is always better than having 10.000 bullets. Etc.

U.S. will always calculate what to do by looking at what other countries have - or don't have. That decides how "tough" the Empire is, or rather how bat shit crazy they can be at any given moment. The fact that the U.S. can be bat shit crazy as they are now in April 2026 is telling everyone clearly that PRC is NOT doing its part in order to checkmate this Imperial monster.

This is a defining moment. Iran is a SCO and BRICS member and if Russia and PRC let Iran fall, it is pretty much over for Russia's backyard, and BRICS along with SCO is a bye bye.

If Trump decide to invade with 50.000 soldiers, he will probably try to push from the north-west (Kurdish Erbil-occupied area of northern Iraq), and push inwards, hoping that once "Peshmerga" sees at least 50.000 Imperial troops ready to go for Epstein, Peshmerga may join and attack Iran to create "Rojhelat". Depending on how many Peshmerga troops may go in, we may be looking at 50.000 Peshmerga as well, so that would bring the number to a total of 100.000 Peshmerga + Imperial with air cover.

In a case of north-west Iran collapsing, even Azeri troops may join Imperial forces and Peshmerga. That would also allow Azeris to completely bypass Armenia as Azeris have a dream to connect Azerbaijan with that Nakhcivan enclave.

That requires some battle around area of Tabriz, and if Iran does lose this area, this is the scenario. The area will be occupied by Peshmerga Rojhelat-wannabe + Imperial troops + a smaller part occupied by Azeris.

And there is always the threat of nuke being used against Iran. That would be totally unacceptable. However you are already doing a "nuke coping" by saying that Iran can "absorb and rebuild quickly".

The U.S. society is sick as it gets, so murdering non-White people somewhere in Asia, in this case, Iran, is totally normal for fascist White Supremacists who dream of a Handmaid's Tale / Project 2025 society in the U.S. whilst being allied with genocide Zios in Israel.

I stopped reading after you called North Korea's 30% military spending "boss level" although I wanted to stop when you said the only way to win is to spend more. In the kindest way possible, you are an imbecile. You have confused spending more with getting more. The actual goal is to get more while spending less for it; anybody can spend more but geniuses expend all they have on how to get more.

The US military budget is set to go to $1.5T because they're desperate, not getting results, and being robbed by things like $50K toilets and $500 screws and this increase is only going to feed that. If China's goal was to spend more, say $1.6T, that is a path to self-destruction the way of the Soviet Union. The more you invest into your non-war economy today, the better is is able to support your military tomorrow. That is why North Korea's 30% means all they have in the end are lots of outdated weapons (but they have nukes so for thier needs, it's fine). This unfortunate 30% is the culmination of being in a desperate situation (immediate need to defend itself against the US), and being too small/resource poor to manage the threat without an extreme committment at the detriment of future development. Although they are actually in a place now where they can reduce it in favor of more development since they are quite safe from American aggression being next to a risen China that the US fears, that 25-30% military spending has become habit so they continue what was a necessity 75 years ago even when it is no longer wise today. China's published military spending is something like 1.X% for a very long time and we kept a minimal deterrence but used as much as we could to grow. Now we fly 6th gen jets while the US, which spends several times what China does on paper and was 1-2 generations ahead of China decades ago, has fallen at least 4 years behind on that front (and likely to fall further behind). Now we have the most efficient and fast missile production in the world while the US has to cancel orders made for 2028 delivery over Iran.

That is how you win, by getting more for much much less and spending intelligently rather than rage-dumping money hoping that will push you ahead. And another thing, there is no reason whatsoever for China to keep its military budget rigid as opposed to fluid depending on developments/need and there is absolutely no reason for China to give an honest number for our enemies to understand; it should be a military secret.

 

[brock]

Potential big opportunity for China to deploy military personal armed with manpads or ships to protect the vessels in Hormuz from US Piracy. If they were to try to capture these ships it can easily lead to a diplomatic incident or even worse an oil spillover.

PD: forgot to add but it's also a good opportunity to make money by making these companies pay for protection

 

[NorthKimBestKim]

You want China to go the same route as the former Soviet Union by spending more and more or defense? As it stands today nobody can outspend the US on defense as long as the dollar remains the world's reserve currency. The US is a declining empire that's simply lashing out, no need to play the game they want you to play.

Spending between 4 and 5% on defence which is still lower than Russia spends today and would be equal to what U.S. spends is not "Soviet Union" level spending. USSR spent 13% or so during 1980s.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Hence, it was NOT the defence spending of 13% that brought USSR down. It was traitors inside. DPRK is spending a lot more than USSR in percentages and DPRK stands and lives. USSR does not. As a matter of fact, DPRK soldiers are battling against NATO-supported troops in the so-called "Ukraine" which is a direct consequence of what traitors did to USSR, because there should not have been "Russia and Ukraine" today - only USSR.

USSR spending 13% of its GDP has nothing to do with the collapse. As I said: DPRK spends almost 30% and still stands.

PRC needs to spend between 4 and 5%. 4% is half of what Algeria spends which is 8% and Algeria still stands.

So 4 to 5% is not something PRC would "collapse over".

USD currency has nothing to do with PPP spending within your own country and PRC does produce its own weapons. So U.S. can be definitely outspent. Stop promoting this idea that "U.S. cannot be outspent".

The "lashing" empire has smoked a lot of countries over the past 35 years that we have now come truly to the point where there are almost no countries left that are able to resist. So you tell me, how does this logically translate itself into "U.S. falling down" as the fact is, U.S. is destroying an increasing number of countries and we have reached a point where no one else can resist.

You do know what happens if Iran falls? Total and massive U.S. and Israel domination in the Middle East. And yet, somehow, you and others want me to believe that "the U.S. empire is at its final moments" despite the fact that Iran has lots of U.S. lapdogs that want Iran dead.

PRC needs to spend more on weapons and research and - of course - expanding production capacity even more so.

We have reached a situation as of April 2026 to the point if you try to count the number of countries that truly resist the Empire, you can count them on one hand. Basically 5 countries at most, maybe 6 if I am generous.
I'm not including countries such as Cuba, Venezuela, Nicaragua, Bolivia, and those kind of countries that Empire can rape whenever Empire wants and there is nothing others can do about it.

I am talking about true resistance, and at best, there are 4 or 5 in a world of 196 or 197 countries.

 

[NorthKimBestKim]

I stopped reading after you called North Korea's 30% military spending "boss level" although I wanted to stop when you said the only way to win is to spend more. In the kindest way possible, you are an imbecile. You have confused spending more with getting more. The actual goal is to get more while spending less for it; anybody can spend more but geniuses expend all they have on how to get more.

Ok, I stopped reading after you started name calling me, so that is OK.

Regarding DPRK, they still stand, and compared to Iran, the DPRK is not getting bombed because DPRK has nukes and ICBMs and is even battling NATO-supported troops in Ukraine, assisting Russia.

Given the fact that DPRK economy is a lot smaller than Iran, I would say that DPRK definitely gets a lot more for their spending than Iran does. People seem to ignore PPP.

If you can build your own weapons, that is the only thing that matters.

I am familiar with all the "golden toilets" the U.S. is spending money on (and other wasteful crap), but the fact is still that the U.S. also has the military it has, so whatever PRC needs to spend to match and surpass whas U.S. has, is what the PRC needs to spend.

If the PRC had more military assets - lets say twice of what PRC has as of now, the U.S. Empire calculus would have been different, as the U.S. would be forced to bring much LESS assets against Iran.

So once again, thanks for name calling. I do know for a fact that what PRC is spending is simply too low. There is no discussion about it when you have an economy that has reached 44 Trillion PPP, along with having the ability to build its own weapons systems.

 

[Puss in Boots]

Spending between 4 and 5% on defence which is still lower than Russia spends today and would be equal to what U.S. spends is not "Soviet Union" level spending. USSR spent 13% or so during 1980s.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Hence, it was NOT the defence spending of 13% that brought USSR down. It was traitors inside. DPRK is spending a lot more than USSR in percentages and DPRK stands and lives. USSR does not. As a matter of fact, DPRK soldiers are battling against NATO-supported troops in the so-called "Ukraine" which is a direct consequence of what traitors did to USSR, because there should not have been "Russia and Ukraine" today - only USSR.

USSR spending 13% of its GDP has nothing to do with the collapse. As I said: DPRK spends almost 30% and still stands.

PRC needs to spend between 4 and 5%. 4% is half of what Algeria spends which is 8% and Algeria still stands.

So 4 to 5% is not something PRC would "collapse over".

USD currency has nothing to do with PPP spending within your own country and PRC does produce its own weapons. So U.S. can be definitely outspent. Stop promoting this idea that "U.S. cannot be outspent".

The "lashing" empire has smoked a lot of countries over the past 35 years that we have now come truly to the point where there are almost no countries left that are able to resist. So you tell me, how does this logically translate itself into "U.S. falling down" as the fact is, U.S. is destroying an increasing number of countries and we have reached a point where no one else can resist.

You do know what happens if Iran falls? Total and massive U.S. and Israel domination in the Middle East. And yet, somehow, you and others want me to believe that "the U.S. empire is at its final moments" despite the fact that Iran has lots of U.S. lapdogs that want Iran dead.

PRC needs to spend more on weapons and research and - of course - expanding production capacity even more so.

We have reached a situation as of April 2026 to the point if you try to count the number of countries that truly resist the Empire, you can count them on one hand. Basically 5 countries at most, maybe 6 if I am generous.
I'm not including countries such as Cuba, Venezuela, Nicaragua, Bolivia, and those kind of countries that Empire can rape whenever Empire wants and there is nothing others can do about it.

I am talking about true resistance, and at best, there are 4 or 5 in a world of 196 or 197 countries.

Your statement is ridiculous.

North Korea's military-first policy was implemented under conditions that severely damaged national development. It's not a sustainable policy; it can only be a temporary measure in extreme external circumstances. Making mindless comparisons between North Korea and other countries is extremely foolish.

If the world were full of countries capable of resisting American aggression, could the United States still be called a global hegemon? Countries capable of resisting American invasion might not have existed when the Soviet Union collapsed, but today there are five or six. Doesn't this change prove that "the United States is about to decline"?

China doesn't need to surpass the United States in military spending. Spending 4%-5% of its budget on military expenditures is unhealthy and foolish. Government spending is only about 20% of total revenue. If you invest a quarter of your budget in the military, then what about education, social security, infrastructure construction, etc.? You're committing suicide!
You want China to follow the Soviet Union's old path. I see no rationality in your discussion, only mindless praise for increasing military spending.

 

[abenomics12345]

Potential big opportunity for China to deploy military personal armed with manpads or ships to protect the vessels in Hormuz from US Piracy. If they were to try to capture these ships it can easily lead to a diplomatic incident or even worse an oil spillover.

PD: forgot to add but it's also a good opportunity to make money by making these companies pay for protection

View attachment 173354

The real boss move is to send the Fujian CSG with 2x 055 and 3x052D to dock in Iran through the American picket line.

 

[Puss in Boots]

The real boss move is to send the Fujian CSG with 2x 055 and 3x052D to dock in Iran through the American picket line.

Placing valuable Chinese assets in the Strait of Hormuz is not a good idea.
What if any of these destroyers were damaged? How would China respond? Would China directly intervene in a war in the Middle East? I think that's not a wise move.
Before making any major decisions, at least think about your escape route, or you'll become another Trump.