The funniest thing about this is how colossally Russia screwed Iran. Iran sent over thousands of drones and dozens of drone pilots for use in Ukraine. No doubt Russia paid for it, but probably not as much as Iran wish they had. 300 extra Shaheds would have made the interception math ugly even last year.
Instead, they send all their inventory north so that Moscow can spend less money to blow up shopping centers and school houses. Meanwhile, the Iranians lose a credible deterrent.
> No doubt Russia paid for it, but probably not as much as Iran wish they had. 300 extra Shaheds would have made the interception math ugly even last year.
> According to leaked documents, the provenance of which are unclear, the Russian military in 2022 paid $1.75 billion in gold bullion for the import of 6,000 Shahed 136 units.[157] These documents state that with near full Russian localization, the projected cost is $48,800 per unit.[158] Based on these documents, Anton Gerashchenko stated the cost of each Shahed 136 was believed to be $193,000 per unit when ordering 6,000 drones and about $290,000 per unit when ordering 2,000.[3]
> In January, the trend toward saturation and even a gradual decrease in the number of launches of Shahed-type UAVs, which had been observed since the beginning of autumn, continued. Specifically, 4442 Shahed-type drones were launched in January, of which 2915 were designated as Shahed/Geran strike drones, and the remaining drones were categorized as decoy drones. This is the lowest figure recorded since the onset of autumn. The mean frequency of Shahed-type UAV launches in January, including decoys, was approximately 143 per day. This figure is lower than the average number of Shahed drone launches during the summer and fall of 2025, which was 175 UAVs per day, with a peak in July, when the average was 203 drones per day (see Fig. 1 and Table 1). Although there were no mass attacks involving 450 or more UAVs per attack in January 2026, as in previous months, January 2026 was notable for the use of large numbers of various types of missiles in combination with strike UAVs against Ukraine's energy infrastructure.
> The funniest thing about this is how colossally Russia screwed Iran. Iran sent over thousands of drones and dozens of drone pilots for use in Ukraine....
> Instead, they send all their inventory north so that Moscow can spend less money to blow up shopping centers and school houses. Meanwhile, the Iranians lose a credible deterrent.
Russia screwed them, but not in the way you describe. It seems like Iran wished Russia had bought more:
> Russia and Iran signed a $1.75 billion deal in 2023 so that Russia could domestically produce Iran's Shahed-136 drones, but two years later, Western security officials say Tehran feels abandoned after Moscow began improving the model and producing it for cheaper, CNN reported on Friday.
> Russia has heavily relied on the Shahed-136 drones in its war on Ukraine, and now has localized nearly 90% of production, much to Iran’s surprise.
> Sources who spoke to CNN said that they believe that this has made Iran feel like it has had little return on the deal after it supported war, leading to a rift between Tehran and Moscow.
> “This evolution marks a gradual loss of control for Iran over the final product, which is now largely manufactured locally and independently,” a Western intelligence source told CNN.
> The source explained that Moscow’s goal was to “fully master the production cycle and free itself from future negotiations with Tehran.”
Those can all be true and it can be true that they shipped a bunch of these north and then had need for them. Last year when they retaliated over the nuclear site bombing they sent about 100-200 weapons at Israel. That wasn’t enough because the name of the game w air defense is saturation or economics. You either send more than they can intercept at once or you eventually send more than they can afford to intercept.
My suspicion is that Russia, the UK, and the US have a multi-hundred year competition going for who can be the worst ally and the US is in a commanding lead. Them Rooskies had to try to catch up.
I know the 1953 coup isn't possible anymore, but like in Lybia, you have resistance from tribes (clans in Iran, but it's basically the same except richer and stronger) in the east and local Kurds in the west that you could have used as a local power to do a Lybia-like immediate revolution. That still ended up terribly with millions of dead and way worse living conditions for everyone, but in the end at least a plan existed for a power transition, and boots on the ground weren't needed.
This feels unplanned and amateurish as fuck. Like the goal is chaos and destruction first, and imperialist country building second at best. And maybe that was the plan all along.
Hopefully it will limit the length of the war, and not just have US/Israel endlessly bomb while Iran fires off what it can randomly at anyone in range.
- Iran is going to run out of things to fire or things they use to fire off (launchers) pretty soon. The number of things they're been firing off has been on a sharp decrease.
- I am pretty sure Israel and the US are very far from depleting their stockpiles. They are going to completely demolish the regime and all its assets. There are many different types of munitions for different situations, many of them interchangeable.
- The only question mark is interceptors where we have a bit of a race between eliminating the ability of Iran to attack and the remaining (very expensive) interceptors. The lack of interceptors is not going to be a limit. Nobody knows for sure but it'd be a surprise if there aren't enough interceptors for both the US and Israel. The US might have some desire to keep some minimal stockpile for other theaters/concerns so maybe that's a concern.
- The US and Israel can not afford to let Iran gain leverage here and they won't.
Israel has taken extreme damage over the past couple of days. Iran hit Tel Aviv with cluster bombs last night. Many buildings destroyed. The Israeli censorship and propaganda can no longer contain the reality of the situation.
I know people that live there. But you believe whatever you want. Those cluster bombs are relatively small. They do minor damage. Nobody was even injured.
All your images are the single missile that got through to Tel Aviv where there was some civilian casualties because the sirens were delayed. Generally there is plenty of warning and bomb shelters. The minor property damage is meaningless and has no impact on Israel overall.
What is hitting Israel this round is lot less than the last round. I saw first hand the damage from the previous round where a lot more missiles got through when I visited Israel. It's still some tiny fraction of what Iran and Hezbollah are getting hit with.
This has zero impact on Israel. But by the time Israel is done with the Dahiye it's going to be a parking lot.
EDIT: Smotrich's son did get injured. He was lightly wounded. Cluster bombs are a) illegal b) totally ineffective other than causing broader property damage. You're live in fantasy land. I suggest visiting Israel after the war is over to see how destroyed it is ... not.
This is all from today, there's much more but it's not on me to do your homework for you. This isn't even going into how every day Israel is more hated by the entire world. The Zionist project has been defeated.
I'm a logical and rational person. Not a fanatic. Whether I minimize or maximize my "country's defeat" makes absolutely no difference. If Israel was defeated I'd have no problem saying that.
Israel is strategically in the best position it's been since its inception. Its economy is doing great and all the threats that have been around it have been decimated. It is a nuclear regional power that has demonstrated that nobody wishing it harm can hide. That's not to say that there aren't challenges but Iran and Hezbollah were the largest [EDIT: remaining] military threat and they're in the process of getting wiped out.
Instead of focusing on how bad Israel is how about look at what it has managed to accomplish in its relatively short time as a state and country. How much innovation. Compare to your "favorite" regimes around that are obsessed with Israel and oppressing their citizenry.
Israel only exists because of US taxpayers like me supporting it. That support no longer exists. Most of the US military facilities built in the Middle East to defend Israel have been destroyed and will not be rebuilt. The reason Israel attacked Iran now is because they know US support for their regime no longer exists. This was the last chance. The US and Israel are currently losing the war against Iran and when that defeat comes, that's the end of the road for Israel.
The US support is a fraction of Israel's budget. Fun fact, the US didn't use to support Israel when it was created. The support started much later.
Israel would do just fine without US support. Israel's enemies without oil and support from China and Russia would just be your typical third world country (I mean they're not far from that anyways).
The US and Israel are so winning against Iran. But hey, let's see. Talk in two weeks. The Iranian people also support Israel and the US by the way.
A by the way is that US facilities in the middle east were not built to "protect Israel" either.
Anyways, I'm not sure if you're interested in a real discussion here or not. I'm happy to have one.
The Iranian people absolutely do not support Israel. I'd show you dozens of videos of thousands of people in the street calling for Israel's destruction, but you said you don't want any more proof that counters your narrative. I assure you Israel needs the US to survive, which is why they are currently using the US military to commit war crimes. The UN created Israel, the UN requires the US to exist. Let's put it this way, now that the entire world hates Israel, it's time is limited. Socially, economically, militarily... it's over.
Once the US achieves complete air superiority(and it will) the bombing runs will switch to B52s and JDAMs which we do have a nearly unlimited supply of.
According to statements from both the US and Israel earlier today that was going to happen over all of Iran in a matter of hours. They have already done that over most of Iran's air space.
Israel/Judaea/Samaria was colonized by Rome, twice (and they were hardly the first, ancient Egypt colonized Israel too, and abandoned it, so did the Babylonians). The first time, for Romans, by Pompei.
Then, where the name comes from: Julius Caesar (yes, that guy) had to come back after the Jews revolted. So he beat them, again, and what did he do? He asked his court what the most insulting name would be for the Jews' land. Palestine was the answer. He then deported 2/3 of the population, creating the Jewish diaspora.
Palestine back then referred to some ruins, ironically once located almost in Gaza (but long destroyed by muslims), left by pirates that lived there that were famous for getting the choice from Rome: either stop attacking Roman vessels or be exterminated to the last man, woman, and child. They chose extermination, and to make matters worse, they attacked 3 Roman vessels and killed the child of ... I forgot, but one of the main Senators, as their way of refusing the Roman offer. Like I said, it's one of the very few places where the Roman chose to exterminate the local population. Not much is known about the actual Palestinians, because muslims destroyed the evidence.
The name was associated in the Roman Empire with violence to the point of stupidity. Violence, in the sense of fighting until death, not out of bravery, but out of shear stupidity, until things end very badly for everyone involved. All of this happened 700 years before islam ever existed.
That name stuck, because muslims merely conquered the Eastern Roman Empire, they didn't really change things, not even the names. The British named it "Mandate Palestine" (which is why, ironically, the eldest road signs in Israel are English + Hebrew, and only the modern state Israel chose to add arabic to the road signs).
The British divided historical Israel into Palestina Transjordan and Palestina. This is why, when Israel became independent, the Jews chose to rename Palestine to Israel. Although when time came for the Soviet Agent Yasser Arafat El-Masri (arabic for "the Wise Egyptian") to choose a name, he picked "Palestinians", no doubt adding further insult to Jews by adopting the name Palestine to steal the identity of the Jews, and to fake history. Because of course, the name "Palestinians" before 1970 or so refers to Jews living in Israel, which is cynically exploited these days by pointing at historical documents pointing out "Palestinians" lived in Israel in, say, 1000AD. True, of course, but they were (majority) Jewish and spoke Hebrew, but yes, that group was then called Palestinians. Or they say that Israeli Politicians had "Palestinian passports" (true, of course, as Britain issued passports in that name, and never is asked or answered why the 1970s Black September/PLO Palestinians, for example Arafat, DID NOT have such a passport ...)
South Africa was indeed settled by Europeans, the Dutch (the difference with colonizing being when the Dutch arrived, there was nobody there, or at least that's what their books say). The islamic empires colonized as far as Zanzibar, but not quite South Africa. They did organize slave raids into South Africa but never conquered it (the reason has to do with how slavery works in islam), in fact fighting Islamic slave raids is why the 2 South African kingdoms (in the mountains, not really close to the Dutch colony) were created.
Vietnam was colonized by Chinese kingdoms at least twice (and abandoned at least twice) before the Europeans arrived.
"Someone else" colonizing a place or culture doesn't negate the effect of further European colonization, nor does it justify it.
Africa, Asia and the Middle East were very obviously colonized by Europeans. The phrase "the sun never sets on the British empire" exists for a reason. Many national borders still exist because of the British Empire. Western civilization rests on a foundation of a thousand years of Christian conquest, rape, slavery and the plunder of far more land and peoples than any Islamic power ever accomplished.
Being particularly precious or indignant about that is just childish. It is what it is.
> Western civilization rests on a foundation of a thousand years of Christian conquest, rape, slavery
Which is not special. So does everything from the Hindu kingdoms, to Chinese piracy, and especially muslim civilization(s). I've actually visited Zanzibar and Australia, seen the worst of "Christian" slavery, and normal islamic slavery (and let's just ignore that the worst slavery happened in the parts of Christian civilization that were trying hard to get rid of Christianity, whereas in the "core" of Christianity slavery was eliminated by 800AD, in fact as I'll point out below, that Christianity did this is a major reason for the creation of islam in the first place). No part of Christian civilization was remotely as bad as islamic slavery. Not even what happened in the Roman Empire with "judicial" slaves if you know what that is. Not even close. They are quite simply not comparable. EVEN Ancient Romans paid slaves that they raped ... a muslim "country" set up slave-rape houses in 2023 (ISIS/islamic state). Nearly all of the women they did that to never got anything, and most are now dead (they massacred them on their way out, like the Nazis). One such girl was bought by and abused in a muslim family and recovered and freed during Israel's war on Gaza. She was 12 when muslims locked her up in a brothel to be constantly raped, and the reason they gave for doing that? The prophet said allah allows them to do that, she was STILL not an adult when she was rescued.
Do you know that islamic holy texts (the hadith) actually contain discussions where early muslims complain that "even in the provinces" (they mean ... of the Eastern Roman Empire) it is becoming hard to buy a slave girl to rape due to Christian missionaries? Along with MANY discussions on using slaves for sex, even including advice on ... let's say, on how to have fun with that. You know one such way to have fun? "Thighing". Let me give you one piece of advice: DO NOT look up what that particular muslim practice is, and why it "is advised" (because kids die from bleeding out if you ...). It is a level of depravity that even serial-killer rapists never sunk to.
Defending islam with colonization and slavery in Christanity is utter lunacy, because for every badly treated slave in Christianity there's 100 in islamic empires. Slaves were treated better (not good, I don't claim that, but far, far better) in Christianity. Sorry but let's put it plainly: when it comes to slavery and inequality, islam really is just the worst of the worst (certainly if you demand a certain size).
And yes, I get it, the US has a history with slavery that you're ashamed of. It's a big part of how the US state formed, and Washington sees eliminating slavery as a big part of the reason they get to exist, and they're ashamed of their part in it, I get it. But that doesn't change reality: every other part of the world, EXCEPT western Europe ever since Christianity came to power, also has a history of slavery, and they basically lie about it. The middle east is not ashamed of slavery, even the US allies, they're trying to bring it back. Just read about how they organized the olympics.
And of course there's the fact that the only reason muslims stopped slavery is because Western Europe and America forced them to, at the point of a gun. If Christians carry guilt for what happened, muslims carry 100x that guilt, and everyone else does too, in various amounts (and generally a lot less than muslims). Christian civilization is not the only one that eliminated slavery, but it is not at all a common thing.
So no, it's not all the same. Christianity has spend millennia eliminating slavery. Christinaity MADE muslims give up slavery, and only under threat of Christian killing of entire muslim states did they give in. Islam has spent it's entire existence, right from the beginning up to today, fighting to bring it back.
"Europeans never actually colonized anything but America." The British colonized India, Australia, Hong Kong, and half the Middle East. France held Indochina, Algeria, and most of West Africa. The Dutch ran Indonesia for 350 years. Belgium's Congo is one of the most documented atrocities in modern history. Portugal colonized Mozambique, Angola, Goa, and Macau.
The Scramble for Africa carved up nearly the entire continent among European states at the Berlin Conference of 1884. That's not obscure history. You can make your point about Iran without pretending none of this happened.
If you look up history more accurately you'll find this isn't true. Or at least, it's not the whole story. Europeans took over India from muslim conquerors. Same with most of the places you mention.
European colonization is the reason slavery stopped in those places. Hong Kong never had slaves, and if you talk with people now they'll be pretty unanimous in that Hong Kong, the colony, was a better place than it is now.
That was what muslims did in Africa, btw, better known as "black gold". Meaning for a millenium all muslim economies were 100% built on exploitation of slaves. And three guesses why it was called "black" gold ...
Oh and it wasn't one state. Muslims massacred their own empires out of existence every 2 centuries or so. But every empire they had was built on slavery. The first ("the propet" was a slaver and a slavetrader. In case you don't know: slaver means he invaded villages and killed people until the rest accepted to become slaves), the last, and every one in between.
Oh and a question: What is Hong Kong now? Because it isn't free. And yet, somehow, it's not called a Chinese colony? Why not? That's what it is, and it's worse than it was as a British colony.
Of course I don’t, it’s just the likeliest outcome. Betting markets are a terrible way to try to predict anything. People are irrational and sometimes irrational people are in power.
If the US doesn’t literally go and take away that enriched uranium it will be used to build a bomb. Nuclear weapons are the only fool-proof insurance against regime change operations.
Instead, they send all their inventory north so that Moscow can spend less money to blow up shopping centers and school houses. Meanwhile, the Iranians lose a credible deterrent.
reply