Iran
Joined: Apr 2001
Aviation Qualifications: ATP+Mil
Posts: 4,918
Likes: 609
From: surfing, watching for sharks
Wonder if there was a betting pool in Tehran whether the US would cough up the money? Guess they figured they squeezed Biden and got a few $$, why not try.
Joined: Aug 2013
Aviation Qualifications: Military (Retired)
Posts: 1,345
Likes: 562
From: Washington.
Thread Starter
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
Joined: Jul 2000
Aviation Qualifications: Spotter
Posts: 24,546
Likes: 7,278
From: Peripatetic
.............
In August last year, a group of Iranian nuclear scientists flew to Moscow, ostensibly as consultants. It was a cover story. The Iranians were traveling on diplomatic service passports, some sequentially numbered and issued on the same day just weeks before the trip took place.
The delegation was closely linked to Iran's SPND, or the Organisation of Defensive Innovation and Research. This secretive military research unit has been described by the US government as “the direct successor organisation to Iran’s pre-2004 nuclear weapons program.”.......
Our full investigation is here, with @MilesMJohnson: https://archive.is/20250805063831/ht...7-cc85933fc3e6
The delegation was closely linked to Iran's SPND, or the Organisation of Defensive Innovation and Research. This secretive military research unit has been described by the US government as “the direct successor organisation to Iran’s pre-2004 nuclear weapons program.”.......
Our full investigation is here, with @MilesMJohnson: https://archive.is/20250805063831/ht...7-cc85933fc3e6
Joined: Jul 2006
Posts: 2,192
Likes: 240
From: The back of beyond
In 2010, Iran also 'asked' the Obama administration for the return of the one Tomcat that was paid for but not delivered after 1979. They weren't successful then either.
Joined: Aug 2009
Aviation Qualifications: Military
Posts: 9,336
Likes: 2,184
From: Texas
OK, this is a piece written with a pessimistic view on the near future. It comes from here. I posted it in full since I'd like those interested to comment on its clarity, and if you think the author got it right. The title is:
I think that there are more options than "stay out or go all in" but I'd rather not see the frittering away of American Air Defense assets on a war that the Israelis don't have to start, but may elect to start.
But that's just one man's opinion.
The Next Israel-Iran War Is Coming
Both countries’ strategic calculus suggests it will be even more violent.
Author: Trita Parsi, the executive vice president of the Quincy Institute for Responsible Statecraft. | August 11, 2025, 11:55 AMBoth countries’ strategic calculus suggests it will be even more violent.
Israel is likely to launch another war with Iran before December—perhaps even as early as late August.
Iran is expecting and preparing for the attack. It played the long game in the first war, pacing its missile attacks as it anticipated a protracted conflict. In the next round, however, Iran is likely to strike decisively from the outset, aiming to dispel any notion that it can be subdued under Israeli military dominance. As a result, the coming war will likely be far bloodier than the first. If U.S. President Donald Trump caves to Israeli pressure again and joins the fight, the United States could face a full-blown war with Iran that will make Iraq look easy by comparison.
Israel’s June war was never solely about Iran’s nuclear program. Rather, it was about shifting the balance of power in the Middle East, with Iranian nuclear capabilities being an important but not decisive factor. For more than two decades, Israel has pushed the United States to take military action against Iran to weaken it and restore a favorable regional balance—one that Israel cannot achieve on its own.
In this context, Israel’s strikes had three main objectives beyond weakening Iran’s nuclear infrastructure.
It sought to draw the United States into direct military conflict with Iran, to decapitate the Iranian regime, and to turn the country into the next Syria or Lebanon—countries that Israel can bomb with impunity and without any U.S. involvement.
Only one of the three goals was realized. What’s more, Trump did not “obliterate” Iran’s nuclear program, nor has it been set back to a point where the issue can be considered resolved.
In other words, with its June attacks, Israel achieved a partial victory at best. Its preferred outcome was for Trump to fully engage, targeting both Iran’s conventional forces and economic infrastructure. But while Trump favors swift, decisive military action, he fears full-scale war. His strategy in attacking Iran’s nuclear facilities was thus designed to limit escalation rather than expand it. In the short term, Trump succeeded—much to Israel’s chagrin—but in the long run, he has allowed Israel to trap him in an escalatory cycle.
His refusal to escalate beyond a limited bombing campaign was a key reason that Israel agreed to a cease-fire. As the war continued, Israel took serious losses: Its air defenses were degraded, and Iran grew more effective at penetrating them with its missiles. While Israel would have likely continued the conflict if the United States had fully committed, the calculus changed once it became clear that Trump’s strikes were one-off.
Israel succeeded in drawing Trump and the United States into the war, but it failed to keep them there.
Israel’s other two objectives, however, were clear failures.
Despite early intelligence successes—such as killing 30 senior commanders and 19 nuclear scientists—it was only able to temporarily disrupt Iranian command and control. Within 18 hours, Iran had replaced most if not all of these commanders and launched a heavy missile barrage, demonstrating its ability to absorb significant losses and still mount a fierce counterattack.
Israel hoped its initial strikes would incite panic within the Iranian regime and hasten its collapse. According to the Washington Post, Mossad agents, fluent in Persian, called senior Iranian officials on their cellphones, threatening to kill them and their families unless they filmed videos denouncing the regime and publicly defecting. More than 20 such calls were made in the war’s early hours, when Iran’s ruling elite was still in shock and reeling from significant losses. Yet there’s no evidence a single Iranian general capitulated to the threats, and the regime’s cohesion remained intact.
Contrary to Israel’s expectations, the killing of senior commanders from the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps did not lead to mass protests or an uprising against the Islamic Republic. Instead, Iranians of all political stripes rallied around the flag, if not the regime itself, as a wave of nationalism surged across the country. Israel could not capitalize on the Iranian regime’s broader unpopularity. After nearly two years of committing atrocities in Gaza and launching a deceptive attack on Iran amid nuclear negotiations, only a small segment of Iranians—mostly in the diaspora—view Israel positively.
The Israeli strikes aren’t about facilities or centrifuges, but regime change. Indeed, instead of mobilizing the population against the regime, Israel managed to give a new lease on life to the Islamic Republic’s narrative. Rather than condemning the regime for investing in a nuclear program, missiles, and a network of allied nonstate actors, many Iranians are now angry that these elements of Iran’s deterrence proved insufficient.
“I used to be one of those who would chant during protests to not send Iranian money to Lebanon or Palestine. But now I understand that the bombs we all face are one and if we don’t have strong defenses across the region, the war comes to us,” an artist in Tehran told Narges Bajoghli, a professor at Johns Hopkins University.
Whether this shift will last is unclear. But in the short term, Israel’s attacks appear to have paradoxically strengthened the Iranian regime—tightening internal cohesion and narrowing the gap between state and society.
Israel also failed to turn Iran into a second Syria and establish sustainable aerial dominance independent of U.S. support. While Israel controlled Iranian airspace during the war, it did not operate with impunity. Iran’s missile response inflicted unsustainable damage.
Without substantial U.S. assistance—including the use of 25 percent of the United States’ THAAD missile interceptors in just 12 days—Israel might have been unable to continue the war.
This makes a new Israeli offensive likely.
Both Defense Minister Israel Katz and military chief of staff Eyal Zamir have signaled as much. The June war was just the first phase, according to Zamir, who added that Israel is “now entering a new chapter” of the conflict.
Regardless of whether Iran resumes uranium enrichment, Israel is determined to deny it time to replenish its missile arsenal, restore air defenses, or deploy improved systems. That logic is central to Israel’s “mowing the grass” strategy: strike preventively and repeatedly to prohibit adversaries from developing capabilities that could challenge Israeli military dominance.
This means that, with Iran already rebuilding its military resources, Israel has an incentive to strike sooner rather than later. What’s more, the political calculus around another attack becomes much more complicated once the United States enters its midterm election season. As a result, a strike could very well take place within the coming months.
This, of course, is the outcome that Iranian leaders want to deter. To dispel any illusion that Israel’s “mowing the grass” strategy works, Iran is likely to strike hard and fast at the outset of the next war.
“If aggression is repeated, we will not hesitate to react in a more decisive manner and in a way that will be IMPOSSIBLE to cover up,” Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi posted on X.
Iranian leaders believe the cost to Israel must be overwhelming, or else it will gradually erode Iran’s missile capabilities and leave the country defenseless.
While the June war ended inconclusively, the outcome of the next one will hinge on which side learned more and acts faster: Can Israel replenish its interceptors faster than Iran can rebuild its launchers and restock its missile arsenal? Does the Mossad still have a deep presence inside Iran, or were most of its assets spent in pursuit of regime collapse during the first war? Has Iran gained more insight into penetrating Israel’s air defenses than Israel has into closing its gaps? For now, neither side can answer these questions with confidence.
It is precisely because Iran cannot be certain that a more forceful response will neutralize Israel’s strategy that it is likely to reassess its nuclear posture—especially now that other pillars of its deterrence, including the so-called Axis of Resistance and nuclear ambiguity, have proven insufficient.
Trump’s response to a second Israeli war with Iran may prove decisive. He appears unwilling to engage in a prolonged conflict. Politically, his initial strikes triggered a civil war within the MAGA movement. Militarily, the 12-day war exposed critical gaps in the United States’ missile stockpile. Both Trump and former U.S. President Joe Biden drained a substantial portion of U.S. air defense interceptors in a region that neither considers vital to core U.S. interests.
Yet by green-lighting the opening salvo, Trump has walked into Israel’s trap—and it’s unclear whether he can find a way out, especially if he clings to zero enrichment as the baseline for a deal with Iran. Limited engagement is likely no longer an option. Trump will have to either fully join the war or sit it out. And staying out requires more than a one-time refusal—it demands sustained resistance to Israeli pressure, something he has so far shown neither the will nor the strength to pull off.
Trita Parsi is the executive vice president of the Quincy Institute for Responsible Statecraft. X: @tparsi
Iran is expecting and preparing for the attack. It played the long game in the first war, pacing its missile attacks as it anticipated a protracted conflict. In the next round, however, Iran is likely to strike decisively from the outset, aiming to dispel any notion that it can be subdued under Israeli military dominance. As a result, the coming war will likely be far bloodier than the first. If U.S. President Donald Trump caves to Israeli pressure again and joins the fight, the United States could face a full-blown war with Iran that will make Iraq look easy by comparison.
Israel’s June war was never solely about Iran’s nuclear program. Rather, it was about shifting the balance of power in the Middle East, with Iranian nuclear capabilities being an important but not decisive factor. For more than two decades, Israel has pushed the United States to take military action against Iran to weaken it and restore a favorable regional balance—one that Israel cannot achieve on its own.
In this context, Israel’s strikes had three main objectives beyond weakening Iran’s nuclear infrastructure.
It sought to draw the United States into direct military conflict with Iran, to decapitate the Iranian regime, and to turn the country into the next Syria or Lebanon—countries that Israel can bomb with impunity and without any U.S. involvement.
Only one of the three goals was realized. What’s more, Trump did not “obliterate” Iran’s nuclear program, nor has it been set back to a point where the issue can be considered resolved.
In other words, with its June attacks, Israel achieved a partial victory at best. Its preferred outcome was for Trump to fully engage, targeting both Iran’s conventional forces and economic infrastructure. But while Trump favors swift, decisive military action, he fears full-scale war. His strategy in attacking Iran’s nuclear facilities was thus designed to limit escalation rather than expand it. In the short term, Trump succeeded—much to Israel’s chagrin—but in the long run, he has allowed Israel to trap him in an escalatory cycle.
His refusal to escalate beyond a limited bombing campaign was a key reason that Israel agreed to a cease-fire. As the war continued, Israel took serious losses: Its air defenses were degraded, and Iran grew more effective at penetrating them with its missiles. While Israel would have likely continued the conflict if the United States had fully committed, the calculus changed once it became clear that Trump’s strikes were one-off.
Israel succeeded in drawing Trump and the United States into the war, but it failed to keep them there.
Israel’s other two objectives, however, were clear failures.
Despite early intelligence successes—such as killing 30 senior commanders and 19 nuclear scientists—it was only able to temporarily disrupt Iranian command and control. Within 18 hours, Iran had replaced most if not all of these commanders and launched a heavy missile barrage, demonstrating its ability to absorb significant losses and still mount a fierce counterattack.
Israel hoped its initial strikes would incite panic within the Iranian regime and hasten its collapse. According to the Washington Post, Mossad agents, fluent in Persian, called senior Iranian officials on their cellphones, threatening to kill them and their families unless they filmed videos denouncing the regime and publicly defecting. More than 20 such calls were made in the war’s early hours, when Iran’s ruling elite was still in shock and reeling from significant losses. Yet there’s no evidence a single Iranian general capitulated to the threats, and the regime’s cohesion remained intact.
Contrary to Israel’s expectations, the killing of senior commanders from the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps did not lead to mass protests or an uprising against the Islamic Republic. Instead, Iranians of all political stripes rallied around the flag, if not the regime itself, as a wave of nationalism surged across the country. Israel could not capitalize on the Iranian regime’s broader unpopularity. After nearly two years of committing atrocities in Gaza and launching a deceptive attack on Iran amid nuclear negotiations, only a small segment of Iranians—mostly in the diaspora—view Israel positively.
The Israeli strikes aren’t about facilities or centrifuges, but regime change. Indeed, instead of mobilizing the population against the regime, Israel managed to give a new lease on life to the Islamic Republic’s narrative. Rather than condemning the regime for investing in a nuclear program, missiles, and a network of allied nonstate actors, many Iranians are now angry that these elements of Iran’s deterrence proved insufficient.
“I used to be one of those who would chant during protests to not send Iranian money to Lebanon or Palestine. But now I understand that the bombs we all face are one and if we don’t have strong defenses across the region, the war comes to us,” an artist in Tehran told Narges Bajoghli, a professor at Johns Hopkins University.
Whether this shift will last is unclear. But in the short term, Israel’s attacks appear to have paradoxically strengthened the Iranian regime—tightening internal cohesion and narrowing the gap between state and society.
Israel also failed to turn Iran into a second Syria and establish sustainable aerial dominance independent of U.S. support. While Israel controlled Iranian airspace during the war, it did not operate with impunity. Iran’s missile response inflicted unsustainable damage.
Without substantial U.S. assistance—including the use of 25 percent of the United States’ THAAD missile interceptors in just 12 days—Israel might have been unable to continue the war.
This makes a new Israeli offensive likely.
Both Defense Minister Israel Katz and military chief of staff Eyal Zamir have signaled as much. The June war was just the first phase, according to Zamir, who added that Israel is “now entering a new chapter” of the conflict.
Regardless of whether Iran resumes uranium enrichment, Israel is determined to deny it time to replenish its missile arsenal, restore air defenses, or deploy improved systems. That logic is central to Israel’s “mowing the grass” strategy: strike preventively and repeatedly to prohibit adversaries from developing capabilities that could challenge Israeli military dominance.
This means that, with Iran already rebuilding its military resources, Israel has an incentive to strike sooner rather than later. What’s more, the political calculus around another attack becomes much more complicated once the United States enters its midterm election season. As a result, a strike could very well take place within the coming months.
This, of course, is the outcome that Iranian leaders want to deter. To dispel any illusion that Israel’s “mowing the grass” strategy works, Iran is likely to strike hard and fast at the outset of the next war.
“If aggression is repeated, we will not hesitate to react in a more decisive manner and in a way that will be IMPOSSIBLE to cover up,” Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi posted on X.
Iranian leaders believe the cost to Israel must be overwhelming, or else it will gradually erode Iran’s missile capabilities and leave the country defenseless.
While the June war ended inconclusively, the outcome of the next one will hinge on which side learned more and acts faster: Can Israel replenish its interceptors faster than Iran can rebuild its launchers and restock its missile arsenal? Does the Mossad still have a deep presence inside Iran, or were most of its assets spent in pursuit of regime collapse during the first war? Has Iran gained more insight into penetrating Israel’s air defenses than Israel has into closing its gaps? For now, neither side can answer these questions with confidence.
It is precisely because Iran cannot be certain that a more forceful response will neutralize Israel’s strategy that it is likely to reassess its nuclear posture—especially now that other pillars of its deterrence, including the so-called Axis of Resistance and nuclear ambiguity, have proven insufficient.
Trump’s response to a second Israeli war with Iran may prove decisive. He appears unwilling to engage in a prolonged conflict. Politically, his initial strikes triggered a civil war within the MAGA movement. Militarily, the 12-day war exposed critical gaps in the United States’ missile stockpile. Both Trump and former U.S. President Joe Biden drained a substantial portion of U.S. air defense interceptors in a region that neither considers vital to core U.S. interests.
Yet by green-lighting the opening salvo, Trump has walked into Israel’s trap—and it’s unclear whether he can find a way out, especially if he clings to zero enrichment as the baseline for a deal with Iran. Limited engagement is likely no longer an option. Trump will have to either fully join the war or sit it out. And staying out requires more than a one-time refusal—it demands sustained resistance to Israeli pressure, something he has so far shown neither the will nor the strength to pull off.
Trita Parsi is the executive vice president of the Quincy Institute for Responsible Statecraft. X: @tparsi
But that's just one man's opinion.
Flashes from the Archives of Oblivion
Joined: Jan 2000
Aviation Qualifications: SLF
Posts: 1,171
Likes: 189
From: 03 ACE
Imagine how much better the world could be if both trump AND netanyahu could be "shifted" in one fell swoop !
I only there was a god !!!
I only there was a god !!!
Joined: Jan 2004
Posts: 5,657
Likes: 500
From: Canada
With respect to US policy it seems we have lurched from one extreme to the other. Bidden got into the classic paralysis by analysis doom loop while Trump's knee jerk reactions invite unintended consequences. A fundamental realignment of the Middle East power structure is inevitable, what it will look like has several possibilities, most of them bad. Interesting times indeed...
Joined: Feb 2022
Posts: 153
Likes: 120
From: USA
Administrator
Joined: Apr 2015
Aviation Qualifications: Military
Posts: 2,969
Likes: 1,611
From: The Gulf Coast
The author makes the assumption, it seems to me, that Iran has been busily re-arming since the dust settled.
I recall something from years ago about "necessary and sufficient" assumptions.
While it would make sense to re-arm, after that 12 day military action, would that not create a 'signature' that is detectable by Western (and Israeli) Intelligence outfits?
(posted as neither mod nor admin).
I recall something from years ago about "necessary and sufficient" assumptions.
While it would make sense to re-arm, after that 12 day military action, would that not create a 'signature' that is detectable by Western (and Israeli) Intelligence outfits?
(posted as neither mod nor admin).
Flashes from the Archives of Oblivion
Joined: Jan 2000
Aviation Qualifications: SLF
Posts: 1,171
Likes: 189
From: 03 ACE
Joined: Aug 2013
Aviation Qualifications: Military (Retired)
Posts: 1,345
Likes: 562
From: Washington.
With respect to US policy it seems we have lurched from one extreme to the other. Bidden got into the classic paralysis by analysis doom loop while Trump's knee jerk reactions invite unintended consequences. A fundamental realignment of the Middle East power structure is inevitable, what it will look like has several possibilities, most of them bad. Interesting times indeed...
Joined: Jul 2013
Aviation Qualifications: Non-Aircrew
Posts: 5,677
Likes: 3,334
From: Everett, WA
The author makes the assumption, it seems to me, that Iran has been busily re-arming since the dust settled.
I recall something from years ago about "necessary and sufficient" assumptions.
While it would make sense to re-arm, after that 12 day military action, would that not create a 'signature' that is detectable by Western (and Israeli) Intelligence outfits?
(posted as neither mod nor admin).
I recall something from years ago about "necessary and sufficient" assumptions.
While it would make sense to re-arm, after that 12 day military action, would that not create a 'signature' that is detectable by Western (and Israeli) Intelligence outfits?
(posted as neither mod nor admin).
A couple of months before the '12 day war', Israel responded to an Iranian attack by an air attack that pretty much emasculating Iran's air defenses - and it would appear that little of that had been restored before the latest unpleasantries.
Besides, where are they going to get replacements? It's not like Russia has a huge surplus available for export now days...
Administrator
Joined: Apr 2015
Aviation Qualifications: Military
Posts: 2,969
Likes: 1,611
From: The Gulf Coast
Joined: Jul 2013
Aviation Qualifications: Non-Aircrew
Posts: 5,677
Likes: 3,334
From: Everett, WA
Joined: Oct 2009
Aviation Qualifications: Military (Retired)
Posts: 796
Likes: 168
From: Land of Oz
Joined: Aug 2009
Aviation Qualifications: Military
Posts: 9,336
Likes: 2,184
From: Texas
Here's a brilliant move: mess with the Aussies. (From FP, 26 Aug, 2025 short article)
Let's go out of the way to stir up ill will, for (???) gain.
Australia severed diplomatic ties with Iran on Tuesday after Canberra’s spy agency found that Tehran had orchestrated at least two antisemitic attacks in the country. According to the Australian Security Intelligence Organization, the Iranian government backed an arson attack on the Lewis Continental Kitchen, a kosher food company in Sydney, in October 2024 and one on Melbourne’s Adass Israel Synagogue two months later. The latter attack injured one congregant.
“These were extraordinary and dangerous acts of aggression orchestrated by a foreign nation on Australian soil,” Australian Prime Minister Anthony Albanese said. “They were attempts to undermine social cohesion and sow discord in our community. It is totally unacceptable.”
Australia’s spy agency concluded that Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) directed people in the country to commit these crimes, “including people who are criminals and members of organized crime gangs to do their bidding or direct their bidding,” said agency chief Mike Burgess. Police have already arrested at least one suspect tied to the Sydney fire and two individuals accused of torching the Melbourne temple.
In response to the spy agency’s findings, Albanese ordered the expulsion of Iranian Ambassador to Australia Ahmad Sadeghi within the next seven days. This is the first time that Canberra has expelled an ambassador since World War II.
In addition, Albanese closed the Australian Embassy in Tehran and withdrew Australian diplomats posted in the country as well as urged all Australian citizens in Iran to “strongly consider leaving as soon as possible, if it is safe to do so,” warning that they are “at a high risk of arbitrary detention or arrest.” Australian Foreign Minister Penny Wong has said that Canberra plans to keep some diplomatic channels open to advance Australia’s interests in the country.
Albanese also said he plans to push for legislation that would designate the IRGC as a terrorist organization. Canberra has previously resisted calls to do so because of the IRGC’s role as a government entity. However, several of Australia’s allies have already deemed the IRGC a terrorist group, including the United States and Canada.
Iran denied Australia’s allegations, with Tehran’s Foreign Ministry saying that antisemitism has no place in Iranian culture. The ministry suggested that Canberra’s decision was “influenced by internal developments,” including recent widespread protests across Australia in support of Palestinians. Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi went further, calling Albanese a “weak politician” in a post on X and saying, “Iran is paying the price for the Australian people’s support for Palestine.”
Iran also vowed a “reciprocal reaction” to Australia’s diplomatic moves, though it is unclear what that may look like.
“These were extraordinary and dangerous acts of aggression orchestrated by a foreign nation on Australian soil,” Australian Prime Minister Anthony Albanese said. “They were attempts to undermine social cohesion and sow discord in our community. It is totally unacceptable.”
Australia’s spy agency concluded that Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) directed people in the country to commit these crimes, “including people who are criminals and members of organized crime gangs to do their bidding or direct their bidding,” said agency chief Mike Burgess. Police have already arrested at least one suspect tied to the Sydney fire and two individuals accused of torching the Melbourne temple.
In response to the spy agency’s findings, Albanese ordered the expulsion of Iranian Ambassador to Australia Ahmad Sadeghi within the next seven days. This is the first time that Canberra has expelled an ambassador since World War II.
In addition, Albanese closed the Australian Embassy in Tehran and withdrew Australian diplomats posted in the country as well as urged all Australian citizens in Iran to “strongly consider leaving as soon as possible, if it is safe to do so,” warning that they are “at a high risk of arbitrary detention or arrest.” Australian Foreign Minister Penny Wong has said that Canberra plans to keep some diplomatic channels open to advance Australia’s interests in the country.
Albanese also said he plans to push for legislation that would designate the IRGC as a terrorist organization. Canberra has previously resisted calls to do so because of the IRGC’s role as a government entity. However, several of Australia’s allies have already deemed the IRGC a terrorist group, including the United States and Canada.
Iran denied Australia’s allegations, with Tehran’s Foreign Ministry saying that antisemitism has no place in Iranian culture. The ministry suggested that Canberra’s decision was “influenced by internal developments,” including recent widespread protests across Australia in support of Palestinians. Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi went further, calling Albanese a “weak politician” in a post on X and saying, “Iran is paying the price for the Australian people’s support for Palestine.”
Iran also vowed a “reciprocal reaction” to Australia’s diplomatic moves, though it is unclear what that may look like.