US and Iran conflict thread. ( merged threads)

holdover said:

Security assurances to Russia were written into thier constitution. Russia made it perfectly clear that NATO forces would not be tolerated in Ukriane . James Baker stated not one inch eastward


in 2014, Ukraine’s parliament voted to abandon its non-aligned status. [1] vowing to turn over the Russian naval bases to NATO


Yes, Ukraine initially declared its intention to be a neutral, non-nuclear, and non-bloc state as it achieved independence from the Soviet Union. This concept was first outlined in the 1990 Declaration of State Sovereignty and later reiterated by Ukrainian leadership during the lead-up to the December 1991 independence referendum.

The original vision for Ukrainian neutrality involved several key facets:

• The 1990 Declaration: Adopted by the Ukrainian parliament in July 1990, it explicitly stated Ukraine’s intent to become "a permanently neutral state that does not participate in military blocs". [1]

• Nuclear Disarmament: As part of this neutral and non-bloc framework, Ukraine agreed to relinquish the world's third-largest nuclear arsenal (inherited from the Soviet Union). This was formalized in the 1994 Budapest Memorandum, where Ukraine joined the Non-Proliferation Treaty as a non-nuclear state in exchange for security assurances from Russia, the US, and the UK. [1, 2]
• Evolution of Policy: Ukraine maintained a "non-block" status for years, but this policy fundamentally changed after Russia's annexation of Crimea and aggression in the Donbas region in 2014. Recognizing that neutrality had not prevented territorial violations, the Ukrainian parliament voted to amend the constitution, establishing membership in the European Union and NATO as core state objectives. [1, 2, 3, 4]

Shift in Policy: After the Russian annexation of Crimea and the invasion of the Donbas in 2014, Ukraine’s parliament voted to abandon its non-aligned status. [1]

2010 Non-Aligned Status: Under President Viktor Yanukovych, Ukraine passed legislation officially codifying this "non-aligned status," explicitly forbidding Ukraine from joining military or political alliances.


Declaration of State Sovereignty of Ukraine, passed on July 1, 1990, which declares that the country has the “intention of becoming a permanently neutral state that does not participate in military blocs and adheres to three nuclear free principles…” (Declaration of State Sovereignty 1990: Art. IX). Furthermore, the Ukrainian Constitution, which bases itself on the Declaration of Independence of August 24, 1991, contains these basic principles of non-coalition and future neutrality.

Declaration of State Sovereignty of Ukraine​

IX. FOREIGN AND HOMELAND SECURITY

The Ukrainian SSR shall have the right to its own Armed Forces.

The Ukrainian SSR shall have its own internal troops and state security bodies, subordinated to the Verkhovna Rada of the Ukrainian SSR.

The Ukrainian SSR shall determine the procedure for performing military service by citizens of the Republic.

Citizens of the Ukrainian SSR shall serve active military obligation, generally, within the territory of the Republic and shall not be employed for military purposes beyond its limits without consent of the Verkhovna Rada of the Ukrainian SSR.

The Ukrainian SSR ceremoniously proclaims its intention to become a permanently neutral state in the future, which will be out of military blocks and will be committed to three non-nuclear principles: not to accept, not to produce and not to acquire the nuclear weapon.

Declaration of State Sovereignty of Ukraine

Declaration; 600 on July 16, 1990 № 55-XII

zakon.rada.gov.ua

Click to expand...

And what did Russia give them in exchange for all of this ?

And how did Ukraine give anyone a Russian naval base ? Or are you talking about bases Ukraine inherited from the collapsed Soviet union ?

Russia isn't the USSR, nor are they it's sole heir no matter how much they wish they were.

Masoud Pezeshkian submitted his official letter of resignation to the Supreme Leader because the Iranian President and the government have been excluded from the decision-making processes and hardline factions within the IRGC have taken control.

Pezeshkian stated that under such circumstances he is unable to run the government or carry out his legal responsibilities, and requests to step down immediately.

2 more weeks

Steal2B said:

View attachment 283653

Masoud Pezeshkian submitted his official letter of resignation to the Supreme Leader because the Iranian President and the government have been excluded from the decision-making processes and hardline factions within the IRGC have taken control.

Pezeshkian stated that under such circumstances he is unable to run the government or carry out his legal responsibilities, and requests to step down immediately.

Iran’s president offers resignation, citing total takeover by IRGC commanders

Iranian President Masoud Pezeshkian has submitted an official letter of resignation to the Office of the Supreme Leader, a source familiar with the matter told Iran International.

www.iranintl.com

Click to expand...

Never saw that one comming.

spat said:

And what did Russia give them in exchange for all of this ?

Click to expand...

All of what? independence from the soviet union ??

the only thing Russia made perfectly clear was that it no way shape or form would it allow NATO on its doorstep . It was a red line that meant war.
This is/was the national foreign policy of Russia , it has been this way since Ukraine independence. it was never a secret .Nato is considered a threat by Russia . agree with it or not thats how they see it. They made this point clear to Ukraine and NATO . Ukraine incorporated a neutrally clause to ease the concerns for Russia .

spat said:

And how did Ukraine give anyone a Russian naval base ? Or are you talking about bases Ukraine inherited from the collapsed Soviet union ?

Click to expand...

Kharkiv Pact​

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

​

In 1997, Russia and Ukraine agreed to end the dispute over the former Soviet Black Sea Fleet by signing the Partition Treaty, establishing two independent national fleets and dividing armaments and bases between them.[9] Ukraine also agreed to lease major parts of its new bases in Sevastopol to the Russian Black Sea Fleet until 2017. During the presidency of Victor Yushchenko (January 2005 – February 2010) the Ukrainian government declared that the lease would not be extended and that the fleet would have to leave Sevastopol by 2017.[10]



Russian President Vladimir Putin used the prospect of NATO taking over the Sevastopol naval base to justify his 2014 annexation of Crimea. In televised remarks in April 2014, he stated that Russia moved to annex the peninsula to prevent Ukraine from joining NATO and to stop "NATO ships [from docking] in Sevastopol". [1]

• The Stated Threat: Putin repeatedly expressed anxiety that if Russia did not act, Ukraine would inevitably be drawn into NATO. He viewed the permanent loss of the historic Black Sea Fleet headquarters in Sevastopol as an unacceptable strategic threat to Russia's geopolitical dominance in the region. [1, 2]

Let me note too that we have already heard declarations from Kiev about Ukraine soon joining NATO. What would this have meant for Crimea and Sevastopol in the future? It would have meant that NATO’s navy would be right there in this city of Russia’s military glory, and this would create not an illusory but a perfectly real threat to the whole of southern Russia. These are things that could have become reality were it not for the choice the Crimean people made, and I want to say thank you to them for this. -Vladimier Putin.

spat said:

And how did Ukraine give anyone a Russian naval base ? Or are you talking about bases Ukraine inherited from the collapsed Soviet union ?

Click to expand...

It never happened, it was discussed. After Ukraine joined NATO you think they would allow a Russian naval base in Sevastopol?

Well the russians didnt think so , and they felt compelled to take the Criema before Ukraine joined NATO which up for a vote in the next few months

holdover said:

All of what? independence from the soviet union ??

the only thing Russia made perfectly clear was that it no way shape or form would it allow NATO on its doorstep . It was a red line that meant war.
This is/was the national foreign policy of Russia , it has been this way since Ukraine independence. it was never a secret .Nato is considered a threat by Russia . agree with it or not thats how they see it. They made this point clear to Ukraine and NATO . Ukraine incorporated a neutrally clause to ease the concerns for Russia .

Kharkiv Pact​

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

​

In 1997, Russia and Ukraine agreed to end the dispute over the former Soviet Black Sea Fleet by signing the Partition Treaty, establishing two independent national fleets and dividing armaments and bases between them.[9] Ukraine also agreed to lease major parts of its new bases in Sevastopol to the Russian Black Sea Fleet until 2017. During the presidency of Victor Yushchenko (January 2005 – February 2010) the Ukrainian government declared that the lease would not be extended and that the fleet would have to leave Sevastopol by 2017.[10]



Russian President Vladimir Putin used the prospect of NATO taking over the Sevastopol naval base to justify his 2014 annexation of Crimea. In televised remarks in April 2014, he stated that Russia moved to annex the peninsula to prevent Ukraine from joining NATO and to stop "NATO ships [from docking] in Sevastopol". [1]

• The Stated Threat: Putin repeatedly expressed anxiety that if Russia did not act, Ukraine would inevitably be drawn into NATO. He viewed the permanent loss of the historic Black Sea Fleet headquarters in Sevastopol as an unacceptable strategic threat to Russia's geopolitical dominance in the region. [1, 2]

Let me note too that we have already heard declarations from Kiev about Ukraine soon joining NATO. What would this have meant for Crimea and Sevastopol in the future? It would have meant that NATO’s navy would be right there in this city of Russia’s military glory, and this would create not an illusory but a perfectly real threat to the whole of southern Russia. These are things that could have become reality were it not for the choice the Crimean people made, and I want to say thank you to them for this. -Vladimier Putin.


It never happened, it was discussed. After Ukraine joined NATO you think they would allow a Russian naval base in Sevastopol?

Well the russians didnt think so , and they felt compelled to take the Criema before Ukraine joined NATO which up for a vote in the next few months

Click to expand...

What you seem to not be able to get through your skull is that Russia drawing a "red line" meant exactly jack shit in that transaction.

They had no right nor power to make any such demands.

It doesn't matter how clear they made it, because it's irrelevant. The Soviet Union was gone and that wasn't going to change. Russia had no more authority to tell Ukraine what they could or could not do that they did Australia.

If they were going to war over it, then go to war. You don't get to whine 30 years later that Ukraine owes you something for not going to war.

Honestly, when this bullshit is all done Ukraine should occupy about 100km into Russia and call that their "buffer zone". They certainly have a better claim to need one than Russia does.

"The US has said it struck Iranian military sites over the weekend while Tehran said it responded by targeting an American base, marking the third known escalations in a week around the Strait of Hormuz."


"The strikes mark the latest exchange between the two sides after negotiations on a deal to end their months-long war failed to advance"

Would like to know what the countries that use Iran oil are doing to help. Perhaps Europe still thinks Iran couldn't hit them with a nuke. Then again why would they when they are already taking over Europe, again.
Humans dumber than a box of rocks.

Bigfoot said:

"The US has said it struck Iranian military sites over the weekend while Tehran said it responded by targeting an American base, marking the third known escalations in a week around the Strait of Hormuz."

US says it struck Iranian radar sites as Iran targets American forces in Kuwait

Iran and the US say they have carried out fresh strikes around the Strait of Hormuz, with Kuwait condemning "repeated" Iranian attacks.

www.bbc.com

"The strikes mark the latest exchange between the two sides after negotiations on a deal to end their months-long war failed to advance"

Click to expand...

This is getting stupid now. We were moving towards peace.
All I know is I don’t know what to believe anymore. I don’t know what Iran wants, what Israel wants, or what the USA wants.
Tell them this is the treaty and then hold them to it. If they don’t then blow them up

Saltwater60 said:

This is getting stupid now. We were moving towards peace.
All I know is I don’t know what to believe anymore. I don’t know what Iran wants, what Israel wants, or what the USA wants.
Tell them this is the treaty and then hold them to it. If they don’t then blow them up

Click to expand...

They have been blowing them up for 3 months now.

Trump says he persuaded Netanyahu to call off Beirut strike, Israeli troops 'turned around'

President Donald Trump said Monday that he persuaded Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to call off striking Beirut, saying the Israeli leader "turned his troops around" after their conversation.

“I had a conversation with Bibi Netanyahu today, asking him not to conduct a major raid on Beirut, Lebanon,” Trump said in a post on Truth Social.

“He turned his troops around. Thank you, Bibi!” he added.

“I also had a conversation with representatives of the leaders of Hezbollah, and they agreed to stop shooting at Israel and its soldiers,” Trump added before stating that “Israel agreed to stop shooting at them. Let’s see how long that lasts. Hopefully, it will be for eternity!” he said.

Trump’s remarks came after Netanyahu said Israel would hit “terror targets” in Beirut if Hezbollah did not stop attacking Israel.

He also shared a post on X stating that the Israeli military would continue operations in southern Lebanon

Steal2B said:

View attachment 283697

Trump says he persuaded Netanyahu to call off Beirut strike, Israeli troops 'turned around'

President Donald Trump said Monday that he persuaded Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to call off striking Beirut, saying the Israeli leader "turned his troops around" after their conversation.

“I had a conversation with Bibi Netanyahu today, asking him not to conduct a major raid on Beirut, Lebanon,” Trump said in a post on Truth Social.

“He turned his troops around. Thank you, Bibi!” he added.

“I also had a conversation with representatives of the leaders of Hezbollah, and they agreed to stop shooting at Israel and its soldiers,” Trump added before stating that “Israel agreed to stop shooting at them. Let’s see how long that lasts. Hopefully, it will be for eternity!” he said.

Trump’s remarks came after Netanyahu said Israel would hit “terror targets” in Beirut if Hezbollah did not stop attacking Israel.

He also shared a post on X stating that the Israeli military would continue operations in southern Lebanon

Click to expand...

This is a problem.

When you prioritize ending the war over winning it, you're destined to fail.

If ending it was the priority, you never should have started.

The priority here should be eliminating Hezzbolah, Hamas, the Houthis, and their masters the IRGC. Kill them all, to the last man, and you can have peace. Anything less is just a vote to continue the status quo in the middle east.

spat said:

This is a problem.

When you prioritize ending the war over winning it, you're destined to fail.

If ending it was the priority, you never should have started.

The priority here should be eliminating Hezzbolah, Hamas, the Houthis, and their masters the IRGC. Kill them all, to the last man, and you can have peace. Anything less is just a vote to continue the status quo in the middle east.

Click to expand...

I don't know, but President Trump I thought, was to get the actual "nato" countries to get off their asses and help themselves plus stop iran.
We should at this point shit or get off the pot. Bomb them, take over, sell the oil under our control to chi-na and Europe, take our "10%" and get the Iran people to help control it's own lands. If not expect war here on our soil.

spat said:

This is a problem.

When you prioritize ending the war over winning it, you're destined to fail.

If ending it was the priority, you never should have started.

The priority here should be eliminating Hezzbolah, Hamas, the Houthis, and their masters the IRGC. Kill them all, to the last man, and you can have peace. Anything less is just a vote to continue the status quo in the middle east.

Click to expand...

I'd argue it's worse than the status quo was before hostilities started.

tirwin1 said:

I'd argue it's worse than the status quo was before hostilities started.

Click to expand...

No, Iran *is* significantly weaker than they were.

And even if this last ceasefire was made permanent tomorrow, you can be sure that whoever's actually in charge is going to keep their head down as long as Trump or another MAGA is in the white house.

spat said:

What you seem to not be able to get through your skull is that Russia drawing a "red line" meant exactly jack shit in that transaction.

They had no right nor power to make any such demands.

Click to expand...

No , now see, there's where your wrong. Russias red line , and power to make such demands was very relevant. Why? Because Russia had the ability and the power to wage war.Russia was telling Ukraine and NATO they were not asking for permission . right wrong or indifferent, makes no difference. Ukarine attempting to join NATO would result in war with Russia, and thats what happened .

Times of Israel:​

Trump said to yell at Netanyahu: ‘You’re f**king crazy. You’d be in prison if not for me’​

Phone call about Lebanon said to see furious US president ‘steamroll’ PM and accuse him of ingratitude, saying, ‘I’m saving your ass. Everybody hates you now. Everybody hates Israel because of this’; source in PM’s office downplays severity of call​

conference at Mar-a-Lago, December 29, 2025, in Palm Beach, Florida. (AP Photo/Alex Brandon)
US President Donald Trump reportedly fumed at Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu during a Monday call, calling the premier “fucking crazy” and telling him that everyone “hates Israel” as he demanded Israel agree to a ceasefire with the Hezbollah terror group.
Axios’s Barak Ravid cited a US official who summarized Trump’s message to Netanyahu as follows: “You’re fucking crazy. You’d be in prison if it weren’t for me. I’m saving your ass. Everybody hates you now. Everybody hates Israel because of this.”
A second source briefed on the call told the outlet that the US president was “pissed” at the prime minister over his ostensible plans for major strikes at Hezbollah targets in Beirut, and at one point yelled at Netanyahu: “What the fuck are you doing?”

Two of the sources also said Trump accused Netanyahu of ingratitude during the call on the escalation in fighting in Lebanon, a conversation that Axios described as “expletive-laden.”

Netanyahu’s office did not respond to the report.


conference at Mar-a-Lago, December 29, 2025, in Palm Beach, Florida. (AP Photo/Alex Brandon)
US President Donald Trump reportedly fumed at Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu during a Monday call, calling the premier “fucking crazy” and telling him that everyone “hates Israel” as he demanded Israel agree to a ceasefire with the Hezbollah terror group.
Axios’s Barak Ravid cited a US official who summarized Trump’s message to Netanyahu as follows: “You’re fucking crazy. You’d be in prison if it weren’t for me. I’m saving your ass. Everybody hates you now. Everybody hates Israel because of this.”
A second source briefed on the call told the outlet that the US president was “pissed” at the prime minister over his ostensible plans for major strikes at Hezbollah targets in Beirut, and at one point yelled at Netanyahu: “What the fuck are you doing?”

Two of the sources also said Trump accused Netanyahu of ingratitude during the call on the escalation in fighting in Lebanon, a conversation that Axios described as “expletive-laden.”

Netanyahu’s office did not respond to the report.

An unnamed Netanyahu staffer on Tuesday denied core aspects of the report, however, including the claim that Trump cursed at Netanyahu and attacked him personally during the exchange, while acknowledging that the call was “tense.”
IDF troops operate in southern Lebanon, in a handout photo published on June 1, 2026. (Israel Defense Forces)
The US officials told Axios that Trump was aware Hezbollah has been firing repeatedly at Israel and recognizes that Jerusalem has a right to respond. Fourteen IDF soldiers have been killed by Hezbollah since the April ceasefire, and Hezbollah has stepped up rocket and drone attacks on northern Israel in recent days. But they said Trump believed the Israel Defense Forces had responded disproportionately in recent days, risking Washington’s efforts to secure a ceasefire extension with Iran, which is conditioning a deal on a truce in Lebanon.
Trump “steamrolled” Netanyahu on the call, one of the US officials told Axios, and “Bibi said, ‘OK, OK, just make sure everything is taken care of.”
Advertisement

US officials were also quoted as saying Trump told Netanyahu that he has kept him out of prison, an apparent reference to Trump’s repeated public demand that Israeli President Isaac Herzog pardon the prime minister, who is in the midst of a lengthy corruption trial.
In a series of posts on Truth Social, Trump wrote that he had a “very productive call with Prime Minister Bibi Netanyahu, of Israel, and there will be no troops going to Beirut, and any troops that are on their way, have already been turned back.”
“He turned his Troops around. Thank you Bibi!” Trump said, describing Israel’s attack plans as “a major raid of Beirut.”

holdover said:

No , now see, there's where your wrong. Russias red line , and power to make such demands was very relevant. Why? Because Russia had the ability and the power to wage war.Russia was telling Ukraine and NATO they were not asking for permission . right wrong or indifferent, makes no difference. Ukarine attempting to join NATO would result in war with Russia, and thats what happened .

Click to expand...

Well, then NATO should tell them to fuck right the hell off.

Because if you're taking a "might makes right" approach, then NATO calls the shots. *all* of the shots.

Russia had the ability to be annoying, not the ability to challenge NATO, and they knew it.

This was right around Desert Storm, when the world found out that Soviet equipment and doctrine was a paper tiger and they would have been folded up like a paper doll if there was a conventional war.

If they went nuclear it would certainly have hurt the west, but it would have been the end of the Russian language. That's how badly they would have fared. Literally it would not be spoken aloud ever again.

spat said:

Well, then NATO should tell them to fuck right the hell off.

Click to expand...

Sure,they can do whatever they want, they dont needs anyones permission

spat said:

Because if you're taking a "might makes right" approach, then NATO calls the shots. *all* of the shots.

Click to expand...

They pretty much did call all of the shots,
short of war. the doors wide open if they want to go there though nobody is stopping them

spat said:

Russia had the ability to be annoying, not the ability to challenge NATO, and they knew it.

Click to expand...

A little more than annoying, but yeah they didnt want a direct confrontation with NATO. they couldnt match them, it would have meant a full nuclear exchange . Again thats why they were forced to act before Ukraine joined NATO and fucked them

All Nato has been doing is trying to consolidate power for a World Government. They are attacking those not under the Rothschild banking cartels control. All wars are bankers wars.

holdover said:

Sure,they can do whatever they want, they dont needs anyones permission


They pretty much did call all of the shots,
short of war. the doors wide open if they want to go there though nobody is stopping them



A little more than annoying, but yeah they didnt want a direct confrontation with NATO. they couldnt match them, it would have meant a full nuclear exchange . Again thats why they were forced to act before Ukraine joined NATO and fucked them

Click to expand...

In another decade or two Russia's nuclear card will be irrelevant. Are they going to launch while they can, or just accept that they aren't a great power anymore ?

spat said:

In another decade or two Russia's nuclear card will be irrelevant. Are they going to launch while they can, or just accept that they aren't a great power anymore ?

Click to expand...

??? I dont understand, why would they launch? They are not a superpower now.

holdover said:

??? I dont understand, why would they launch?

Click to expand...

Because in a few years their nuclear deterrent will cease to exist. Between a national missile defense and a fleet of B21s capable of eliminating the Russian missiles on the ground in a conventional strike, they won't be able to threaten the US with that anymore.

That's a far greater danger to Russian power than NATO in Ukraine.

"Your nukes are useless" is a lot bigger deal than "NATO has ground troops slightly closer than they were before".

Yeah, Im not seeing that though. We have a long long way to before we can intercept hyper sonic missiles . in 20 years it may be that the US is no longer a super power too.

holdover said:

Yeah, Im not seeing that though. We have a long long way to before we can intercept hyper sonic missiles . in 20 years it may be that the US is no longer a super power too.

Click to expand...

We can intercept hypersonic missiles just fine right now.

That's basically what THAAD and SM3 are meant for.

We shoot down satellites with them. Do you know how fast a satellite moves ?

spat said:

We can intercept hypersonic missiles just fine right now.

That's basically what THAAD and SM3 are meant for.

We shoot down satellites with them. Do you know how fast a satellite moves ?

Click to expand...

Intercontinental missiles have flown at hypersonic speeds for decades. The true danger of a modern hypersonic weapon isn't how fast it flies—it’s that it can steer.When you scale it up, it doesnt work,(Right now) A 90% intercept rate would not be good enough to prevent the destruction of the US. say 10% get through , maybe 500 to 1 thousand , some carrying mirvs , mission accomplished . , then you have to consider thr tiny size of Israel to the US , thats one big fat target , the coverage is obviously going to be thinner . unless the system/s are 100% the damage is going to be catastrophic.

While traditional ballistic missiles follow highly predictable, parabolic arcs, modern hypersonic glide vehicles (HGVs) and hypersonic cruise missiles stay lower in the atmosphere and can execute sharp maneuvers at blistering speeds. This combination of speed, low altitude, and maneuverability creates a massive challenge for existing U.S. defense systems.

Systems like THAAD (Terminal High Altitude Area Defense) are arguably the most advanced ballistic missile interceptors in the world. THAAD uses radar to track an incoming missile, calculates exactly where that missile will be in the future, and fires a kinetic interceptor to physically collide with it. The problem is that THAAD's algorithms rely heavily on the target following a predictable path. If a hypersonic glide vehicle suddenly alters its course by several degrees at Mach 10, the THAAD interceptor will simply arrive at an empty patch of sky. Furthermore, THAAD is designed for high-altitude intercepts, while HGVs are specifically designed to surf the upper atmosphere, potentially flying just below THAAD’s optimal engagement zone.

The U.S.-supplied Terminal High Altitude Area Defense (THAAD) system in Israel has demonstrated a mixed combat record against hypersonic and advanced maneuvering threats. While it successfully intercepted an incoming hypersonic ballistic missile in December 2024, the system has struggled against unpredictable, low-altitude hypersonic glide vehicles in subsequent engagements

• Successful Intercept: In late 2024, the THAAD system stationed in Israel successfully intercepted a Palestine-2 medium-range hypersonic missile launched by Houthi rebels in Yemen. This marked a major combat milestone for THAAD’s hit-to-kill kinetic energy technology. [1, 2]
• Operational Challenges: Later engagements have revealed limitations. In 2025, THAAD, along with Israel's Arrow-3 system, experienced failures to neutralize certain advanced hypersonic ballistic missiles. [1, 2]
• Radar and Speed Limitations: Hypersonic glide vehicles (HGVs) travel at speeds between \(Mach \ 5\) and \(Mach \ 20\) and feature flat, unpredictable atmospheric trajectories. THAAD's radar and targeting algorithms—which are primarily optimized for high-altitude, parabolic ballistic threats—can sometimes be confused or outpaced by erratic, low-altitude maneuvers.

CONGRESS JUST VOTED TO END THE IRAN WAR FOUR REPUBLICANS BETRAYED THE PARTY

Nice that we have started WWIII