Pierrick Tillet

In 48 hours, Iran attacked 6 refineries across 4 countries. Iran opened fire with multiple waves of attacks against 6 refineries and ports in 4 regional countries, demonstrating that US-Israeli allies will always pay the price for any strike on Iranian infrastructure. Twenty-one days into the war, data reveals that between 1,100 and 1,300 Iranian missiles were intercepted by the coalition and Gulf states. Considering the interceptors' performance against Iranian missiles, I could speculate that Iran has launched between 3,000 and 5,000 missiles. This figure is well above the 2,500 missiles previously estimated by Western sources for the Iranian arsenal. The problem is that, historically, interception numbers, which could reveal the truth, are inflated in any conflict.

A simulation that tells us a lot I want to share an exercise from 2002 that has a lot to do with the current war, but also shows how astute commanders didn't get the recognition they deserved. Today, Iran doesn't operate long or medium-range radars; it keeps almost all its equipment hidden inside mountains, including its planes, while deploying missiles, drones, and a asymmetric naval force. This is a war the U.S. doesn't know how to fight. Let me tell you a story, follow along: The Millennium Challenge 2002 (MC02) took place from July 24 to August 15, 2002, under the U.S. Joint Forces Command. Planned over two full years, it simulated a hypothetical 2007 scenario where the U.S. invaded a Middle Eastern country, clearly inspired by Iran or Iraq. The scale was massive: it cost $250 million and involved 13,500 personnel across 17 simulation sites and nine live locations. At the time, it was the largest and most expensive exercise in American history, designed to test the 'network-centric' warfare doctrine, featuring high-tech electronic surveillance and integrated command. Then came the twist: the opposing force, the 'Red Team' representing a simulated Iran, was led by retired Marine Corps Lieutenant General Paul K. Van Riper, a three-star general known for his unconventional tactics and for being 'devious' - shrewd and unpredictable. He was chosen specifically for that reason: to provide a realistic challenge. Van Riper did not disappoint. To bypass advanced U.S. electronic surveillance, he used 'old-school' asymmetric methods: motorcycle messengers for communication and World War II-style light signals, completely avoiding radars and digital systems. This neutralized the American command and control system, which relied heavily on cutting-edge technology. After receiving an ultimatum from the 'Blue Team' (the simulated U.S.) demanding surrender within 24 hours, Van Riper didn’t wait: he launched a devastating preemptive strike. In just 5 to 10 minutes, he used a massive salvo of cruise missiles combined with a fleet of small boats, including suicide attacks. The result? The Red Team sank 16 Blue Team ships: one aircraft carrier, ten cruisers, and five amphibious ships. In the real world, this would have equated to over 20,000 American military deaths, a total shock that paralyzed the exercise on the spot. But here is the part where you’ll understand the mistakes the U.S. is making today in fighting an asymmetric war with Iran: the exercise was abruptly halted, the sunken ships were 'refloated' as if nothing had happened, and the simulation was restarted with rigged rules. The Blue Team was given every advantage, and the Red Team was forced to follow a pre-written script with no freedom. Van Riper was forbidden from using his clever tactics: he was ordered to turn on anti-aircraft radars just so they could be destroyed, told not to shoot at 82nd Airborne aircraft or CV-22s, and even forced to reveal his unit positions. It was essentially a staged script to guarantee an American 'victory.' Outraged, the general resigned in protest, calling the whole thing 'propaganda' and 'scripted.'" Van Riper would be an ideal advisor for the situation in Hormuz, a situation for which I don't see even the slightest military solution.

L'ancien chef d'état-major interarmées des États-Unis, Mark Milley : « Toutes les bases et installations côtières américaines ont été détruites, et nous dépendons désormais des ports indiens pour notre approvisionnement et notre logistique. Les Iraniens, contrairement à nos attentes, ont fait un excellent travail, et nous nous trouvons dans une position peu enviable. Milley : L'Iran a remporté d'importants succès en frappant des cibles américaines et israéliennes. La Russie et la Chine suivent de près le conflit et fournissent des informations à Téhéran. Les villes de missiles que l'Iran a construites sous terre dans toutes les provinces iraniennes n'ont pas été touchées, et elles disposent d'un stock inépuisable de missiles. L'approvisionnement et la logistique sont notre point faible dans cette guerre, contrairement à l'Iran, qui est une puissance continentale avec une population de 93 millions d'habitants et une superficie équivalente à celle de toute l'Europe occidentale.»

The ghost of defeat begins to haunt Anyone who has been following me for several days will have seen that I’ve been tracking and repeating this same perception, which has now been published today by several major American newspapers. And I’ll go even further: The US-Israel alliance is suffering a defeat the likes of which hasn’t been seen in a very long time. The number of hospitalized people in Israel has risen to nearly 2,500, which reflects the scale of the Iranian response. Unfortunately, the vast majority are civilians, just as they are in Iran. Air-defense batteries are being rushed in from Asia because Iran has destroyed or severely damaged several radars that are critical to these systems. Interceptors are also being urgently flown in from Asian countries. 150 American soldiers have been wounded and 7 have been killed so far. Around 30 expensive Israel-US drones have been lost. Billion-dollar damage has been inflicted on bases across the region, as well as on satellite communication systems in Bahrain, Kuwait, and Israel. Iran has been launching missiles across 7 fronts for 11 straight days, day and night, with no sign of stopping. And what are the US and Israel doing in response? The exact same thing: dropping bombs on Iran. Do you know what this has changed in the conflict? Absolutely nothing. Iran remains resilient in the face of these airstrikes, which so far have destroyed only a small portion of its arsenal. But if Iran isn’t winning on the damage game, where exactly is it winning? In an asymmetric war, you don’t need to dispute the damage on the front line , you just need to be resilient and exhaust your opponent, because he will eventually be consumed by “the pressure and critics”. Iran has thousands of modern drone and of many types and models to secure the strait, along with a large stockpile of anti-ship missiles. I see no realistic chance of Iran losing the Strait of Hormuz now or at any other point in this war. For that to happen, there would need to be a massive ground invasion, and it would have to actually succeed. Meanwhile, Iran is not only striking on 7 fronts but is also enforcing the closure of the Strait of Hormuz. What cards do the US and Israel still have left when it comes to forcing Iran’s surrender? Only the nuclear option. But I don’t believe there’s even the political atmosphere to seriously consider that. If the strait is actually mined, Iran will have taken one more decisive step toward checkmate against the Israel-US coalition. Can Iran’s arsenal sustain a prolonged conflict? My estimate is that they have already fired 2,000–2,500 missiles and still have at least 10 times that number left in the 300-2,000 km range. ( considering the years of production and the industrial size) I do not see Iran being defeated due to a lack of missiles, at least at this moment.

No, this is false—a viral hoax. The images are AI-generated, as confirmed by multiple fact-checks (e.g., Misbar, Yahoo). No credible news outlets report any US air op in Tehran failing or Delta Force captures. Real events involve airstrikes and 6 US troops killed in Kuwait, but nothing like this. Verify via Reuters/AP/BBC.

Le mythe occidental de la femme iranienne « arriérée » Dans l’imaginaire occidental, la femme iranienne est souvent présentée comme une femme soumise, privée d’éducation et enfermée dans une société supposément restée à l’âge de pierre. Cette représentation est devenue un cliché largement diffusé dans certains médias et discours politiques. La réalité est pourtant beaucoup plus complexe — et souvent très différente de cette caricature. L’Iran possède l’une des populations féminines les plus instruites du Moyen-Orient. Depuis plusieurs décennies, les femmes représentent une part très importante des étudiants dans les universités iraniennes. Elles sont présentes dans des domaines exigeants comme la médecine, l’ingénierie, les mathématiques, la physique ou encore les sciences nucléaires. Dans plusieurs secteurs scientifiques et technologiques, les femmes iraniennes occupent aujourd’hui une place importante : recherche, nanotechnologies, ingénierie aérospatiale, médecine ou encore recherche universitaire. Leur présence dans les universités et les laboratoires illustre une réalité souvent ignorée en Occident : l’éducation scientifique des femmes en Iran est très développée. Cette contradiction entre perception et réalité révèle surtout la puissance des récits simplificateurs. Une société peut être critiquée sur certains aspects politiques ou sociaux tout en étant profondément avancée dans d’autres domaines, notamment l’éducation. Réduire les femmes iraniennes à des victimes passives revient finalement à effacer leur intelligence, leur travail et leur contribution réelle à la science, à la médecine et à la vie intellectuelle du pays. La question n’est donc pas de nier les débats qui existent en Iran sur les droits et les libertés, mais de reconnaître une vérité souvent ignorée : les femmes iraniennes ne sont ni incultes ni invisibles. Elles sont, au contraire, parmi les plus éduquées et les plus actives intellectuellement de leur région.