I think the article downplays the element that the attack probably achieved its goal which was not to actually hit something at Diego Garcia, but to show that thing 2500 miles from Iran are potentially targetable by Iran. That starts conversations like the one here and in other fora about whether or not Iran would limit themselves to military targets (Russia doesn't as an example) and if not how could Europe and its East Asian allies protect literally everything with their finite supply of defensive units.
Except it would be very weird goal to achieve because it's only give more reasons to bomb whole country into oblivion and justify deployment of ground troops.
I don't know which country you're from, but in most countries, "our troops may get bombed if we join this war" is a very strong public argument against joining the war.
Just look at Trump's latest attempt to enlist his "allies" into sending warships to the Strait of Hormuz, and what a resounding success it was.
Not really. Because no one in Europe wants to bomb Iran into oblivion, if for no other reason but the fact that the Europeans (and Turkey) would face another massive refugee crisis.
The only people wanting to continue this war are the U.S. and Israel (and maybe Saudi Arabia?) and even Trump is clearly looking for an off ramp.
This is most likely a way for Iran to tell Europe to do what they can to end this otherwise they will drag Europe into this mess as well.
Europe to do what to stop the war? EU cant even stop war on their own borders. And we seen what Trump buddies think about EU in their leaked Signal chat.
Also it's not like EU and UK actually have any military capacity to bomb Iran even if they wanted because again everything they do have is going to Ukraine already.
US intelligence had assessed that this was possible a long time ago. It was one of the motivations behind the installation of long-range missile defense capabilities in Poland and Czechia in the late 2000s. Obama killed that program to appease Russia.
Of course, there is a significant gap between Iran possessing the capability, having the temperament to use it, and actually doing so.
> * This seems to reveal previously-unknown range of Iranian ballistic missiles and, if true, could touch basically all of Europe?
The Wikipedia article has said they had missiles that can range 4300km since 2019 (as in the article was updated in 2019) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Shahab-5&oldid=91... . If Wikipedia has known about it for 7 years, surely military planners were already aware.
It's a message toward the west don't think you're safe further away. Iran is pushing the west out of west Asia. Time will tell what USIS and EU will do to combat this.
Anyone thinking they can talk their way into controlling Iran, a fundamentalist fanatic country with a very loud and visible doctrine literally calling to destroy the west, is delusional. The western "avoid conflict at all cost" approach is extremely detrimental.
I don't think they had any reason to destroy us until trump decided to kick the hornet's nest. In fact they were quite reasonable and agreed to inspections of their nuclear programme which is also something Trump broke before, and now with his petty war.
I mean they hate Israel way more than us and they never attacked them either (until this war obviously). And regime change was already happening there slowly. They would have become more moderate, the public opinion inside Iran was more and more against them especially since what they did to the protesters.
This war was unnecessary and only cemented the regime's hold on their people by giving them an external enemy.
> Anyone thinking they can talk their way into controlling Iran, a fundamentalist fanatic country with a very loud and visible doctrine literally calling to destroy the west, is delusional
> This seems to reveal previously-unknown range of Iranian ballistic missiles and, if true, could touch basically all of Europe
True but they have also literally launched multiple orbital satellites from iran on iranian rockets. Eg. The Noor 2 spy satellite and before that the Noor 1 series https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noor_2_(satellite)
These are in orbit to this day. They regularly post images it takes of US military bases. Essentially it’s similar to how sputnik was a demonstration of icbm capability. Iran can launch a first generation ICBM right now. Pointless if they use a conventional payload (too small payload to be cost effective militarily) and a non manoeuvrable warhead (would just be intercepted) and so these aren’t used militarily but essentially everyone acting shocked they can hit 4000km range was not paying attention.
I think one of the problems we are having right now is that we have leaders who actively believed the downplaying of Irans military capabilities. It’s one thing for the common civilian to think the enemies missiles are made of cardboard and tanks of paper but it’s another when the leader of a nation believes it. Now here we are with a war that’s stalemated and no way out.
> we have leaders who actively believed the downplaying of Irans military capabilities
Iran has done precisely nothing unexpected in the entire course of this war. Closing Hormuz has been mooted since the 70s. And its IRBM stockpile has been known. This is more a case of something between political leaders and possibly the media being ignorant of even open-source intelligence.
Probably by the Sea Viper system from a destroyer parked in the Dover Strait. Now, the UK probably doesn't have enough interceptors or destroyers carrying them to be confident they'll be able to stop a proper all out attack, but that seems to be a common problem with every Western country right now with a peacetime military budget in an increasingly unpeaceful time.
A missile would need to fly all the way over Europe before reaching London. It would be noticed, jets would be scrambled and it would be shot. Just like what happened here.
These were ballistic missiles. They are only vulnerable during the terminal phase, when they are moving at hypersonic speeds. Standard fighter jets aren't going to do it. It would take ground based THAAD, Patriot, or ship based Aegis systems. London might want to budget for that.
The downplaying of Iran’s capabilities is a weird kind of racism IMHO. In the modern view, Iranians have been categorized as “brown” so people lump them together with Somalians and Afghans. But Iran is a technologically and politically sophisticated country. In terms of the Civ tech tree, it’s higher than any middle eastern country except Israel.
> Pointless if they use a conventional payload (too small payload to be cost effective militarily)
Iran's missiles are used as a terror weapon against civilian population, which is hardly what anyone would consider the optimal use of a rather expensive ballistic missile.
No reason (apart for already proven suicidal tendencies) not to fire one on New York just for the terror value
> Iran's missiles are used as a terror weapon against civilian population
Classic. An advanced tech US missile hits a school and kills 200 schoolgirls? "A tragic mistake, it happens in war". A much less advanced Iranian rocket hits a building? "Terrorists! They point their weapons at civilians!"
Since Iran was attacked and it has a right to defend itself, we should give it more precise weapons so it can hit directly the military headquarters in central Tel Aviv.
Intent is literally the difference in terrorism though. The US hitting 500 targets in Iran and one of them being a school is the exact opposite of a strategy of terrorism. With terrorism you explicitly target civilians to drive fear.
Trying to hit the Burj Khalifa without targeting any military or high political office is terrorism.
When Iran launched at military bases or tried to shoot at planes, it was not called terrorism.
Its a mystery how "the terrorists" have launched 1000's of missiles & drones, in 70+ (and counting) waves, across 3 weeks, spanning across the region, and yet they have ABJECTLY FAILED to:
* hit any hospital
* blow up any school
* nor murder any journalists.
Yet, despite this stunning lack of accuracy from ... "the terrorists", they have somehow managed to hit EVERYTHING ELSE they were aiming at.
On the other hand, the "West", who are absolutely NOT terrorists, have managed to blow up schools, slaughter hundreds and hundreds of school children, smash multiple hospitals, take out as many health workers & first responders as possible with double tap strikes ...
and let's not even mention the number of journalists deliberately targeted & killed, nor the families of journalists, deliberately targeted & killed
And to answer the "but they killed 25 million of their own civilians just weeks ago", it would be almost churlish to point out that the MASSIVE pro-Iran public sentiments expressed by ALL sectors of Iranian society would, to a logically thinking person, lead one to conclude that perhaps, just perhaps, the media campaign behind those riots was just pushing a complete LIE. Because those reports don't fit in a reality where, under direct bombardment and personal risk, those same civilians are supporting their state, their government & their leadership.
As always, the simplest explanations which fit observable facts are usually closest to the actual truth. And the simplest explanation is that the "definitely NOT terroristic" West has been lying about Iran, consistantly, for decades.
Either that, or the Mango Mussolini is the new Oracle of Delphi.
Iran literally hit a preschool in Israel today, with an MRV which is solely designed to terrorize the population (and is a war crime btw). Plus a 12 year old is in critical condition alongside 40 civilians from a single Iranian missile hitting a residential building later today. And in June Iran hit a hospital in Israel with a ballistic missile.
> Its a mystery...
Not a mystery, though, is it? Israel has excellent air defense which is why the damage isn't x10 worse. But Iran is definitely making a huge effort to hit the civilian population for maximum damage.
Unlike Iran which is literally aiming statistical weapons at population centers, the US has high accuracy weapons - the school was hit because intelligence wasn't up to date (it used be an IRGC building).
Your comment is absolutely misinformed, or worse, spreading disinformation on purpose.
Those were mostly UAVs, you can see the abysmal aiming ability in Israel, where they have largely stopped aiming at facilities and moved to cluster warheads to maximize civilian hit ratio in large metropolis
Their regime is made up of hardline Shia Twelvers that believe that if they kill enough people the Twelfth Imam will appear and lead them to global victory.
Only problem is the Twelfth Imam has been dead for a thousand years.
They may not be stupid, but they consistently act based on counterfactual beliefs.
Hardly, after attacking all their friends in the region, which would leave them even more isolated after the war, I would not attribute careful strategic planning either
It’s pretty fucking stupid. Convening the top brass above ground, failing to scatter the navy, bombing Azerbaijan and Qatar and Oman. I’m not saying the individual actors are dumb. But the result of the competing centers of power between the IRGC, military proper, clerical establishment and god knows who else produces a stupid strategy.
> This wouldn't be another 9/11, it would be merely be retaliation
The Japanese and Al Qaeda framed their attacks defensively. An attack on the homeland is an attack on the homeland. I wouldn’t put it past Iran. But you’d rapidly see political consensus to ensure the regime is destroyed at all costs, including and up to leaving a power vacuum and humanitarian crisis.
the war is wildly unpopular in the US (rightfully so) - attacking US would rally the country (rightfully so) and regime would fall within a week (with significant casulties on our side)
I disagree heavily with them too but that doesn't mean we should eradicate them. We can't expect the whole world population to be aligned.
But once we start shooting they will obviously shoot back and we're many steps further away from the desired "agree to disagree and live together anyway" outcome that is the only way to peace.
first, what does it matter whether they are Muslims or not? second, what is the structure of reality?! you may have some notion you know what “reality” is given what your media allows you to think - the actual reality is vastly different than you think it is - that is a certainty
> is that we have leaders who actively believed the downplaying of Irans military capabilities
We've been hinting about these capabilities for decades [0]. A lot of what is being brought up now is stuff a number of us touched on during the Obama years.
None of this is really hidden either - it would be brought up in think tanks and even undergrad classes if you attended a target program.
Civilian leaders have always had a hands-off approach to Defense and NatSec policy - once you show them how close to a polycrisis everything is they quickly defer responsibility. It's actually pretty similar to working in a corporate environment - it's all about managing upwards.
It still does/is. Most of what I'm seeing with Iran is similar to what was discussed back in the early 2010s.
There hasn't been significant churn in the NatSec space aside from political appointees, and core policymakers like Doshi, Maestro, Allison, Colby, and even Hill have worked with administrations irrespective of party affiliation.
Why does it matter if they have some capabilities to hit whatever targets in Europe or America? They’re not crazy, it would still be suicide for them to do it. It would just give them leverage, which I can’t think of a fair reason to prevent them from having.
Obviously they have boats. The question is, do they still have boats which are capable of serving as a launch platform for ballistic missiles? And could those boats meaningfully close the distance between Iran and its adversaries.
This launch demonstrates that if the answer to both of those questions is still no, they can still place them at threat.
There's a reason most regional powers also invested in a space program as well as a civilian uncles program. The name of the game is dual-use technologies.
The Biden admin also warned about Iran-NK collaboration on building these kinds of capabilities [0]
Accusing Iran of "lashing out" and being "reckless" by attacking US bases while the US and Israel literally murder school children, bomb hospitals and assassinate state leaders is rich.
It didn't have to be this way but they decided this to turn into a fight of survival for Iran and destroy any option for a peaceful resolution. Now they are going to pay the price.
Strategically, it makes no sense to corner and threaten people. Murdering their own citizens shows the degree to which they'll go to preserve their power. If anything, that's a reason to slowly bleed them instead of cornering and escalating.
The evil of your enemy does not excuse your own strategic stupidity or cruelty.
You're being disingenuous - the "protestor" was caught on camera literally hacking a policeman to pieces. He murdered a policeman, and will now be executed.
Can you back this with linking the said videos and maybe some info on legal proceedings of the fair trial in which this person was convicted? I’m curious.
Well some civilians have been injured when Iran attacked the hotels where US agents were stationed. Mostly due to them being foreign workers and well we all know how Dubai and the Saudis treat foreign workers. They were not allowed evacuate in time.
Of course it will be hard to completely avoid civilian casualties in the long run, I fear but yeah Iran has been pretty measured. Iran's fight is with the US imperialists and Israel and not the people that live in the region.
The mullahs and IRGC are not famous for their compassion or kind-heartedness.
They are infamous for fulminating against liberals, plotting to kill enemies, torturing and hanging dissidents from cranes, persecuting minorities and women, funding terror cells, and fleecing their citizens to enrich themselves.
Many of the comments here suffer from a misguided refusal to be impressed by the regime's reputation, as though anyone the American establishment criticises must automatically be righteous.
They attacked a hospital during the 12 day war. They attacked a school today but it was evacuated due to the early warning system. They attack civilian targets indiscriminately using cluster warheads, in violation of international law.
I can’t be an apologist for what’s going on but the Iranians seemed capable of killing tens of thousands of their own citizens in order to quash an uprising against the regime only weeks before the current events.
Thousands, not tens of thousands. Which is bad enough so it seems silly to lie about this but whoever can make up the biggest number seems to favored by the Western narrative.
And let us not act like the decades of sanction were not designed to do exactly this. Sanctions mean you create as much hardships as possible for the people in hope they topple their government. They nearly never work but here we are.
> Contrary to popular belief, economic sanctions are ineffective in fulfilling their objectives. Historical observations from Russia to Cuba and Iran reveal that the more sanctions are designed to pressure the ruling class, the harder ordinary citizens are hit. Leaders often perceive sanctions as a means to enhance nationalism, portraying the United States and its allies as hostile. In many instances, such actions have only strengthened their hold on power while stifling dissent internally.
As for the protests, the truth is also that these were not peaceful protests. Mossads agents had been arming people and instructing them to riot. Hundreds of police offers have been murdered and mosques have been burned down. Mossad agents have been instructed to fire at protestors to increase the death toll.
Yes, there has been valid criticism and unhappiness with the government. But most of these people had been protesting for economic reasons. They didn't want to see their country invaded.
Today many of the people that had protested in January are joining the mass demonstrations in favor of the Islamic Republic. The war has united the Iranians.
> Hundreds of people died when security forces sought to crush the demonstrations, along with dozens of members of the police and Basij militia. Iranian intelligence operatives internally concluded that some of the violence was being encouraged and facilitated by Israeli operatives, according to the sources. “Foreign actors linked to Israeli intelligence services had, over time, established contact—through various social media platforms and under diverse cover identities—with a significant number of Iranian citizens, particularly young people,” the Iranian intelligence official alleged. These Israeli handlers, he said, “encouraged and incentivized the performance of specific tasks through a combination of financial and non-financial rewards, as well as the provision of material support, including small arms and other equipment.”
> “Foreign actors are arming the protesters in Iran with live firearms, which is the reason for the hundreds of regime personnel killed,” wrote Tamir Morag, the diplomatic correspondent for Israel’s Channel 14, during the uprising. “Everyone is free to guess who is behind it.” Morag and his network are well known for their close ties to Netanyahu.
You also find the some information in a Israeli Newspaper:
> On December 29, what is dubbed the Mossad X/Twitter account in Farsi encouraged Iranians to protest against the Iranian regime, telling them that it is literally physically with them at the demonstrations.
> “Go out together into the streets. The time has come,” the Mossad wrote. “We are with you,” it added. “Not only from a distance and verbally. We are with you in the field.”
[...]
> Foreign actors had armed Iranians to help them fight against the regime’s forces being used to crack down on and oppress protesters, Channel 14’s Tamir Morag reported Tuesday. Iran’s foreign minister retweeted the report for his own agenda.
In a war where Israel and US are literally bombing the hell out of Iran, fewer people have been killed than those two days of massacre.
All according to the numbers confirmed by Iranian government.
God, the moral depravity of defending the IRGC and islamic regime is mind boggling. You can still be against Mossad and what they do in Iran while holding the islamic regime accountable for its own atrocities.
I really is ridiculous, and somehow the number only gets bigger as the stories are told! Last I saw was "40,000 protestors murdered in just 24 hours!", or something very close to it.
The US and Israel have been carpet bombing Iran for weeks now, blowing up hospitals, schools, power plants and residential buildings, yet the Iranian death toll is "only" around 1,500 so far. Yet we are to believe that Iran killed 40k of its own people in a day - you would literally be able to see piles of corpses from space!
Israel has also claimed that they've hacked every traffic camera in Tehran, yet are mysteriously unable to provide any actual evidence of the supposed massacre - meanwhile, Iran released several videos showing foreign agitators distributing weapons, people attacking civilians etc.
No they haven't. The US started phasing out carpet bombing[0] half a century ago. You discredit yourself by making such trivially falsifiable assertions.
The US and Israel use precision strikes. It is why the ratio of targets per sortie is by far the highest ever recorded in a major conflict.
While I somewhat agree, you should also look at the results of those precision strikes. Usually, when they kill a senior Iranian officer sleeping in his appartment, they level the building or at lest blow up several adjacent units, probably killing at last 10 innocent people.
Look at the videos coming out of Iran - civilian infrastructure and residences are clearly being targeted. Some unexploded bombs have been found that lack a JDAM guidance package.
And regardless of the USA, Israel is most certainly not above carpet bombing civilians.
You are vilifying an entire country and it's high time we acknowledge this is wrong. Israel does not set out to carpet bomb civilians. If it did, the numbers would have been insane; same goes for the US.
> Accusing Iran of "lashing out" and being "reckless"
I think it’s more that these attacks are counterproductive to Iran’s state goals, which reveals that we’re seeing a hardline faction in Iran use the war as cover for consolidating power.
Unfortunately it's we who will pay the price, with "we" being the entire world, considering the destruction of a lot of oil production infrastructure will cause a price hike for everything.
Well China is still getting Iranian oil no problem.
We in the West, well we are aiding the US in this war by allowing it to operate from military bases in our countries. We deserve it for looking the other way while Israel has been mass murdering Palestinians for more than two years now.
At least Spain showed some guts.
Of course it will also potentially cause suffering in the global south but that is on those that started the war.
The attacks against Kharg Island were relatively limited as even the US wanted to avoid that level of escalation. The war has been painful but Iran could rebuild, if you destroyed Kharg island it would take decades to rebuild the Iranian economy, that would be a complete scorched earth point of no return.
Maybe there have been further attacks today that I missed but if true that would be an huge escalation.
My last information was that China has no problem getting oil but that was like two days ago.
To me this is like the Doolittle Raid on Tokyo during WWII. The tactical result isn't important, the range of the strike is, and that it happened at all. Japan thought it was immune from air attack on the home islands in 1942, and the raid shocked them.
Iran is showing the world (especially Europe), that it's more vulnerable than it thinks. Europe has more skin in the game than just the price of oil and nitrogen. Also think about what would happen if Iran is able to recreate something like the Cuban missile crisis now that we've moved a bunch of our military assets to the middle east.
Strategically, it seems like a dumb move. Right now, Congress is unlikely to approve Trump’s request for $200B to fund the war effort. But if Americans can be convinced that Iran could somehow hit American cities, they would call their members of Congress in a heartbeat and that money would presumably flow without interruption.
Why time the medium range missiles now? It seems like yet another own-goal for this desperate and poorly coordinated regime.
Iran repeatedly stated that they will not attack any country's assets if they do not assist the US/Israel. Most European countries have refused to take part, the UK decided to help so this seems like a very easy situation to have avoided.
> Iran repeatedly stated that they will not attack any country's assets if they do not assist the US/Israel
They’ve been doing this across the region. Some of this looks like individual commanders taking strategic decisions into their own hands. But it’s absolutely false that neutrality has protected anyone in the region.
> It is understood the attempted air strike occurred before the UK agreed to let the US use British military bases to hit Iranian sites targeting shipping through the Strait of Hormuz.
I don't think the article you linked disagrees with what I've quoted from the BBC, does it? Aircraft being present at the airbase isn't the same as aircraft launching for an attack from the airbase.
Unfortunately this is more interesting than a failed Diego Garcia attack — the late Ayatollah had a self-imposed range limit on the strikes or tests they would carry out. By using IRBMs in this fashion, it’s clear the new regime no longer feels bound by that restriction..
Which is notable since it’s about the same distance from Southern Iran to Diego Garcia (3,800km) as it is from Northern Iran to London.
They had a religious ruling on the range, and they also had a religious ruling on "not creating an atomic bomb."
The question of whether the world can assume its security on some religious rulings of some Ayatollas is still standing, as these rulings can apparently be changed or bypassed.
This "religious ruling" stuff is less interesting than it sounds. To begin with, while the Islamic Republic of Iran is a totalitarian state, the Twelver Shia hierarchy isn't unified. The supposed ban on nuclear weapons was Khamenei's, and binding only on his followers. But there are several other marja (marjas? marji?), with significant followings even in the security state & IRGC (al-Sistani being a good example).
More importantly, it's pretty clear that the geopolitical rulings are, well, geopolitical in nature. Iran is a nuclear threshold state; its strategy is to come as close to the breakout line as it can and extract concessions for not crossing it. The supposed nuclear fatwa is just public relations strategy. At the point Iran decided the cost/benefit/risk/reward of crossing the threshold made sense, it would be updated.
I agree with you, mostly. My read is that Twelver Shi’ism is not a unified hierarchy, and a marja’s fatwa normally binds that marja’s own followers rather than all Shi’a, so your institutional point is broadly right.[1][2] It is too strong, though, to say the anti-nuclear position was simply “invented for PR”: Khamenei did publicly describe it as a real fatwa.[3] At the same time, Iran’s enrichment posture _does_ fit the description of a threshold state, with large stocks of uranium enriched to 60%, so it is fair to say the ruling also had strategic and diplomatic value.[4]
The parts I would soften are the specific claim about Sistani having a significant following inside the IRGC, which MIGHT be true but is much harder to substantiate publicly (although, maybe you have some behind-the-scenes knowledge?), and the certainty of motive. Still, your last sentence is basically right: these rulings are not _immutable_. After Ali Khamenei’s death, Iran’s foreign minister said (quoting the Reuters article), “fatwas depend on the Islamic jurist issuing them,” and added he was “not yet in a position to judge the jurisprudential or political views of Mojtaba Khamenei…” This reinforces the point that doctrine can shift if the leadership chooses.[5]
[1] Encyclopaedia Britannica, “Twelver Shi’ah.”
[2] Al-Islam.org, “Question 49: Difference between hukm and fatwa.”
[3] Leader.ir, “Ayatollah Khamenei in the Eid al-Fitr congregational prayers” and “Leader’s remarks on anti-Iran sanctions and Yemen aggressions by Saudi Arabia.”
[4] Arms Control Association, “The Status of Iran’s Nuclear Program,” and ACA analysis citing the IAEA’s 440.9 kg figure.
[5] Reuters, “Iran says nuclear doctrine unlikely to change, Hormuz Strait needs new protocol” (March 18, 2026).
But that has nothing to do with this war. Like, nothing at all. Israel doing genocode in gaza and what seems like ethnical cleansing of lebanon does not have anyyhing with that either. USA threatening Greenland is also not a factor in this war.
Donald Trump does not care about protesters in Iran. His idea of regime change is "keep the regime and change head for someone who will pay me personally".
And Hegseth does not care either. He is proving his manhood.
And Israel have completely different goals, so.
It is not like Saudi were democrats. They have cut that journalist into pieces. They are violent dictatorship on their own right.
There are lots of countries doing just the same but the West does not give a flying fuck about it. Most of the human rights violations they care about somehow related to countries that happened to have oil.
And if you tell me that US /Israel are bombing Iran to protect rights of oppressed then I have that wonderful bridge.
These were chemical weapons found in Iraq, the reason the new york times was interested in the story was the fact that ISIS has somehow developed chemical weapons using Iraq's existing infrastructure.
This means there were active facilities, materials and know how even after the war
Iran has always said a lot of things (mostly BS). This is worthless without evidence and I don't think anyone had evidence that their missiles were restricted to 2,000km. Certainly, I don't think anyone took their word for it. In fact this attack proves that there was no such limitation (although it is unclear to me if the missiles fired could actually jave reached Diego Garcia).
Now this may be a demonstration and veiled threat, on the other hand if Iran was to fire a missile at continental Europe I would hope that the consequence for them would be to be flattened, so...
You didn't have to take their word for it. It was self-evident from the fact they never did anything like this before, and now they are.
Notably, the previous guy issued a religious decree against the development of nuclear weapons. Despite American's favorite propaganda tool for manufacturing consent, "but the WMDs", we have no reason to believe that was ever actually being violated. But you'd better believe it will be now if they think they can pull it off.
There is a difference between not doing something and being unable to do something. Clearly there were able but only showed it now and their previous claim was BS (again, assuming those missiles did fly "far").
No-one believes that Iran is not pursuing nuclear weapons, either... or that they wouldn't if they had developed the capability.
Like what is happening now, completely decimating their army, navy, and air force. If that isn't enough, destroy their only source of revenue (oil fields), or go even further and destroy their electrical grid and send the country back to the stone age.
Finally, if the regime does not surrender after all this, a nuke could still be used.
> On the other hand if Iran was to fire a missile at continental Europe I would hope that the consequence for them would be to be flattened
Iran have been attacking uninvolved NATO member Turkey for a while now and nothing happens. The USA is already fully engaged into this war while Europe can hardly deal together with Russia, it is doubtful they'd do anything even if it rained down on their territory
Attacking as in a couple of rockets heading US bases which were intercepted. Of course nothing would happen, why would Turkey (or other European countries) join this pointless war?
This is an attack on Turkish territory regardless if there's a US base, and Iranian missiles usually miss the bases anyway.
Turkey is led by a strongman leader and these are very sensitive to acts of public humiliation. So that's unwise when thinking about any negligible strategic advantage they may gain from these attacks
What incentive would Iran have to lie? Their entire security model revolves around believable deterrence—apparently far more believable than either Israel or the US understood.
considering that there were already provocations about "unsuccessful attacks on Turkey", I have doubts that this attack was also Iran's
the "notable distance/unexpectedly high range" quoted everywhere seems like a nice war justification: "see, they do have rockets that can threaten us!"
The fact that it was unsuccessful does not make it any less worrying. Iran was a regional problem before the war, but this new escalation shows they’re a threat to the entire world. They might have previously had a chance at a Vietnam or perhaps a Korea-style stalemate
The IRGC is fighting for survival, most Iranian want them gone, and Iran will be better as a whole if the IRGC is all dead. Don't try to conflate the government with the country, they don't always align.
This is simply not true. I'm Iranian and I wish it were but IRGC has more support than you think. There is at least 30-40% of the population who support it and within those, more than half will gladly die for the regime.
My home country has more than 90M people and 40% of that equates for millions of supporters.
From the outside, you are only hearing the diaspora talking points, which don't realistically represent Iran. Many of them have grievances with the regime, or have been exiled after the Shah.
Iran is a complex country and it's hard for outsiders to grasp it, mainly because the censorship happening on both sides.
I personally think this war was a major mistake, no Iranian is going to cheer for US or Israel after watching their children being killed by them. The west was doing a good job exporting liberal ideas to Iran slowly over the past 3 decades. Some of those were starting to drip into the country, but this war undid all that effort.
If anything, the attack on Iran has increased their support.
US and Israel don't give two fucks for the people of Iran. If they did they wouldn't have been under such crippling sanctions.
Irani people want to control their own destiny, not as a vassal of US-Israel backed power.
Iran's best bet I think is to negotiate with the IRGC to earn reforms. I suspect that if IRGC doesn't feel so threatened they might even get them.
There's a lot of commentary here along the lines that Iran is now a threat to Europe. Yes the capability might exist but it is not in Iran's interest and have never shown such interest or ambition. India certainly has missiles that can reach parts of Europe, capability does not signal intent.
US and UK have screwed the relation up by organising coup, scuttling democratic processes, downing domestic passenger jet without apology, setting Saddam Hussein and his chemical weapons at them and the economically ravaging them with sanctions.
As for nukes, with Israel and undeclared nuclear power right next door, it's a very reasonable ask for any country that wants to control its own destiny. In fact had it had one, the current conflict would not have happened.
Most Iranians do not want the IRGC gone, that's US/Israeli propaganda. Thousands of people have been marching in support of the IRGC. Common sense would also tell you that Iranians aren't going to support the people bombing their schools.
> Iran will be better as a whole if the IRGC is all dead
Which is an impossibility. We're talking about a military force of more than a million religiously fervent men that have martyrdom as a core tenet of their religion. They are not going anywhere, and assasinating their leaders and bombing their bases will not make them easier to enforce anything on.
Many people that protested against the government in January are now marching in support of the Islamic Republic and demand that the imperialists are punished. Most of them have protested for economic reasons, they don't want to see their country destroyed and their children murdered by bombs.
Iran is more united than ever because of the imperialist war. That is what you get when you turn state leaders into martyrs.
There’s only so many decades you can say “death to America, death to Israel” and fund proxies against them until they say enough is enough and deal with the baiting once and for all.
And those "proxies" are not "against" America or Israel - they exist solely as resistance groups that counter Israeli aggression, ethic cleansing, land theft etc. You know, like Israel is doing right now in their stated aim of annexing South Lebanon, after displacing over a million people from their homes. Without Israeli aggression and land theft, these resistance groups wouldn't exist.
> those "proxies" are not "against" America or Israel - they exist solely as resistance groups that counter Israeli aggression, ethic cleansing, land theft etc.
They explicitly call for the destruction of Israel.
Or maybe you could ask yourself why people chant this. Maybe people don't fancy your mass murder of their Palestinian brothers and sisters. Maybe Iran didn't appreciate the US supporting Saddam Hussein to fight a war against Iran where he used chemical weapons against the population.
The might be a reason the whole region hates Israel and the US. Just saying.
Or maybe you could ask yourself why most of the rest of the region allows the US to have military bases on their soil, and why they are so concerned about protecting themselves against Iran.
The "whole region" fears Iran more than they hate the US, judged by their behavior.
The whole point of that noise is to put NATO + Japanese military in the Straits of Hormuz so that Israel and the US can continue to attack Iran with impunity. Any effort by Iran to shut the Straits in response to further attacks will hit some "innocent" party and drag them into the conflict.
It's basically bait for WW3, and luckily so far the EU particularly are not biting.
As NATO has thus far neglected to get involved, this seems like an incredibly dumb move by Iran. Making Europe feel threatened will not turn things in their favor.
Iran did the same before the conflict in response to prior Israeli attacks - the two drone waves they sent that were intercepted were both demonstrations of capability, not actual attacks.
Unfortunately I’m not sure their current audience is gonna pick up the implied threat.
It's also a bit unreasonable to launch live munitions that have some 90% probability of being intercepted by a given system on a good day, while intending for "just a warning"
It’s more like if David and Goliath are in a standoff
David takes a small rock and whips it at a sensitive spot on Goliath’s ankles that most people don’t know about (Diego Garcia)
David knows Goliath will probably dodge it, and most likely kick it away given it’s importance, but there’s a point being made by shooting: if it hits then that’s a win, but if gets knocked down it’s a warning that they know where they need to hit for it to hurt
> This isn’t a random act and its quite the signal if you know what it means, Iran knows what it did here.
It also publicizes Iran-NK military cooperation on ballistics development, which the Biden admin warned about [0], as well as Iran-Russia military cooperation (which was obviously much less under-the-radar).
It also shows the merger of the Ukraine conflict with the West Asia conflict, and was a major reason why Fiona Hill argued we entered an unavoidable polycrisis in 2022 [1].
The reason people left North Korea alone while they were building nuclear weapons is because they weren't arming 5 terrorist proxies and they didn't have a doomsday countdown clock in their capital city.
True, Kim Jong Un is actually pretty chill, just likes testing some nukes towards Japan as a hobby. Are people genuinely retarded? Or is it the severe Israel bias?
According to postwar foreign policy clearly that’s true:
Look at Libya and Ukraine for your most direct examples - give away your nukes, get invaded. South Africa is an odd example that proves the rule: they simply bend the knee to the west.
Nuclear deterrents and mutual assured destruction has been the key driver in preventing large scale conflict in the “postwar period.”
Everyone knows Israel has nukes it’s just a matter of when they can get enough public support to use them
Mutually assured destruction does seem to deter conflict, but even assuming it works, it always seemed like a poor tradeoff to me.
Significantly reduce the frequency of small to medium-scale conflicts, in exchange for an inevitable, possibly apocalyptic nuclear conflict at some point. Maybe not this year, maybe not for centuries, but one day, someone will press the button.
The article kind of downplays the most interesting elements. Not an expert, but to my limited understanding:
* I think this is the longest-range use of a ballistic missile in anger, possibly ever?
* This seems to reveal previously-unknown range of Iranian ballistic missiles and, if true, could touch basically all of Europe?
I think the article downplays the element that the attack probably achieved its goal which was not to actually hit something at Diego Garcia, but to show that thing 2500 miles from Iran are potentially targetable by Iran. That starts conversations like the one here and in other fora about whether or not Iran would limit themselves to military targets (Russia doesn't as an example) and if not how could Europe and its East Asian allies protect literally everything with their finite supply of defensive units.
> to show that thing 2500 miles from Iran are potentially targetable
Iran has had IRBMs for some time. Demonstration doesn’t hurt. But demonstrating failure doesn’t particularly help either.
Except it would be very weird goal to achieve because it's only give more reasons to bomb whole country into oblivion and justify deployment of ground troops.
[delayed]
There is probably a hardline faction within Iran that still thinks it gains from further bombing and forced isolation.
Yep. The IRGC runs the country at this point, and they do not have anyone else's best interests in mind.
I don't know which country you're from, but in most countries, "our troops may get bombed if we join this war" is a very strong public argument against joining the war.
Just look at Trump's latest attempt to enlist his "allies" into sending warships to the Strait of Hormuz, and what a resounding success it was.
Not really. Because no one in Europe wants to bomb Iran into oblivion, if for no other reason but the fact that the Europeans (and Turkey) would face another massive refugee crisis.
The only people wanting to continue this war are the U.S. and Israel (and maybe Saudi Arabia?) and even Trump is clearly looking for an off ramp.
This is most likely a way for Iran to tell Europe to do what they can to end this otherwise they will drag Europe into this mess as well.
Europe to do what to stop the war? EU cant even stop war on their own borders. And we seen what Trump buddies think about EU in their leaked Signal chat.
Also it's not like EU and UK actually have any military capacity to bomb Iran even if they wanted because again everything they do have is going to Ukraine already.
US intelligence had assessed that this was possible a long time ago. It was one of the motivations behind the installation of long-range missile defense capabilities in Poland and Czechia in the late 2000s. Obama killed that program to appease Russia.
Of course, there is a significant gap between Iran possessing the capability, having the temperament to use it, and actually doing so.
> * This seems to reveal previously-unknown range of Iranian ballistic missiles and, if true, could touch basically all of Europe?
The Wikipedia article has said they had missiles that can range 4300km since 2019 (as in the article was updated in 2019) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Shahab-5&oldid=91... . If Wikipedia has known about it for 7 years, surely military planners were already aware.
It's a message toward the west don't think you're safe further away. Iran is pushing the west out of west Asia. Time will tell what USIS and EU will do to combat this.
> Time will tell what USIS and EU will do to combat this.
Diplomacy was working fine, per high-ranking diplomats: https://www.economist.com/by-invitation/2026/03/18/americas-...
Mandy Rice-Davies Applies.
“Taxi cab drivers say taxi industry is great, Uber is bad.”
Yes, war is bad. Unless you're from the Complex. No big insight here, Mr. Rayiner.
Anyone thinking they can talk their way into controlling Iran, a fundamentalist fanatic country with a very loud and visible doctrine literally calling to destroy the west, is delusional. The western "avoid conflict at all cost" approach is extremely detrimental.
> Iran, a fundamentalist fanatic country
United States, a fundamentalist fanatic country: https://bsky.app/profile/gregsargent.bsky.social/post/3mhgag...
I don't think they had any reason to destroy us until trump decided to kick the hornet's nest. In fact they were quite reasonable and agreed to inspections of their nuclear programme which is also something Trump broke before, and now with his petty war.
I mean they hate Israel way more than us and they never attacked them either (until this war obviously). And regime change was already happening there slowly. They would have become more moderate, the public opinion inside Iran was more and more against them especially since what they did to the protesters.
This war was unnecessary and only cemented the regime's hold on their people by giving them an external enemy.
> Anyone thinking they can talk their way into controlling Iran, a fundamentalist fanatic country with a very loud and visible doctrine literally calling to destroy the west, is delusional
Yeah, what's it about peoples of the third world that they're always fanatical, that they're always out to destroy the first world... https://theconversation.com/orientalism-edward-saids-groundb... / https://archive.vn/HoEk5
Once you simply kill all the leaders, there is no one left to negotiate with.
Iran is also oddly moderate from the region (beyond the whole death to America thing).
> This seems to reveal previously-unknown range of Iranian ballistic missiles and, if true, could touch basically all of Europe
True but they have also literally launched multiple orbital satellites from iran on iranian rockets. Eg. The Noor 2 spy satellite and before that the Noor 1 series https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noor_2_(satellite)
These are in orbit to this day. They regularly post images it takes of US military bases. Essentially it’s similar to how sputnik was a demonstration of icbm capability. Iran can launch a first generation ICBM right now. Pointless if they use a conventional payload (too small payload to be cost effective militarily) and a non manoeuvrable warhead (would just be intercepted) and so these aren’t used militarily but essentially everyone acting shocked they can hit 4000km range was not paying attention.
I think one of the problems we are having right now is that we have leaders who actively believed the downplaying of Irans military capabilities. It’s one thing for the common civilian to think the enemies missiles are made of cardboard and tanks of paper but it’s another when the leader of a nation believes it. Now here we are with a war that’s stalemated and no way out.
> we have leaders who actively believed the downplaying of Irans military capabilities
Iran has done precisely nothing unexpected in the entire course of this war. Closing Hormuz has been mooted since the 70s. And its IRBM stockpile has been known. This is more a case of something between political leaders and possibly the media being ignorant of even open-source intelligence.
[delayed]
> a non manoeuvrable warhead (would just be intercepted)
Intercepted? In the UK, by what? London has no missile defence system that I am aware of.
Probably by the Sea Viper system from a destroyer parked in the Dover Strait. Now, the UK probably doesn't have enough interceptors or destroyers carrying them to be confident they'll be able to stop a proper all out attack, but that seems to be a common problem with every Western country right now with a peacetime military budget in an increasingly unpeaceful time.
A missile would need to fly all the way over Europe before reaching London. It would be noticed, jets would be scrambled and it would be shot. Just like what happened here.
These were ballistic missiles. They are only vulnerable during the terminal phase, when they are moving at hypersonic speeds. Standard fighter jets aren't going to do it. It would take ground based THAAD, Patriot, or ship based Aegis systems. London might want to budget for that.
or take (less) of these https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SAMP/T 8^)
> I think one of the problems we are having right now is that we have leaders who actively believed the downplaying of Irans military capabilities.
Was that the problem?
The US handling of the situation seems the elephant in the room.
The downplaying of Iran’s capabilities is a weird kind of racism IMHO. In the modern view, Iranians have been categorized as “brown” so people lump them together with Somalians and Afghans. But Iran is a technologically and politically sophisticated country. In terms of the Civ tech tree, it’s higher than any middle eastern country except Israel.
>Iranians have been categorized as “brown” so people lump them together with Somalians and Afghans.
Even from a racist perspective that's completely wrong; Iranians are white, the name "Iran" literally means "Land of the Aryans".
> Pointless if they use a conventional payload (too small payload to be cost effective militarily)
Iran's missiles are used as a terror weapon against civilian population, which is hardly what anyone would consider the optimal use of a rather expensive ballistic missile.
No reason (apart for already proven suicidal tendencies) not to fire one on New York just for the terror value
> Iran's missiles are used as a terror weapon against civilian population
Classic. An advanced tech US missile hits a school and kills 200 schoolgirls? "A tragic mistake, it happens in war". A much less advanced Iranian rocket hits a building? "Terrorists! They point their weapons at civilians!"
Since Iran was attacked and it has a right to defend itself, we should give it more precise weapons so it can hit directly the military headquarters in central Tel Aviv.
Did you protest when they killed 40,000 unarmed civilians in early January?
Intent is literally the difference in terrorism though. The US hitting 500 targets in Iran and one of them being a school is the exact opposite of a strategy of terrorism. With terrorism you explicitly target civilians to drive fear.
Trying to hit the Burj Khalifa without targeting any military or high political office is terrorism.
When Iran launched at military bases or tried to shoot at planes, it was not called terrorism.
>Trying to hit the Burj Khalifa without targeting any military or high political office is terrorism.
It's really not credible to claim that Iran has made any serious efforts to hit the Burj Khalifa, they would have succeeded if they wanted to do this.
Its a mystery how "the terrorists" have launched 1000's of missiles & drones, in 70+ (and counting) waves, across 3 weeks, spanning across the region, and yet they have ABJECTLY FAILED to:
* hit any hospital
* blow up any school
* nor murder any journalists.
Yet, despite this stunning lack of accuracy from ... "the terrorists", they have somehow managed to hit EVERYTHING ELSE they were aiming at.
On the other hand, the "West", who are absolutely NOT terrorists, have managed to blow up schools, slaughter hundreds and hundreds of school children, smash multiple hospitals, take out as many health workers & first responders as possible with double tap strikes ...
and let's not even mention the number of journalists deliberately targeted & killed, nor the families of journalists, deliberately targeted & killed
And to answer the "but they killed 25 million of their own civilians just weeks ago", it would be almost churlish to point out that the MASSIVE pro-Iran public sentiments expressed by ALL sectors of Iranian society would, to a logically thinking person, lead one to conclude that perhaps, just perhaps, the media campaign behind those riots was just pushing a complete LIE. Because those reports don't fit in a reality where, under direct bombardment and personal risk, those same civilians are supporting their state, their government & their leadership.
As always, the simplest explanations which fit observable facts are usually closest to the actual truth. And the simplest explanation is that the "definitely NOT terroristic" West has been lying about Iran, consistantly, for decades.
Either that, or the Mango Mussolini is the new Oracle of Delphi.
Go pick the hill you want to stand on ...
Actually Iran has hit the Soroka hospital in Israel in the previous war and the Weizmann Institute, a research university
Iran literally hit a preschool in Israel today, with an MRV which is solely designed to terrorize the population (and is a war crime btw). Plus a 12 year old is in critical condition alongside 40 civilians from a single Iranian missile hitting a residential building later today. And in June Iran hit a hospital in Israel with a ballistic missile.
> Its a mystery...
Not a mystery, though, is it? Israel has excellent air defense which is why the damage isn't x10 worse. But Iran is definitely making a huge effort to hit the civilian population for maximum damage.
Unlike Iran which is literally aiming statistical weapons at population centers, the US has high accuracy weapons - the school was hit because intelligence wasn't up to date (it used be an IRGC building).
Your comment is absolutely misinformed, or worse, spreading disinformation on purpose.
> Iran's missiles are used as a terror weapon against civilian population
They've also sucessfuly been used against energy and military infrastructure.
Those were mostly UAVs, you can see the abysmal aiming ability in Israel, where they have largely stopped aiming at facilities and moved to cluster warheads to maximize civilian hit ratio in large metropolis
that would be stupid and their regime is not stupid
Their regime is made up of hardline Shia Twelvers that believe that if they kill enough people the Twelfth Imam will appear and lead them to global victory.
Only problem is the Twelfth Imam has been dead for a thousand years.
They may not be stupid, but they consistently act based on counterfactual beliefs.
Hardly, after attacking all their friends in the region, which would leave them even more isolated after the war, I would not attribute careful strategic planning either
“Better to be feared than loved” - Niccolo Machiavelli
They were not mutual friends. They were mutually hostile.
And the friends are hosting american soldiers and bases.
Qatar and Oman were mutually hostile? that's a very unique interpretation of Middle Eastern politics
> their regime is not stupid
It’s pretty fucking stupid. Convening the top brass above ground, failing to scatter the navy, bombing Azerbaijan and Qatar and Oman. I’m not saying the individual actors are dumb. But the result of the competing centers of power between the IRGC, military proper, clerical establishment and god knows who else produces a stupid strategy.
Do you think launching a dumb ICBM at New York would make the US put boots on the ground.
I kind of doubt it's enough. This wouldn't be another 9/11, it would be merely be retaliation.
> This wouldn't be another 9/11, it would be merely be retaliation
The Japanese and Al Qaeda framed their attacks defensively. An attack on the homeland is an attack on the homeland. I wouldn’t put it past Iran. But you’d rapidly see political consensus to ensure the regime is destroyed at all costs, including and up to leaving a power vacuum and humanitarian crisis.
It already looks like the US is sending marines over. Any excuse to make it more politically palatable would be latched onto.
the war is wildly unpopular in the US (rightfully so) - attacking US would rally the country (rightfully so) and regime would fall within a week (with significant casulties on our side)
Probably all true, except for the "within a week" part. We don't have nearly enough there yet to do that, and buildups take time.
They're Muslims. You can debate whether that means 'stupid', but they've come to totally erroneous opinions on the structure of reality.
I disagree heavily with them too but that doesn't mean we should eradicate them. We can't expect the whole world population to be aligned.
But once we start shooting they will obviously shoot back and we're many steps further away from the desired "agree to disagree and live together anyway" outcome that is the only way to peace.
Equal to any other religion?
first, what does it matter whether they are Muslims or not? second, what is the structure of reality?! you may have some notion you know what “reality” is given what your media allows you to think - the actual reality is vastly different than you think it is - that is a certainty
> is that we have leaders who actively believed the downplaying of Irans military capabilities
We've been hinting about these capabilities for decades [0]. A lot of what is being brought up now is stuff a number of us touched on during the Obama years.
None of this is really hidden either - it would be brought up in think tanks and even undergrad classes if you attended a target program.
Civilian leaders have always had a hands-off approach to Defense and NatSec policy - once you show them how close to a polycrisis everything is they quickly defer responsibility. It's actually pretty similar to working in a corporate environment - it's all about managing upwards.
[0] - https://www.nytimes.com/2010/11/29/world/middleeast/29missil...
> it's all about managing upwards
That might not work with the current administration. Which probably a/the problem.
It still does/is. Most of what I'm seeing with Iran is similar to what was discussed back in the early 2010s.
There hasn't been significant churn in the NatSec space aside from political appointees, and core policymakers like Doshi, Maestro, Allison, Colby, and even Hill have worked with administrations irrespective of party affiliation.
Why does it matter if they have some capabilities to hit whatever targets in Europe or America? They’re not crazy, it would still be suicide for them to do it. It would just give them leverage, which I can’t think of a fair reason to prevent them from having.
Iran have boats.
Obviously they have boats. The question is, do they still have boats which are capable of serving as a launch platform for ballistic missiles? And could those boats meaningfully close the distance between Iran and its adversaries.
This launch demonstrates that if the answer to both of those questions is still no, they can still place them at threat.
The question is do they have a launcher that fits in a shipping container...
Yep. Hence why I posted it.
> previously-unknown
It was implied by Iran's space program.
There's a reason most regional powers also invested in a space program as well as a civilian uncles program. The name of the game is dual-use technologies.
The Biden admin also warned about Iran-NK collaboration on building these kinds of capabilities [0]
[0] - https://www.janes.com/osint-insights/defence-news/us-officia...
Accusing Iran of "lashing out" and being "reckless" by attacking US bases while the US and Israel literally murder school children, bomb hospitals and assassinate state leaders is rich.
It didn't have to be this way but they decided this to turn into a fight of survival for Iran and destroy any option for a peaceful resolution. Now they are going to pay the price.
Your comment made me realise that while Iran has attacked a dozen countries, they have yet to attack a school or a hospital.
Not condoning anyone but shows the priority of both sides.
They did however murder thousands of protesters in their own streets in January, and who knows how much more dissidents over the years.
This one was just this week: https://www.cbsnews.com/news/iran-execution-teen-wrestler-ja...
So there's that.
Strategically, it makes no sense to corner and threaten people. Murdering their own citizens shows the degree to which they'll go to preserve their power. If anything, that's a reason to slowly bleed them instead of cornering and escalating.
The evil of your enemy does not excuse your own strategic stupidity or cruelty.
Allegedly, according to the same political factions that aggressively bombed Iran just weeks later.
You're being disingenuous - the "protestor" was caught on camera literally hacking a policeman to pieces. He murdered a policeman, and will now be executed.
Can you back this with linking the said videos and maybe some info on legal proceedings of the fair trial in which this person was convicted? I’m curious.
Well some civilians have been injured when Iran attacked the hotels where US agents were stationed. Mostly due to them being foreign workers and well we all know how Dubai and the Saudis treat foreign workers. They were not allowed evacuate in time.
Of course it will be hard to completely avoid civilian casualties in the long run, I fear but yeah Iran has been pretty measured. Iran's fight is with the US imperialists and Israel and not the people that live in the region.
> some civilians have been injured when Iran attacked the hotels where US agents were stationed
Surely the US are using civilians as human shields?
Yes, they are absolutely using civilians as human shields. Just like Israel has been doing for ages.
That is why they constantly lie about Hamas using human shields. Every accusation is a confession with these people.
The mullahs and IRGC are not famous for their compassion or kind-heartedness.
They are infamous for fulminating against liberals, plotting to kill enemies, torturing and hanging dissidents from cranes, persecuting minorities and women, funding terror cells, and fleecing their citizens to enrich themselves.
Many of the comments here suffer from a misguided refusal to be impressed by the regime's reputation, as though anyone the American establishment criticises must automatically be righteous.
>from a misguided refusal to be impressed by the regime's reputation
You have to thank the actions of the genocidal State of Israel that anything below it is somewhat acceptable. Reaping what they sow themselves.
> Reaping what they sow
Israel and Iran somewhat independently came to the conclusion that they’re the regional hegemon, and that protecting that position is worth any cost.
They attacked a hospital during the 12 day war. They attacked a school today but it was evacuated due to the early warning system. They attack civilian targets indiscriminately using cluster warheads, in violation of international law.
> they have yet to attack a school or a hospital
Most of their ordinance has been intercepted. And a good fraction was unguided enough that it would have hit a school or hospital.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AMIA_bombing
I can’t be an apologist for what’s going on but the Iranians seemed capable of killing tens of thousands of their own citizens in order to quash an uprising against the regime only weeks before the current events.
> tens of thousands of their own citizens
Any credible source for this?
1. Western media is not credible because West treats Iran as enemy
2. Iranian media is not credible because they obviously want to hide facts when they're negative
Now my question is, why are you spreading unverifiable information as something credible and building your facts on top of it?
Thousands, not tens of thousands. Which is bad enough so it seems silly to lie about this but whoever can make up the biggest number seems to favored by the Western narrative.
And let us not act like the decades of sanction were not designed to do exactly this. Sanctions mean you create as much hardships as possible for the people in hope they topple their government. They nearly never work but here we are.
> Contrary to popular belief, economic sanctions are ineffective in fulfilling their objectives. Historical observations from Russia to Cuba and Iran reveal that the more sanctions are designed to pressure the ruling class, the harder ordinary citizens are hit. Leaders often perceive sanctions as a means to enhance nationalism, portraying the United States and its allies as hostile. In many instances, such actions have only strengthened their hold on power while stifling dissent internally.
https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c5yljdgwppzo
As for the protests, the truth is also that these were not peaceful protests. Mossads agents had been arming people and instructing them to riot. Hundreds of police offers have been murdered and mosques have been burned down. Mossad agents have been instructed to fire at protestors to increase the death toll.
Yes, there has been valid criticism and unhappiness with the government. But most of these people had been protesting for economic reasons. They didn't want to see their country invaded.
Today many of the people that had protested in January are joining the mass demonstrations in favor of the Islamic Republic. The war has united the Iranians.
>Mossad agents have been instructed to fire at protestors to increase the death toll.
Source?
> Hundreds of people died when security forces sought to crush the demonstrations, along with dozens of members of the police and Basij militia. Iranian intelligence operatives internally concluded that some of the violence was being encouraged and facilitated by Israeli operatives, according to the sources. “Foreign actors linked to Israeli intelligence services had, over time, established contact—through various social media platforms and under diverse cover identities—with a significant number of Iranian citizens, particularly young people,” the Iranian intelligence official alleged. These Israeli handlers, he said, “encouraged and incentivized the performance of specific tasks through a combination of financial and non-financial rewards, as well as the provision of material support, including small arms and other equipment.”
> “Foreign actors are arming the protesters in Iran with live firearms, which is the reason for the hundreds of regime personnel killed,” wrote Tamir Morag, the diplomatic correspondent for Israel’s Channel 14, during the uprising. “Everyone is free to guess who is behind it.” Morag and his network are well known for their close ties to Netanyahu.
https://www.dropsitenews.com/p/iran-ministry-of-intelligence...
You also find the some information in a Israeli Newspaper:
> On December 29, what is dubbed the Mossad X/Twitter account in Farsi encouraged Iranians to protest against the Iranian regime, telling them that it is literally physically with them at the demonstrations.
> “Go out together into the streets. The time has come,” the Mossad wrote. “We are with you,” it added. “Not only from a distance and verbally. We are with you in the field.” [...]
> Foreign actors had armed Iranians to help them fight against the regime’s forces being used to crack down on and oppress protesters, Channel 14’s Tamir Morag reported Tuesday. Iran’s foreign minister retweeted the report for his own agenda.
https://www.jpost.com/middle-east/iran-news/article-883524
See also interview with Prof. Marandi
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v-tcwcon30M
He claims the a nurse was burned alive in a clinic by rioters.
In a war where Israel and US are literally bombing the hell out of Iran, fewer people have been killed than those two days of massacre.
All according to the numbers confirmed by Iranian government.
God, the moral depravity of defending the IRGC and islamic regime is mind boggling. You can still be against Mossad and what they do in Iran while holding the islamic regime accountable for its own atrocities.
The state TV. It’s impossible they lie.
There is zero proof that Iranian government has killed thousands of their own citizens. Please stop spouting Zionist propaganda
I really is ridiculous, and somehow the number only gets bigger as the stories are told! Last I saw was "40,000 protestors murdered in just 24 hours!", or something very close to it.
The US and Israel have been carpet bombing Iran for weeks now, blowing up hospitals, schools, power plants and residential buildings, yet the Iranian death toll is "only" around 1,500 so far. Yet we are to believe that Iran killed 40k of its own people in a day - you would literally be able to see piles of corpses from space!
Israel has also claimed that they've hacked every traffic camera in Tehran, yet are mysteriously unable to provide any actual evidence of the supposed massacre - meanwhile, Iran released several videos showing foreign agitators distributing weapons, people attacking civilians etc.
> The US and Israel have been carpet bombing Iran
No they haven't. The US started phasing out carpet bombing[0] half a century ago. You discredit yourself by making such trivially falsifiable assertions.
The US and Israel use precision strikes. It is why the ratio of targets per sortie is by far the highest ever recorded in a major conflict.
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carpet_bombing
While I somewhat agree, you should also look at the results of those precision strikes. Usually, when they kill a senior Iranian officer sleeping in his appartment, they level the building or at lest blow up several adjacent units, probably killing at last 10 innocent people.
Look at the videos coming out of Iran - civilian infrastructure and residences are clearly being targeted. Some unexploded bombs have been found that lack a JDAM guidance package.
And regardless of the USA, Israel is most certainly not above carpet bombing civilians.
You are vilifying an entire country and it's high time we acknowledge this is wrong. Israel does not set out to carpet bomb civilians. If it did, the numbers would have been insane; same goes for the US.
> Accusing Iran of "lashing out" and being "reckless"
I think it’s more that these attacks are counterproductive to Iran’s state goals, which reveals that we’re seeing a hardline faction in Iran use the war as cover for consolidating power.
Unfortunately it's we who will pay the price, with "we" being the entire world, considering the destruction of a lot of oil production infrastructure will cause a price hike for everything.
TBH I am a little more concerned about people dying from the conflict than paying a bit more for gas
Well China is still getting Iranian oil no problem.
We in the West, well we are aiding the US in this war by allowing it to operate from military bases in our countries. We deserve it for looking the other way while Israel has been mass murdering Palestinians for more than two years now.
At least Spain showed some guts.
Of course it will also potentially cause suffering in the global south but that is on those that started the war.
How is China getting that oil without problem? Something like 90% of it when through Kharg island which is now rubble.
The attacks against Kharg Island were relatively limited as even the US wanted to avoid that level of escalation. The war has been painful but Iran could rebuild, if you destroyed Kharg island it would take decades to rebuild the Iranian economy, that would be a complete scorched earth point of no return.
Maybe there have been further attacks today that I missed but if true that would be an huge escalation.
My last information was that China has no problem getting oil but that was like two days ago.
To me this is like the Doolittle Raid on Tokyo during WWII. The tactical result isn't important, the range of the strike is, and that it happened at all. Japan thought it was immune from air attack on the home islands in 1942, and the raid shocked them.
Iran is showing the world (especially Europe), that it's more vulnerable than it thinks. Europe has more skin in the game than just the price of oil and nitrogen. Also think about what would happen if Iran is able to recreate something like the Cuban missile crisis now that we've moved a bunch of our military assets to the middle east.
Strategically, it seems like a dumb move. Right now, Congress is unlikely to approve Trump’s request for $200B to fund the war effort. But if Americans can be convinced that Iran could somehow hit American cities, they would call their members of Congress in a heartbeat and that money would presumably flow without interruption.
Why time the medium range missiles now? It seems like yet another own-goal for this desperate and poorly coordinated regime.
Americans can be convinced of anything without too much effort so that isn’t really a factor here.
Iran repeatedly stated that they will not attack any country's assets if they do not assist the US/Israel. Most European countries have refused to take part, the UK decided to help so this seems like a very easy situation to have avoided.
> Iran repeatedly stated that they will not attack any country's assets if they do not assist the US/Israel
They’ve been doing this across the region. Some of this looks like individual commanders taking strategic decisions into their own hands. But it’s absolutely false that neutrality has protected anyone in the region.
Iran hasn't attacked Turkmenistan yet, so neutrality has protected them
> Iran hasn't attacked Turkmenistan yet
The fact that we have to pick out a single neighbour they haven’t attacked sort of lands the point.
From TFA:
> It is understood the attempted air strike occurred before the UK agreed to let the US use British military bases to hit Iranian sites targeting shipping through the Strait of Hormuz.
That's incorrect:
https://www.cnn.com/2025/04/02/middleeast/us-b2-bombers-dieg...
I don't think the article you linked disagrees with what I've quoted from the BBC, does it? Aircraft being present at the airbase isn't the same as aircraft launching for an attack from the airbase.
Except that Starmer was lying - there have been photos of bombs being loaded onto US bombers going around for at least several days now.
What photos? And what reason would Starmer have to lie about it?
Unfortunately this is more interesting than a failed Diego Garcia attack — the late Ayatollah had a self-imposed range limit on the strikes or tests they would carry out. By using IRBMs in this fashion, it’s clear the new regime no longer feels bound by that restriction..
Which is notable since it’s about the same distance from Southern Iran to Diego Garcia (3,800km) as it is from Northern Iran to London.
They had a religious ruling on the range, and they also had a religious ruling on "not creating an atomic bomb."
The question of whether the world can assume its security on some religious rulings of some Ayatollas is still standing, as these rulings can apparently be changed or bypassed.
This "religious ruling" stuff is less interesting than it sounds. To begin with, while the Islamic Republic of Iran is a totalitarian state, the Twelver Shia hierarchy isn't unified. The supposed ban on nuclear weapons was Khamenei's, and binding only on his followers. But there are several other marja (marjas? marji?), with significant followings even in the security state & IRGC (al-Sistani being a good example).
More importantly, it's pretty clear that the geopolitical rulings are, well, geopolitical in nature. Iran is a nuclear threshold state; its strategy is to come as close to the breakout line as it can and extract concessions for not crossing it. The supposed nuclear fatwa is just public relations strategy. At the point Iran decided the cost/benefit/risk/reward of crossing the threshold made sense, it would be updated.
I agree with you, mostly. My read is that Twelver Shi’ism is not a unified hierarchy, and a marja’s fatwa normally binds that marja’s own followers rather than all Shi’a, so your institutional point is broadly right.[1][2] It is too strong, though, to say the anti-nuclear position was simply “invented for PR”: Khamenei did publicly describe it as a real fatwa.[3] At the same time, Iran’s enrichment posture _does_ fit the description of a threshold state, with large stocks of uranium enriched to 60%, so it is fair to say the ruling also had strategic and diplomatic value.[4]
The parts I would soften are the specific claim about Sistani having a significant following inside the IRGC, which MIGHT be true but is much harder to substantiate publicly (although, maybe you have some behind-the-scenes knowledge?), and the certainty of motive. Still, your last sentence is basically right: these rulings are not _immutable_. After Ali Khamenei’s death, Iran’s foreign minister said (quoting the Reuters article), “fatwas depend on the Islamic jurist issuing them,” and added he was “not yet in a position to judge the jurisprudential or political views of Mojtaba Khamenei…” This reinforces the point that doctrine can shift if the leadership chooses.[5]
[1] Encyclopaedia Britannica, “Twelver Shi’ah.”
[2] Al-Islam.org, “Question 49: Difference between hukm and fatwa.” [3] Leader.ir, “Ayatollah Khamenei in the Eid al-Fitr congregational prayers” and “Leader’s remarks on anti-Iran sanctions and Yemen aggressions by Saudi Arabia.”
[4] Arms Control Association, “The Status of Iran’s Nuclear Program,” and ACA analysis citing the IAEA’s 440.9 kg figure.
[5] Reuters, “Iran says nuclear doctrine unlikely to change, Hormuz Strait needs new protocol” (March 18, 2026).
Maraaji' is the pluralized version in Arabic, but nothing wrong with saying marjas. Marji would be most wrong though.
Your in-depth knowledge of completely random things never ceases to amaze me.
I'm Catholic and Twelver Shiism is the closest thing Islam has to Catholicism. It's a really neat system.
> But there are several other marja (marjas? marji?)
Wikipedia has romanized: [singular] marji'; plural marāji'.
Maybe don't murder the religious leader that made the rulings.
Can anyone blame them for considering developing nuclear weapons for real now? I can't.
I don't know but I can certainly blame them for oppressing and murdering their own citizens.
But that has nothing to do with this war. Like, nothing at all. Israel doing genocode in gaza and what seems like ethnical cleansing of lebanon does not have anyyhing with that either. USA threatening Greenland is also not a factor in this war.
Donald Trump does not care about protesters in Iran. His idea of regime change is "keep the regime and change head for someone who will pay me personally".
And Hegseth does not care either. He is proving his manhood.
And Israel have completely different goals, so.
It is not like Saudi were democrats. They have cut that journalist into pieces. They are violent dictatorship on their own right.
There are lots of countries doing just the same but the West does not give a flying fuck about it. Most of the human rights violations they care about somehow related to countries that happened to have oil.
And if you tell me that US /Israel are bombing Iran to protect rights of oppressed then I have that wonderful bridge.
After being caught developing nuclear weapons for real numerous times, now it is really for real?
Were they caught by the same people who found WMDs in Iraq by any chance?
the IAEA, presumably you trust UN agencies?
in any case, these are the mythical WMDs found in Iraq:
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2014/12/03/world/middlee...
https://www.nytimes.com/2015/02/16/world/cia-is-said-to-have...
From your source:
> "These weapons were not part of an active arsenal. They were remnants from Iraq’s arms program in the 1980s during the Iran-Iraq war."
These are not the "WMD" that led to or had any involvement with 2003, it's dishonest to suggest so
These were chemical weapons found in Iraq, the reason the new york times was interested in the story was the fact that ISIS has somehow developed chemical weapons using Iraq's existing infrastructure.
This means there were active facilities, materials and know how even after the war
> The question of whether the world can assume its security on some religious rulings of some Ayatollas
I don't think much of the world has processed that Iran's ostensible lack of nuclear weapons is purely a matter of will and not capability.
Excellent point. Maybe it's the goal of this attack to demonstrate this capability.
> the late Ayatollah had a self-imposed range limit on the strikes or tests they would carry out.
Can you elaborate on what kind of strikes the Ayatollah was carrying out within the old range limit?
London? Why would they attack an almost Muslim country, especially one that's their most fanatical ally?
I'd add that it's also a free opportunity to test IRBM targeting at much longer ranges.
The war of choice is really the US's Teutoburg Forest moment.
Iran has always said a lot of things (mostly BS). This is worthless without evidence and I don't think anyone had evidence that their missiles were restricted to 2,000km. Certainly, I don't think anyone took their word for it. In fact this attack proves that there was no such limitation (although it is unclear to me if the missiles fired could actually jave reached Diego Garcia).
Now this may be a demonstration and veiled threat, on the other hand if Iran was to fire a missile at continental Europe I would hope that the consequence for them would be to be flattened, so...
You didn't have to take their word for it. It was self-evident from the fact they never did anything like this before, and now they are.
Notably, the previous guy issued a religious decree against the development of nuclear weapons. Despite American's favorite propaganda tool for manufacturing consent, "but the WMDs", we have no reason to believe that was ever actually being violated. But you'd better believe it will be now if they think they can pull it off.
Do the missiles Iran has been raining down on other countries for decades not count as WMDs?
No.
“ A weapon of mass destruction is a nuclear, radiological, chemical, biological, or other device that is intended to harm a large number of people”
https://www.dhs.gov/topics/weapons-mass-destruction.
No. There’s a definition from the UN here if you’re interested:
https://unterm.un.org/unterm2/en/view/UNHQ/9626F6CEB2A92C9B8...
AFAICT, not by any commonly accepted definition of WMD:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weapon_of_mass_destruction#Def...
There is a difference between not doing something and being unable to do something. Clearly there were able but only showed it now and their previous claim was BS (again, assuming those missiles did fly "far").
No-one believes that Iran is not pursuing nuclear weapons, either... or that they wouldn't if they had developed the capability.
Ayatollah Khomeini admitted that he had lied about plans to make Iran democratic.
This practice is known as taqqiya. It’s ok to lie if you’re deceiving the enemy.
Like they flattened Afghanistan? It is funny people thinks land war in an huge mountainous country with 90 million people is easy.
Never get involved in a land war in Asia but only slightly less well-known is never go in against a Sicilian when death is on the line.
Inconceivable!
I wrote "flatten", not "invade".
flatten with what?
Like what is happening now, completely decimating their army, navy, and air force. If that isn't enough, destroy their only source of revenue (oil fields), or go even further and destroy their electrical grid and send the country back to the stone age.
Finally, if the regime does not surrender after all this, a nuke could still be used.
> destroy their only source of revenue (oil fields)
That’s the worlds source or revenue.
> On the other hand if Iran was to fire a missile at continental Europe I would hope that the consequence for them would be to be flattened
Iran have been attacking uninvolved NATO member Turkey for a while now and nothing happens. The USA is already fully engaged into this war while Europe can hardly deal together with Russia, it is doubtful they'd do anything even if it rained down on their territory
It should be noted that Iran has publicly stated that the attacks on Turkey were false-flag attacks launched by Israel.
Attacking as in a couple of rockets heading US bases which were intercepted. Of course nothing would happen, why would Turkey (or other European countries) join this pointless war?
This is an attack on Turkish territory regardless if there's a US base, and Iranian missiles usually miss the bases anyway.
Turkey is led by a strongman leader and these are very sensitive to acts of public humiliation. So that's unwise when thinking about any negligible strategic advantage they may gain from these attacks
What incentive would Iran have to lie? Their entire security model revolves around believable deterrence—apparently far more believable than either Israel or the US understood.
considering that there were already provocations about "unsuccessful attacks on Turkey", I have doubts that this attack was also Iran's
the "notable distance/unexpectedly high range" quoted everywhere seems like a nice war justification: "see, they do have rockets that can threaten us!"
The fact that it was unsuccessful does not make it any less worrying. Iran was a regional problem before the war, but this new escalation shows they’re a threat to the entire world. They might have previously had a chance at a Vietnam or perhaps a Korea-style stalemate
Iran is fighting for survival, Israel and the US are fighting by choice.
They attacked Iran not the other way round. US bases, even if also used by UK which aides US it their war, are legitimate targets.
US imperialism is the greatest threat to the world.
The IRGC is fighting for survival, most Iranian want them gone, and Iran will be better as a whole if the IRGC is all dead. Don't try to conflate the government with the country, they don't always align.
This is simply not true. I'm Iranian and I wish it were but IRGC has more support than you think. There is at least 30-40% of the population who support it and within those, more than half will gladly die for the regime.
My home country has more than 90M people and 40% of that equates for millions of supporters.
From the outside, you are only hearing the diaspora talking points, which don't realistically represent Iran. Many of them have grievances with the regime, or have been exiled after the Shah.
Iran is a complex country and it's hard for outsiders to grasp it, mainly because the censorship happening on both sides.
I personally think this war was a major mistake, no Iranian is going to cheer for US or Israel after watching their children being killed by them. The west was doing a good job exporting liberal ideas to Iran slowly over the past 3 decades. Some of those were starting to drip into the country, but this war undid all that effort.
If anything, the attack on Iran has increased their support.
US and Israel don't give two fucks for the people of Iran. If they did they wouldn't have been under such crippling sanctions.
Irani people want to control their own destiny, not as a vassal of US-Israel backed power.
Iran's best bet I think is to negotiate with the IRGC to earn reforms. I suspect that if IRGC doesn't feel so threatened they might even get them.
There's a lot of commentary here along the lines that Iran is now a threat to Europe. Yes the capability might exist but it is not in Iran's interest and have never shown such interest or ambition. India certainly has missiles that can reach parts of Europe, capability does not signal intent.
US and UK have screwed the relation up by organising coup, scuttling democratic processes, downing domestic passenger jet without apology, setting Saddam Hussein and his chemical weapons at them and the economically ravaging them with sanctions.
As for nukes, with Israel and undeclared nuclear power right next door, it's a very reasonable ask for any country that wants to control its own destiny. In fact had it had one, the current conflict would not have happened.
There is at least 30-40% of the population who support it and within those, more than half will gladly die for the regime.
Sobering, and (speaking as an American) all too familiar here at home.
Cults suck.
Most Iranians do not want the IRGC gone, that's US/Israeli propaganda. Thousands of people have been marching in support of the IRGC. Common sense would also tell you that Iranians aren't going to support the people bombing their schools.
> Iran will be better as a whole if the IRGC is all dead
Which is an impossibility. We're talking about a military force of more than a million religiously fervent men that have martyrdom as a core tenet of their religion. They are not going anywhere, and assasinating their leaders and bombing their bases will not make them easier to enforce anything on.
Many people that protested against the government in January are now marching in support of the Islamic Republic and demand that the imperialists are punished. Most of them have protested for economic reasons, they don't want to see their country destroyed and their children murdered by bombs.
Iran is more united than ever because of the imperialist war. That is what you get when you turn state leaders into martyrs.
That sounds made up. Marches largely stopped after bombings, no one marches for IRGC - not even supporters.
And there is no way for anyone to know what Iranians actually think now. No one does the polls there now.
> no one marches for IRGC - not even supporters
IRGC has a lot of support. We tend to think of educated Iranians from abroad. But they have their share of religious nutters.
There is massive video evidence: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5TOcnVe86Vo
There are massive protests in favor of the Republic every day. You can not deny the evidence.
Iranian kids have been chanting death to Israel and death to USA for 47 years now. They’ve been waiting for this.
Well, if US takes down their democracy and downs their domestic passenger jets, no country is going to respond to that with flowers in their hair
There’s only so many decades you can say “death to America, death to Israel” and fund proxies against them until they say enough is enough and deal with the baiting once and for all.
Maybe we should look at why Iranians chant this?
And those "proxies" are not "against" America or Israel - they exist solely as resistance groups that counter Israeli aggression, ethic cleansing, land theft etc. You know, like Israel is doing right now in their stated aim of annexing South Lebanon, after displacing over a million people from their homes. Without Israeli aggression and land theft, these resistance groups wouldn't exist.
> those "proxies" are not "against" America or Israel - they exist solely as resistance groups that counter Israeli aggression, ethic cleansing, land theft etc.
They explicitly call for the destruction of Israel.
Or maybe you could ask yourself why people chant this. Maybe people don't fancy your mass murder of their Palestinian brothers and sisters. Maybe Iran didn't appreciate the US supporting Saddam Hussein to fight a war against Iran where he used chemical weapons against the population.
The might be a reason the whole region hates Israel and the US. Just saying.
Or maybe you could ask yourself why most of the rest of the region allows the US to have military bases on their soil, and why they are so concerned about protecting themselves against Iran.
The "whole region" fears Iran more than they hate the US, judged by their behavior.
Iran was attacked. Israel and the US are the threat, Iran is just practicing very common sense self-defense.
How convenient for Trump that now all Europe now has a pretext to send the help they were asked for.
The whole point of that noise is to put NATO + Japanese military in the Straits of Hormuz so that Israel and the US can continue to attack Iran with impunity. Any effort by Iran to shut the Straits in response to further attacks will hit some "innocent" party and drag them into the conflict.
It's basically bait for WW3, and luckily so far the EU particularly are not biting.
Question: could this lead to much more expensive war risk insurance for all ships transiting the Arabian Sea and Indian Ocean?
That’s a lot of traffic
As NATO has thus far neglected to get involved, this seems like an incredibly dumb move by Iran. Making Europe feel threatened will not turn things in their favor.
What kind of game is Iran playing here? It's as if the regime wanted to get nuked.
The .io tld is going through rough times :pensive:
Diego Garcia is strategically very important to global security according to the US
Had something actually struck within the ADIZ there would have been massive implications. My guess is they intentionally failed as a warning shot.
This isn’t a random act and its quite the signal if you know what it means, Iran knows what it did here.
Would the Americans and Isreali’s start bombing mainland Iran and takin out their weapons and oil/gas infrastructure as retaliation?.
Americans and Israelis literally started this war by bombing an Iranian girl's school. They've been bombing Iran every day since then.
i believe the parent comment was being sarcastic
> Would the Americans and Isreali’s start bombing mainland Iran and takin out their weapons and oil/gas infrastructure as retaliation?.
No that’s too easy.
Give hope to Iran / Islamic world for a few months, then take it away.
I was reading that one of the two failed en route, and the other was intercepted. I don't think this was an intentional failure to hit.
Sometimes getting shot down is the goal or at least a test to see what kind of response you’ll get
Iran did the same before the conflict in response to prior Israeli attacks - the two drone waves they sent that were intercepted were both demonstrations of capability, not actual attacks.
Unfortunately I’m not sure their current audience is gonna pick up the implied threat.
Iran even has a history of calling in their attacks to ensure no one gets hurt.
I don't think they did it this time, but they have in the past.
How do you know their intentions?
It's also a bit unreasonable to launch live munitions that have some 90% probability of being intercepted by a given system on a good day, while intending for "just a warning"
It’s more like if David and Goliath are in a standoff
David takes a small rock and whips it at a sensitive spot on Goliath’s ankles that most people don’t know about (Diego Garcia)
David knows Goliath will probably dodge it, and most likely kick it away given it’s importance, but there’s a point being made by shooting: if it hits then that’s a win, but if gets knocked down it’s a warning that they know where they need to hit for it to hurt
If you're already at war, why waste resources on warning shots?
Sometimes it’s worth it to test in production
See also the Doolittle Raid.
> This isn’t a random act and its quite the signal if you know what it means, Iran knows what it did here.
It also publicizes Iran-NK military cooperation on ballistics development, which the Biden admin warned about [0], as well as Iran-Russia military cooperation (which was obviously much less under-the-radar).
It also shows the merger of the Ukraine conflict with the West Asia conflict, and was a major reason why Fiona Hill argued we entered an unavoidable polycrisis in 2022 [1].
[0] - https://www.janes.com/osint-insights/defence-news/us-officia...
[1] - https://xcancel.com/FrankRGardner/status/2027098560647348410...
Agreed, there’s so much intelligence in this act it’s really astonishing
Can we just leave countries alone, like we do with North Korea?
The reason people leave North Korea alone is because they have nuclear weapon(s)
The reason people left North Korea alone while they were building nuclear weapons is because they weren't arming 5 terrorist proxies and they didn't have a doomsday countdown clock in their capital city.
True, Kim Jong Un is actually pretty chill, just likes testing some nukes towards Japan as a hobby. Are people genuinely retarded? Or is it the severe Israel bias?
Prior to that, they had thousands of artillery pieces pointed at Seoul the presumed backing of China if the Korean war resumed.
They also have the GDP equivalent of JetBlue Airways
So we can only reach stalemate once a country has nukes and otherwise have to start blowing up their schools?
According to postwar foreign policy clearly that’s true:
Look at Libya and Ukraine for your most direct examples - give away your nukes, get invaded. South Africa is an odd example that proves the rule: they simply bend the knee to the west.
Nuclear deterrents and mutual assured destruction has been the key driver in preventing large scale conflict in the “postwar period.”
Everyone knows Israel has nukes it’s just a matter of when they can get enough public support to use them
Mutually assured destruction does seem to deter conflict, but even assuming it works, it always seemed like a poor tradeoff to me.
Significantly reduce the frequency of small to medium-scale conflicts, in exchange for an inevitable, possibly apocalyptic nuclear conflict at some point. Maybe not this year, maybe not for centuries, but one day, someone will press the button.