• carbocation 4 days ago |
    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?

    • madaxe_again 4 days ago |
      Iran have boats.
      • derektank 4 days ago |
        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.

        • zer00eyz 4 days ago |
          The question is do they have a launcher that fits in a shipping container...
    • alephnerd 4 days ago |
      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...

    • AnotherGoodName 4 days ago |
      > 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.

      • zabzonk 4 days ago |
        > 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.

        • chatmasta 4 days ago |
          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.
          • delichon 4 days ago |
            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.
          • hirako2000 4 days ago |
            They can fly well above any commercial and military aircraft.
        • kenhwang 4 days ago |
          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.
          • dingaling 3 days ago |
            Sea Viper can defend against short / medium-range BMs impacting in its vicinity, not IRBMs passing overhead in mid-course to a distant target.
      • alephnerd 4 days ago |
        > 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...

        • jopsen 4 days ago |
          > it's all about managing upwards

          That might not work with the current administration. Which probably a/the problem.

          • alephnerd 4 days ago |
            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.

      • pfannkuchen 4 days ago |
        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.
      • rayiner 4 days ago |
        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.
        • logicchains 4 days ago |
          >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".

          • breppp 4 days ago |
            > Iranians are white, the name "Iran" literally means "Land of the Aryans".

            The Indians were also Aryan according to race theories. I wouldn't put much sense into racism

            • srean 4 days ago |
              Leaving the 'aryan' and 'white' bit aside there are mountains of things that are common between Indians and Iranians -- the system of classical music, musical instruments, mythological characters, food, and of course language.
          • sebastiennight 2 days ago |
            Wow you just sent me through a fascinating journey through Wikipedia for a while there.

            The history (and pseudoscientific justification) of racism is mind-boggling as ever.

        • oa335 4 days ago |
          > The downplaying of Iran’s capabilities is a weird kind of racism IMHO.

          Agreed, but it’s not at all surprising to me. Propaganda means that people will project fictitious motives and capabilities on their opponents, even if they are internally inconsistent (e.g. Iran must be attacked because they will threaten the USA mainland vs Iran’s missiles are very inaccurate and barely hit anything).

        • mikrotikker 2 days ago |
          I thought Iranians were white? I've met many Iranians that were white.
          • rayiner 2 days ago |
            That’s what I thought, but in the modern discourse I think all Muslims are classified as non-white.
      • lostlogin 4 days ago |
        > 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.

      • JumpCrisscross 4 days ago |
        > 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.

        • hirako2000 4 days ago |
          I thought the US president said they didn't expect a number of things that happened.

          It also expected a quick intervention, 2 weeks max.

          • JumpCrisscross 4 days ago |
            > the US president…

            The President is a political leader.

          • chasd00 4 days ago |
            To be fair Trump admins most optimistic timeline was “4-6 weeks maybe longer”. We’re at the end of week 3.
            • hirako2000 3 days ago |
              I recall it was 12 days, or 4 weeks. Perhaps I missed an early prediction from the state that it could be 4 to 6 weeks.

              The 12 days, and 2 weeks is what I recall most. But reality is what we want to see and hear. Some would say we are at week 4. Some that we are ending week 3.

              Reason would be to accept we are taken for fools anyway. Or worse, run by fools.

      • jacquesm 3 days ago |
        > 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.

        It's just another case of history - endlessly - repeating.

    • bawolff 4 days ago |
      > * 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.

    • jandrewrogers 4 days ago |
      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.

    • dragonelite 4 days ago |
      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.
      • ignoramous 4 days ago |
        > 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-...

        • magic_hamster 4 days ago |
          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.
          • ignoramous 4 days ago |
            > 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

            • seanmcdirmid 4 days ago |
              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).

            • srean 4 days ago |
              If US takes down their democracy and downs their domestic passenger jets, fight a proxy war with chemical weapons through Saddam Hussein that alone kills 20~30 thousand, no country is going to respond to that with flowers in their hair.

              Loved your link, but I doubt it is going to change anyone who thinks Israel and US are doing the god's work here.

          • wolvoleo 4 days ago |
            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.

            • magic_hamster 4 days ago |
              You are just uninformed.

              Iran has sponsored, built and trained organizations all over the middle east so they could destroy Israel: Hamas, the Houthis in Yemen, Hezbollah in Lebanon and groups in Iraq are all proxies propped up by Iran.

              Iran was the first to attack Israel, this happened in 2024 when Israel killed Nasrallah (Hezbollah) and Iran fired hundreds of ballistic missiles directly at Israel.

              Iran hates the US way more than Israel, but Israel is closer so obviously they are directing their efforts according to what's plausible. Iran calls the US and Israel "the big satan" and "little satan" in almost all internal communication. Just a couple of weeks ago the entire Iranian parliament chanted "death to America" and "death to Israel" (you can see the videos online). Iran had US flags laid out on the floor of their facilities so that anyone going by will walk over the US flag.

              Despite being very uncomfortable, the war is probably necessary because as seen by Iran's attack on Diego Garcia, they have way longer range than previously thought, they have a deposit or military grade uranium enough for 10-12 bombs, they were completely dishonest about their nuclear programs, and waiting until Iran had nukes meant you couldn't ever stop them. You'd have another North Korea but ten times worse, as the Iranian regime is truly a fundamentalist insane leadership. Trump may be unhinged but he's right about Iran using nukes if they had them.

          • JasonADrury 4 days ago |
            > Iran, a fundamentalist fanatic country

            United States, a fundamentalist fanatic country: https://bsky.app/profile/gregsargent.bsky.social/post/3mhgag...

          • srean 4 days ago |
          • donkeybeer 2 days ago |
            Of course Israel and the current US government are violent religious fanatics who are using made up crap like the Bible and Torah to motivate the war.

            The nuclear armed violently psychopathic state in the Middle East that still lies about nukes is the one that must be attacked not the country that allowed all audits of their nuclear program. We should conduct an operation to decommission or transfer in safe keeping to a neutral power all of Israel's illegal nukes and impose crippling sanctions on them for their lying on this extremely serious matter.

            • dlubarov 2 days ago |
              > lies about nukes

              Such as? Ambiguity (or not sharing information) isn't a lie.

              • donkeybeer 2 days ago |
                Lying about nukes until Mordechai Vanunu outed the program. Iran has been cooperative in letting its nuclear program being audited, your country like the countless "execptions" it claims for itself does not permit any audits.

                You tell me, if Iran, Hamas, and (insert other groups you hate) played games about nukes and told you they "don't" have nukes despite having hundreds how would you feel?

                Israeli nukes must be brought under audit and transferred or decommissionied urgently by neutral third parties, it is a very grave matter.

                • dlubarov 2 days ago |
                  > Lying

                  Again do you have some sort of example or evidence?

                  > your country

                  I'm not Israeli

                  > the countless "execptions" it claims for itself

                  What exceptions? They don't need an exception to an agreement that they never consented to.

                  > played games about nukes

                  It's not much of a game, they just don't divulge sensitive information about their capabilities.

                  > transferred or decommissionied

                  Why would Israel give up a means of defending itself, while several of its neighbors continue trying to wipe it off the map? The only way this becomes plausible is if Iran, Hamas, Hezbollah and the Houthis stop trying to destroy Israel.

                  • donkeybeer 2 days ago |
                    Who said anything about the NPT? The exceptions are to such things as audits of nukes which the other party here, Iran has had no problems with. Israel also claims exception and offense to the ICCPR which was one of the examples I had in mind of how Israel always seems to want "exceptions" for perfectly normal things.

                    >It's not much of a game, they just don't divulge sensitive information about their capabilities.

                    Nobody is expecting them to divulge any intelligence about its nuclear weapon systems. Why do Israel supporters always exaggerate and invent things not said by anyone? We ask Israel to simply be subject to similar audits of its nukes as Iran was, being like Iran and several other countries in that region a volatile and violent country. Illegal nukes in such a country should be a subject of concern.

                    And suppose Iran walks out of NPT, I have a feeling you'd still want to interfere and bomb their attempts at making nukes. So please do not lie that it is anything about the NPT.

                    >Why would Israel give up a means of defending itself, while several of its neighbors continue trying to wipe it off the map? The only way this becomes plausible is if Iran, Hamas, Hezbollah and the Houthis stop trying to destroy Israel.

                    Who said I want Israel to give up its means of defence? I only wish for them to be subject to standard audits and inspections.

                    >Why would Israel give up a means of defending itself, while several of its neighbors continue trying to wipe it off the map? The only way this becomes plausible is if Iran, Hamas, Hezbollah and the Houthis stop trying to destroy Israel.

                    Israel's origin is a long and complex story. No entity in that region is blameless, Israel included.

                    Again, you tell me, if Iran, Hamas, and (insert other groups you hate) played games about nukes and told you they "don't" have nukes despite having hundreds how would you feel? Obviously they would not wish to divulge sensitive information about their capabilities.

                    • dlubarov 2 days ago |
                      > Illegal nukes

                      What would be illegal about them? Israel never agreed to the NPT.

                      > Nobody is expecting them to divulge any intelligence about its nuclear weapon systems.

                      Even if Israel could trust a group of foreign auditors not to leak any military secrets, what information would you hope to gain from the exercise? Confirmation that Israel does have nuclear weapons, which we already know in practice anyway?

                      > you'd still want to interfere and bomb their attempts at making nukes

                      Only as long as a regime with an official stance of "Death to America and Israel" is in charge.

                      • donkeybeer a day ago |
                        Why not. If we take words as violence, how about the dreams of violent annexation to achieve the so called Greater Israel. Or statements by Israeli's of threatening to nuke Rome and the entirety of Europe. I have very little trust in Israel or Iran, both are crappy countries high on fumes of religion and nationalism and constantly belligerents. Though funnily this war was started by Israel and America unprovoked while pretending to negotiate with Iran, after of course a series of murders of negotiators. Actions are louder than words. It shows far more who is more unpredictable, violent and backstabbing liars. I trust Israel today even less than I trust Iran, thus we should treat them just like any other untrustworthy and volatile entity such as by conducting thorough and 24x7 audits of their nuclear programs.

                        I am neither Israeli nor Iranian. They can bomb and kill each other all they want as long as they don't involve anyone else. And they will continue bombing and killing each other as they are both driven by the classic cause of endless wars: religion and nationalism. I do not think one side better than other. I considered Israel mildly better but I had to change my stance. Being that I am not a fan of either country, I would prefer either Israel's nuclear capabilities be incapacitated or Iran develop nuclear capabilities as a balancing factor.

                        • dlubarov a day ago |
                          > statements by Israeli's of threatening to nuke Rome and the entirety of Europe

                          I take it you’re quoting some random individual? Certainly no Israeli leaders said anything of the sort. The Iranian regime’s leaders on the other hand are quite explicit about their ambitions of destroying the US and Israel.

                          > this war was started by Israel and America unprovoked

                          Israel has been attacked with over a hundred thousand Iranian rockets and drones in recent times. If that isn’t a provocation, what is? How many Iranian rockets do you expect Israel to tolerate before finally responding?

                          • donkeybeer a day ago |
                            Greater Israel expansionism is something Israeli leaders including Bibi constantly say. Israel wants Lebensraum. If that's not a statement by thr government, what is?

                            Are you sure about the timing, who started shooting who first?

                            • dlubarov 18 hours ago |
                              Have you talked to an actual Israeli before? They just want to not suffer constant rocket attacks. If Hezbollah stopped attacking, there would be ~zero interest in any sort of military action in Lebanon.
                              • donkeybeer 16 hours ago |
                                Israeli's are people like anyone else. However they are a peoples who are heavily propagandized to be fearful and hateful of everything since birth by their government, a peoples who have in my view become somewhat pathological as a reaction to the Holocaust. It is not wholly their fault. There are good people and bad people like in any country or group. But what I have seen of them has been more than enough for me, I have seen them laugh about throwing rocks and launching rockets at a peaceful Palestinian settlement for example. What do you say of that? Is that an example of they will stop violence if they are left alone?

                                I am not a big fan of basically any country in that region, Israel while better in some respects eg lgbtq is also more paranoid and psychotic in other aspects.

                                • dlubarov 15 hours ago |
                                  There's no need for anyone to "propagandize" Israelis into fearing attacks; they personally experience enemy attacks all the time. So much so that a lot of Israelis are just sleeping in bomb shelters at this point, so they don't have to jump out of bed and run whenever there's yet another nighttime attack.
                                  • donkeybeer 14 hours ago |
                                    You don't want to go into "who fired the first shot". The terrorist group who did the King David Hotel bombing yielded one of Israel's prime ministers. The formation of the country itself was a series of violent terroristic attacks by self proclaimed zionists. I do not say the arab countries around them are innocent, but that who fired the first shot does not leave Israel innocent either. Israeli's are just experiencing for the first time the fun of bomb shelters that all their neighbors felt due to them for years.
                                    • dlubarov 5 hours ago |
                                      I didn't say anything about who fired the first shot. I was just responding to

                                      > Greater Israel expansionism is something Israeli leaders including Bibi constantly say. Israel wants Lebensraum.

                                      The reality is that Israelis don't care about ancient maps, they care about the terrorists operating in Lebanon that have been bombarding them for years.

                                      > Israeli's are just experiencing for the first time

                                      Not at all. Israel was attacked by five armies the day after it declared independence, and has been attacked many times since, including regular rocket attacks over the past ~25 years.

                                      • donkeybeer 4 hours ago |
                                        What's not to care about who fired the first shot? I am not talking about 3000 year old maps, though Bibi is. I am talking about events in the late 1940s where jewish terrorists constant bloodsoaked violence and terror led to rhe states foundation, including prime ministers being extracted from one of these terror outfits. It's all a direct continuation of that.
                          • donkeybeer a day ago |
                            It may be random, but I didn't hear any Iranian saying they want to nuke the entire Europe if they feel threatened. I can already tell who I feel more threatened by. Even if we assume the Iranian govt truly means that, its still countries that have bonbed, hurt and destroyed Iran, and this begins far before the Islamic republic itself such as toppling Irans just and honorably elected government to install a dictatorial puppet monarch. Whereas that Israeli is threatening the entirety of Europe who never hurt Israel and even against all common sense and justice and fairness have been giving billions of euros to the Israeli entity, and this is how the ingrates respond. Being neither Israeli nor Iranian and not having my brain clouded by the stupidities of religion, nationalism or racialism there is a certain clarity of mind that arises in these matters.
                  • donkeybeer 2 days ago |
                    >Again do you have some sort of example or evidence?

                    There is discrepancy between what Vanunu said and what the government of Israel said. Evidence points to Vanunu being truthful, thus naturally, the Israeli government are liars.

                    • dlubarov 2 days ago |
                      > and what the government of Israel said

                      Again do you have a particular statement in mind?

                      • donkeybeer 2 days ago |
                        "We neither confirm nor deny" then prosecuting the man who "confirmed" by illegally kidnapping him from a neutral foreign country.
                        • dlubarov 2 days ago |
                          You claimed something about "lies about nukes". There's really no way to construe "we neither confirm nor deny" as a lie, whether or not someone else leaks the information.
        • PixyMisa 4 days ago |
          Mandy Rice-Davies Applies.
    • ChuckMcM 4 days ago |
      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.
      • big-and-small 4 days ago |
        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.
        • JumpCrisscross 4 days ago |
          There is probably a hardline faction within Iran that still thinks it gains from further bombing and forced isolation.
          • PixyMisa 4 days ago |
            Yep. The IRGC runs the country at this point, and they do not have anyone else's best interests in mind.
          • jhanschoo 3 days ago |
            Why would Iran end up further isolated due to this war, and out of escalation? (your sentence is slightly ambiguous so I assume that you are referring to it.) If it successfully asserts control over the Strait as it seems to presently be doing, it should be able to negotiate a peace favorable to itself. Even with the status quo, I don't know how that figures into things, but the US has temporarily lifted sanctions on Iranian oil.

            I don't follow the news very well, but from what I know the claim that you make isn't very obviously true but needs some evidence for it to stand.

            • kombookcha 2 days ago |
              I think this is the elephant in the roomt - in terms of quantifiable goals, Iran is winning this thing. I think they're going to want to punish the US and Israel to an extent where they will be reluctant to feel this particular sting again, and they want to assert their ability to control the strait. And it's working! They're clearly demonstrating that the US cannot simply decide when this is over and dictate terms, because Iran can pinch off an important vein of global commerce and probably sustain that pressure for far longer than it can be tolerated by other economies.

              They've already gotten one concession in terms of this temporary sanctions relief, even as Trump frames it as a domestic emergency measure and repeatedly declares total victory each day of the conflict. They also got him to back off on targeting their power plants by promising to retaliate in kind against the power infrastructure of US aligned states in range.

              I think the US has the ability to beat Iran in a fight, but it does not have the preparation or the resolve to do so at this time, because this is some halfcocked nonsense plan with amorphous goals that they thought would be over in a week.

              • jacquesm 2 days ago |
                Not without 100K coffins. And that doesn't really sell all that well in the US.
                • kombookcha a day ago |
                  Exactly. The price to actually do this is simply not one the US is willing to pay.
        • hshdhdhj4444 4 days ago |
          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.

          • big-and-small 4 days ago |
            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.

          • bigfatkitten 4 days ago |
            > and maybe Saudi Arabia?

            The war is extremely bad for business for Saudi Arabia and has already cost them enormous amounts of money. It is causing damage to their oil refineries that will take years to repair.

            The only person who gains anything out of this is Netanyahu and his friends. Everyone else loses, including the Israeli people.

            • srean 4 days ago |
              That is so because of Iran's choice of targets. SA might have misjudged that their business assets would be attacked.

              There is some chatter that crown prince supported and approved the assassination of Khamenei and possibly supplies supportive intelligence.

              They haven't been exactly friendly with Iran.

              The odd ball is Qatar. Qatar had been working hard to have friendly relations with Iran. So I was surprised by Iran's attack on Qatari interests.

            • machomaster 3 days ago |
              This is what actually happened, but not what was predicted.

              According to journalists, it was Saudis who have been trying for a long time to convince Trump to attack Iran.

              Sunni vs. Shia, there is a history there.

          • jacquesm 3 days ago |
            There are unfortunately plenty of idiots in Europe who learned nothing from accompanying the USA on their previous illegal adventures abroad.
        • yongjik 4 days ago |
          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.

        • Spooky23 4 days ago |
          They’re at war. The US and Israel are bombing everything anyway.

          Strategically, Diego Garcia is a forward operating base for irreplaceable B-52 and B-2 bombers. Placing them at risk on the ground seems like a reckless call, more likely the US pulls those resources back to the US.

          I’m not rooting for Iran, but since the US has who they have making the calls, Iran has obvious strategic cards to play - escalation benefits them.

          • DoctorOetker 3 days ago |
            one missile fails, the other is intercepted

            your conclusion: US will pull those resources back?

            • Spooky23 3 days ago |
              As a defender, you only need to fail once. Blow up a few B-2s on the ramp and that becomes a event with unlimited bad potential.
              • urikaduri 3 days ago |
                By the time it takes the missiles to reach there, the planes could be in the air.
                • machomaster 3 days ago |
                  Could be. But won't be. The flying time to target is mere minutes, and taking the plane from zero (not even crew inside) to air takes much longer than that.
        • pasquinelli 4 days ago |
          maybe they aren't as worried about that as they should be. maybe america isn't as worried about that as it should be.

          but, what are you saying? it would be weird for iran to act in a way that might provoke escalation? you mean in the totally unprovoked war israel/america launched against them?

      • JumpCrisscross 4 days ago |
        > 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.

        • chasd00 4 days ago |
          The thing is Iran has long promised their max range was 2k Km and so defensive only. This shows that was a lie.
          • roncesvalles 3 days ago |
            All countries publicly understate the max range that their missiles can go. This is generally understood in the defense community.
            • ofrzeta 3 days ago |
              What's the point? Naively one would think it is the opposite.
              • Glawen 3 days ago |
                To surprise your ennemy. I've heard recently that they tune military hardware differently in peace than in war, e.g. radar signals frequency.
              • navane 3 days ago |
                I heard the same about the number and location of French nuclear war heads, or their exact red lines. If you tell the enemy your limit they're gonna sit exactly on it.
      • sashagim 3 days ago |
        > whether or not Iran would limit themselves to military targets

        This question has long been answered

        • machomaster 3 days ago |
          How is it? So far they seem to be trying to hit actual non-civilian targets. Missing with the rockets on intended targets is a different matter.

          And yes, hitting offices with American financial institutions or hotels with American soldiers in them is fine.

          • sashagim 3 days ago |
            Attacks on Israel clearly show that Iran - just like Russia - sees the civilian population as a legitimate target. Question of tactics remains, of course.
            • parthdesai 3 days ago |
              So just like US and Israel?
  • mikeyouse 4 days ago |
    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.

    • greesil 4 days ago |
      Excellent point. Maybe it's the goal of this attack to demonstrate this capability.
    • mytailorisrich 4 days ago |
      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...

      • applfanboysbgon 4 days ago |
        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.

        • mytailorisrich 4 days ago |
          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.

        • gambutin 4 days ago |
          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.

          • subscribed 4 days ago |
            Did he also released a religious decree stating as much?

            Because otherwise you're comparing apples to mushrooms. Not even themselves kingdom.

        • rayiner 4 days ago |
          Do the missiles Iran has been raining down on other countries for decades not count as WMDs?
      • breppp 4 days ago |
        > 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

        • mda 4 days ago |
          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?
          • breppp 4 days ago |
            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

            • mda 3 days ago |
              Iran is Turkey's neighbor and had relatively good relations for very long time, even with the strongman it doesn't make a shred of sense to change this. Especially for USA which has a tendency to back stab Turkey in any occasion (They could not get away from the time when Turkey did not allow them to invade Iraq from north, the previous BS war)
              • breppp 3 days ago |
                Hence my point that Iran's "strategy" is very questionable
        • GordonS 4 days ago |
          It should be noted that Iran has publicly stated that the attacks on Turkey were false-flag attacks launched by Israel.
          • breppp 3 days ago |
            It should be noted that Iran has claimed to have sunk the USS Lincoln and to have captured several US soldiers, among other creative interpretations of reality

            To take the claims at face value, local governments that has an interest to shift blame on Israel, do not believe Iran, due to their own radar data

            • GordonS 3 days ago |
              It should be noted that, contrary to your, erm, creative interpretation of reality, that Iran has claimed to have struck the USS Lincoln, not sank it.

              And where is the radar data that proves missiles were launched towards Diego Garcia, let alone from Iran? Iran BTW say this wasn't them - and as they say in advance where they'll strike, I'm more inclined to believe them than the deranged Trump, Netanyahu et al.

              • breppp 3 days ago |
                https://factcheck.afp.com/doc.afp.com.A2JQ2G3

                I was mistaken, sinking it was a claim by IRGC influence networks, not official statement. However official Iranian statements have claimed to have hit the USS Lincoln with 4 ballistic missiles, which is also an amazing lie considering these missiles accuracy and the state of the Lincoln.

                Other nonsense claims apart from the "captured" US soldiers by Iranian officials is the claim of 100 dead US troops (https://www.iranintl.com/en/202603051892)

                My point still stands, the Iranian regime has a different standard of truth than most people. Its lies are wild and non-subtle, I wouldn't put a lot of faith on any of those.

                Regarding radar data, these is the evidence countries have when approaching such a situation. You can safely assume that a country like Qatar or Turkey for example that finance Hamas, have no vested interest to believe Israel over Iran. The problem is even they have some limit to being spit on and calling it rain

      • throwaway27448 4 days ago |
        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.
      • mda 4 days ago |
        Like they flattened Afghanistan? It is funny people thinks land war in an huge mountainous country with 90 million people is easy.
        • mytailorisrich 4 days ago |
          I wrote "flatten", not "invade".
          • mda 4 days ago |
            flatten with what?
            • drnick1 4 days ago |
              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.

              • lostlogin 4 days ago |
                > destroy their only source of revenue (oil fields)

                That’s the worlds source or revenue.

              • subscribed 4 days ago |
                You don't use nuke on the regime, you use it on the civilians, FFS.

                Genocidal freaks. As if Hiroshima didn't teach you anything.

              • lm28469 4 days ago |
                Lmao, from "we're here to bring democracy" to "let's destroy their civilian infrastructure" to "let's nuke them" real quick

                If that's the US way, why are Russians the bad guy again?

              • amunozo 3 days ago |
                Think about what you're saying. That causes hundreds of thousands of deaths of innocent civilians. Suffering of millions. Weren't you supposed to help the Iranian people? This is the opposite.
                • afroboy 3 days ago |
                  We all know he doesn't care about civilians he just want Muslims to be killed in masses and that's it, and Israel/US are carrying his dream and 50% of Americans dream to annihilate the faith of people who don't like.
        • PepperdineG 4 days ago |
          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.
          • me_smith 4 days ago |
            Inconceivable!
      • chasd00 4 days ago |
        Idk, I don’t think Europe has the capacity to do anything except launch their nukes. If missiles started falling on London they’d run to the UN and start writing letters. It would take months for NATO to start having planning meetings to figure out how to plan the response. I feel like the only military capability is maybe the SAS and nukes. There’s nothing in between.
        • amunozo 3 days ago |
          That's ridiculous, but Europe has no reason to intervene in this craze. If attacked, things would change. Europe has participated in previous wars like Irak or Afghanistan, why wouldn't we be able to act now?
    • maratc 4 days ago |
      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.

      • throwaway27448 4 days ago |
        > 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.

      • cardanome 4 days ago |
        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.

        • breppp 4 days ago |
          After being caught developing nuclear weapons for real numerous times, now it is really for real?
          • pepperoni_pizza 4 days ago |
            Were they caught by the same people who found WMDs in Iraq by any chance?
            • breppp 4 days ago |
              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...

              • 1659447091 4 days ago |
                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

                • breppp 4 days ago |
                  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

          • lm28469 4 days ago |
            We have Joe Kent on mic saying Iran was not building nukes and posed no threat to the US.

            The only people saying Iran was just about to get nukes are the Israelis, who've been saying that every 5 years for the last 40 years, and the only people who fell for it are magatards

            I don't understand how people fall for this shit after the Iraq war scam, which was essentially the exact same propaganda

            • maratc 3 days ago |
              Well, maybe you have a plausible explanation for why Iran needed 60%-grade enriched uranium -- now that we've firmly established that it clearly was not for building nukes.
              • lm28469 3 days ago |
                Do you have a plausible explanation why Saddam had anthrax ? Oh wait he didn't? Hmmm it really makes you think
                • maratc 3 days ago |
                  Are you talking about the stuff he used to gas 100,000 Iranians in about 1984, or the stuff he used to gas 100,000 of his own citizens in 1988? Oh wait he didn't, it's all propaganda and war scam I guess.
        • tonyedgecombe 4 days ago |
          I don't know but I can certainly blame them for oppressing and murdering their own citizens.
          • FpUser 4 days ago |
            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.

          • watwut 4 days ago |
            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.

          • lm28469 4 days ago |
            Everyone does, the problem is that every time the US came to deliver democracy to the Middle East they left the place in a much worse shape than it was... Also I don't believe for a second Trump or Israel give a single fuck about Iranian citizens
            • mikeyouse 3 days ago |
              That’s the thing that annoys me the most about that post-hoc rationale - we’re supposed to pretend that Donald Trump cares at all about Muslim protesters on the other side of the world?
        • xdennis 4 days ago |
          > Maybe don't murder the religious leader that made the rulings.

          Are you saying that politicians should be immune if they also serve a religious role?

          • cardanome 3 days ago |
            I am saying it is bad to murder people. Period.

            Don't start wars. Don't assassinate neither political nor religious leaders.

      • tptacek 4 days ago |
        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.

        • rayiner 4 days ago |
          Your in-depth knowledge of completely random things never ceases to amaze me.
          • tptacek 4 days ago |
            I'm Catholic and Twelver Shiism is the closest thing Islam has to Catholicism. It's a really neat system.
        • thaumasiotes 4 days ago |
          > But there are several other marja (marjas? marji?)

          Wikipedia has romanized: [singular] marji'; plural marāji'.

        • chimineycricket 4 days ago |
          Maraaji' is the pluralized version in Arabic, but nothing wrong with saying marjas. Marji would be most wrong though.
        • ttul 4 days ago |
          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).

    • rayiner 4 days ago |
      > 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?

      • mikeyouse 3 days ago |
        The IRGC directly was mostly targeting US troops in Iraq (eg the 2020 Al Asad ballistic missile attack) and frequently responded to ‘Imperial Aggression’ with missile attacks on Israel - which peaked at 2,000km... They’d also been surprisingly consistent with limiting their proxies to SRBMs so that you wouldn’t get a random Hamas or Hezbolah missile into Central Europe.

        Im really hoping they enforced those limits by not sending them IRBMs rather than sending them and ‘not letting’ them use the full range because I’m getting the sense their proxies would rather land some flashy strikes on soft targets instead of having everything swatted down over Israel.

    • jmyeet 4 days ago |
      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.

    • lm28469 4 days ago |
      > it’s clear the new regime no longer feels bound by that restriction..

      Wait a minute... Are you implying the dude who just got his dad, wife, brother, son and many other relatives killed by their arch enemies is not bending the knee?

      Who could have predicted that?

      • chasd00 3 days ago |
        That guy is dead or dying. He’s not in control of anything. There’s been no audio or video of him since the opening strike.
        • lm28469 3 days ago |
          Whoever is in charge doesn't matter, I can guarantee you they're not in a more favorable mood than 4 weeks ago. They also killed one of only rational diplomatic Iranian officials, during active negociations, if you want to make it clear negociating with the US is useless that's exactly what you'd do
  • georgeburdell 4 days ago |
    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
    • cardanome 4 days ago |
      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.

      • anvuong 4 days ago |
        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.
        • spaghetdefects 4 days ago |
          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.
          • tuna74 4 days ago |
            It is impossible to know how may Iranians want the IRGC gone. But bombing schools (and bombings in general) will definitely increase the support for it.
        • cardanome 4 days ago |
          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.

          • watwut 4 days ago |
            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.

            • cardanome 4 days ago |
              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.

            • JumpCrisscross 4 days ago |
              > 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.

              • kelipso 3 days ago |
                More like normal people who don’t want their country razed by outside forces.
                • JumpCrisscross 3 days ago |
                  > normal people who don’t want their country razed by outside forces

                  They’re being razed by domestic forces. Think of every Redditor who wants to see revolution.

              • jacquesm 3 days ago |
                There are plenty of educated Iranians within Iran. What's with the structural under-estimation of countries that are not quite like the West? Seriously, Iran has - especially given the sanctions they've been under - consistently outperformed everybody's expectations in terms of capabilities. Assuming they will get their coveted atomic weapon (and there are several paths to that, which I hope they will not be able to complete) we're in for a world of trouble because the only thing that kept Iran contained so far was the thought that maybe if they played ball they would be left to keep on meddling without there being an outright war.

                Now that is no longer an option, so their resolve to get that weapon will be ten fold what it was three weeks ago.

                You underestimate your foes at your peril, do not underestimate Iran or the Iranian people, they had an advanced culture when the West did not even exist. The fact that they're stuck in religion is the main item that is holding them back from really taking over the region. But there are plenty of countries in the West that have a bit of a religious problem so even on that front you can't point fingers.

                • JumpCrisscross 3 days ago |
                  You’re misreading my statement. Educated Iranians are plentiful. They’re the ones international people are familiar with. They almost universally hate the IRGC because they see it destroying their country. For every educated Iranian, however, they have tens of their equivalent of Koran thumpers. And those people will support the IRGC’s economic consolidation among their billionaire elite.

                  > their resolve to get that weapon will be ten fold what it was three weeks ago

                  They’ll probably get it. I’m almost convinced we’ll see the Middle East or Europe get nuked in our lifetime. Tehran hits Tel Aviv; the latter hits every major city or something.

                  • jacquesm 3 days ago |
                    You won't meet many IRGC supporters outside of Iran, that's the whole reason they are not in Iran in the first place. Just the same with Cubans outside of Cuba. Most Iranians (or people that still identify as Iranians in exile) have fled the regime and/or were connected to the regime of the Shah (and often through their parents, not they themselves).

                    > I’m almost convinced we’ll see the Middle East or Europe get nuked in our lifetime.

                    There is a good chance of that, and the last 3 weeks have made it much more likely that that will happen.

                    > Tehran hits Tel Aviv; the latter hits every major city or something.

                    That is possible. There are multiple possible nuclear flashpoints, Russia vs one of their neighbors, Pakistan vs India or the other way around, Israel vs Iran or the other way around, the USA because Trump has a bad hairday against pick-your-target.

                    Of all the parties that have nukes I figure China, France and the UK are the most stable.

        • sofixa 4 days ago |
          > 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.

          • jacquesm 3 days ago |
            The opposite: Trump and Netanyahu have just proven to the bulk of the Iranians that the mullahs were right all along. They have helped IRGC more than they've hurt them by taking out their leadership. The mistake here is to think that the IRGC is structured along the lines of NATO or something like that. It really isn't. It's more like a 'instant guerilla mix' where all you have to do is add some water and stir it up. They learned a lot of lessons from looking at Iraq and the fact that their command structure is still in place should tell you something.
        • swat535 4 days ago |
          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.

          • srean 4 days ago |
            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.

          • CamperBob2 4 days ago |
            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.

            • thunky 4 days ago |
              Unless you're talking about the US military you're wrong here. MAGA is not willing to sacrifice anything. It's a bully mindset and bullies take, they don't give.
              • CamperBob2 4 days ago |
                MAGA is not willing to sacrifice anything.

                They're willing to sacrifice the rest of us, just like the mullahs. As long as other people are hurting more, MAGA is happy to sacrifice whatever is asked of them.

                It's a literal cult. To understand that, all you have to do is imagine a Biden, an Obama, or a Harris saying and doing the things Trump has said and done in the last 30 days alone. "Some of you may die, and gas prices may go up for a while, but that's a chance I'm willing to take. Oh, also, Imma need 'bout $200 billion, kthx."

                • thunky 3 days ago |
                  > They're willing to sacrifice the rest of us

                  It's a transaction: they'll pay more for gas for a month to feel strong and powerful. That's a good exchange. They feel like they're winning. But there's no way they're putting their life on the line for anything.

                  So no, it's not a sacrifice. If they were to lose their position of strength they'd roll over in a second. Not just the followers but the leaders too. I mean imagine if Hegseth or Trump was captured by Iran. They would shit their pants give them anything they want. Anything to get back to their comfortable bed. Because they have zero principles. You don't need priciples if you're not being tested. That's why bullies bully, because they think there are no consequences.

        • Devasta 4 days ago |
          You are absolutely deluded if you think the removal of the IRGC will result in any improvement in the situation of the Iranian people. The US and Israel want to bomb he place into a lawless wasteland, even if a secular democracy was to arise it would make no difference.
          • chasd00 4 days ago |
            It’s trivial for either the US or Israel to do that with one phone call (completely destroy infrastructure on kharg island and the gas fields, this yields an Iranian failed state). The fact it hasn’t happened proves you wrong.
            • jacquesm 3 days ago |
              The only reason that has not happened is because the West needs that oil to flow.
          • rasz 3 days ago |
            Hey, I heard that exact argument many times before used when talking about pre 2024 Syria.
        • jacquesm 3 days ago |
          The IRGC has more support in Iran than the Republicans do in the United States, just to give you one datapoint to contemplate.
      • gambutin 4 days ago |
        Iranian kids have been chanting death to Israel and death to USA for 47 years now. They’ve been waiting for this.
        • srean 4 days ago |
          Well, if US takes down their democracy and downs their domestic passenger jets, fight a proxy war with chemical weapons through Saddam Hussein that alone kills 20~30 thousand, no country is going to respond to that with flowers in their hair.

          In Iran's defence, in spite of being attacked repeatedly with chemical weapons, not once have they retaliated with chemical weapons. This is in line with their beliefs which was formalized into a fatwa by the late Khamenei against nuclear weapons.

          I would call that taking a pretty principled stand at a time when it would have been very tempting to redefine them.

          • gambutin 4 days ago |
            Have you ever been in Iran? Do you know any Iranians and have you talked to them recently?

            Do you know what Khomeini did to his fellow leftist who toppled the Shah?

            • srean 3 days ago |
              No. But many that I know have. They all had a lovely lovely time and to this day reminisce fondly about the hospitality they received from the people, from the officials.

              As complete strangers they were invited into their homes to share dinner with family, with much post dinner merriment and singing and dancing. Note, my people were complete strangers to them, foreigners too. Some of my people were young men, they giggle and blush telling stories they were approached openly by women, no burqa in sight. These people still try to stay in occasional touch to this day.

              Yes (many).

              Yes. Also what US planted Shah's SAVAK did to his political opponents.

              So what was your point again that you were presumably making, if any at all.

              Ah I see. You took a random shot hoping it would stick and silence. Tsk tsk.

              Maybe you are new here, those things don't work so well around here.

              All Iranians reading this on HN, thank you for your generosity and hospitality. No one can top yours, seriously. Americans are generally friendly people, but Iranians really hit hospitality and show of heart out of the park.

        • bigfatkitten 4 days ago |
          Funnily enough, they are still a bit salty about the US and UK overthrowing their government in 1953, because that government started asking questions about how much oil the UK was stealing.
        • thrance 3 days ago |
          You'll be surprised to hear about what they have been chanting in the streets of Tel Aviv for decades. This cycle of violence can't be resolved by more violence. By starting this war for no reason, Israel and the US will only succeed in further radicalizing the Iranian people against them.
      • xdennis 4 days ago |
        > They attacked Iran not the other way round.

        This whole war is a continuation of the Oct 7 attack on Israel by Iran's proxies. It's been revealed recently that Israel took the decision to assassinate the leader of Iran soon after Oct 7 in retaliation. It just took a few years to find the opportunity to do so.

        • cardanome 3 days ago |
          Iran is financially supporting both Hamas and Hezbollah so it has a degree of influence on these groups but it does not mean that they them.

          Oct 7th was planned by Hamas, specifically Hamas in Gaza.

          It is obvious that neither Iran nor Hezbollah knew about the date or they would have coordinated their attacks. In fact Iran did not seem very happy about October 7th because they didn't want the escalation.

    • brabel 4 days ago |
      How convenient for Trump that now all Europe now has a pretext to send the help they were asked for.
      • fidotron 4 days ago |
        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.

        • chasd00 4 days ago |
          When was the last time the NATO navy do anything anyway? They’d just be sitting ducks and probably not even know which directions to point what pointless weapons they have.
          • fidotron 3 days ago |
            Being sitting ducks is the point.

            The underlying reason is too many people will readily believe that if someone died for something it means it's worth fighting for, and this has been abused by strategists for a very long time.

    • spaghetdefects 4 days ago |
      Iran was attacked. Israel and the US are the threat, Iran is just practicing very common sense self-defense.
      • upcoming-sesame 3 days ago |
        It's easy to assume the war started when Iran was attacked by the US and Israel, but in fact Iran has been fighting a proxy war for decades already and not just with Israel (Hezbollah) but also with Saudi Arabia (Houtis) and more.

        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran%E2%80%93Israel_proxy_conf...

        • spaghetdefects 3 days ago |
          Israel has been fighting a proxy war with much of the world since Zionism was conceived. I value Iran's assistance in this matter. They were however attacked first by the US and Israel. That's not debatable.
    • surgical_fire 4 days ago |
      Are you implying other countries have to join in?

      Iran is only a threat because the US and Israel decided it was time to murder some Iranians.

      The US and Israel are more of a threat to the entire world.

      • upcoming-sesame 3 days ago |
        let's not pretend this attack happened in a vacuum.

        Iran has been funding murderous militias like Hezbollah , Houtis and fighting a proxy war for years.

        • jacquesm 3 days ago |
          Fortunately the West would never stoop so low.
        • surgical_fire 3 days ago |
          Let's not pretend that too happened in a vacuum.

          The US started all this with the 1953 coup in Iran, and Israel was from its inception an extremely aggressive and expansionist country.

  • AndrewKemendo 4 days ago |
    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.

    • visuhire 4 days ago |
      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.
      • AndrewKemendo 4 days ago |
        Sometimes getting shot down is the goal or at least a test to see what kind of response you’ll get
        • roughly 4 days ago |
          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.

          • picture 4 days ago |
            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"

            • AndrewKemendo 4 days ago |
              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

            • roughly 4 days ago |
              > How do you know their intentions?

              Because they declared them loudly.

              When they launched the drone strikes on Israel, they gave Israel and the US warning time so they could be intercepted. The second time, they gave them much less warning time.

              The Iranians have a long history of negotiating loudly via their actions, which anyone who's spent any reasonable amount of time studying Iran knows and has seen in action. They're really not a mystery, they're very transparent, we just don't like what they're saying.

          • srean 4 days ago |
            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.

    • alephnerd 4 days ago |
      > 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...

      • AndrewKemendo 4 days ago |
        Agreed, there’s so much intelligence in this act it’s really astonishing
        • alephnerd 4 days ago |
          Yep. This action wasn't intended for the average HNer or Redditor to pontificate about.

          Those who they wanted to send a message to got the message, and it's a significant message up the escalation chain.

          Additionally, the fact that this is being very publicly disclosed and discussed in British media in a manner that RAF Akhrioti wasn't is also a massive signal.

      • porridgeraisin 3 days ago |
        How is this a merger of those two conflicts?
    • noir_lord 4 days ago |
      Would the Americans and Isreali’s start bombing mainland Iran and takin out their weapons and oil/gas infrastructure as retaliation?.
      • chronic20001 4 days ago |
        > 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.

      • spaghetdefects 4 days ago |
        Americans and Israelis literally started this war by bombing an Iranian girl's school. They've been bombing Iran every day since then.
        • iamtheworstdev 4 days ago |
          i believe the parent comment was being sarcastic
    • Rebelgecko 4 days ago |
      If you're already at war, why waste resources on warning shots?
      • AndrewKemendo 4 days ago |
        Sometimes it’s worth it to test in production
      • CamperBob2 4 days ago |
        See also the Doolittle Raid.
  • spaghetdefects 4 days ago |
    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.
    • nozzlegear 4 days ago |
      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.

      • spaghetdefects 4 days ago |
        • nozzlegear 4 days ago |
          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.
          • wongarsu 4 days ago |
            True on technicalities. If it isn't useful to the operation of the bombers in the region, why did it happen? And if it is useful that sounds like a UK base participating in the war
            • nozzlegear 3 days ago |
              I'm no war strategist but I'd guess they did it to have them ready to strike Iran if needed. Diego Garcia has been used by UK/US joint operations in the Middle East since the Iraq War, it's not unusual to have American bombers stationed there when the US is on "high alert" or whatever.

              To be clear, I'm not saying I support any of this Iran nonsense from Trump. I am very much against him meddling in the ME.

      • GordonS 4 days ago |
        Except that Starmer was lying - there have been photos of bombs being loaded onto US bombers going around for at least several days now.
        • nozzlegear 4 days ago |
          What photos? And what reason would Starmer have to lie about it?
    • JumpCrisscross 4 days ago |
      > 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.

      • throwaw12 4 days ago |
        Iran hasn't attacked Turkmenistan yet, so neutrality has protected them
        • JumpCrisscross 4 days ago |
          > 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.

          • throwaw12 4 days ago |
            Okay, Afghanistan as well. Afghanistan is obviously not neutral, but they haven't participated in supporting US-Israeli attack on Iran

            How about now?

            • JumpCrisscross 3 days ago |
              > Afghanistan as well

              Sure, if you’re Turkmenistan or Afghanistan, the latter which is being bombed by Pakistan, you’re fine. Also if you’re Azerbaijan, fuck you.

              What’s the argument? Like, Oman was trusted by parts of Tehran on diplomatic matters. They still got bombed. Trying to rationalize this is untenable—it was a stupid strategy of throwing toys out of the pram.

              • throwaw12 3 days ago |
                Doesn't look like you understood your own words about neutrality

                Azerbaijan does intelligence cooperation with Israel, against Iran, so it's not a neutral party.

                Oman, also shares their facilities to the US military.

                • srean 3 days ago |
                  That's right. Hosting military bases of the overlords that impose crippling sanctions that impoverish a nation on false premises is quite far away from a neutral country.

                  I didn't hear the neighbouring countries complain when Iran got attacked economically/financially and then later military.

                  Not exactly the behaviour of a fair neighbour.

      • kelipso 3 days ago |
        They only attacked countries that host US bases, correct?
        • JumpCrisscross 3 days ago |
          > only attacked countries that host US bases, correct?

          No. Azerbaijan hosts no U.S. bases. Also, the Gulf hosts U.S. bases in part to protect against Iran. Blowing up hotels while missing American warships underlines why Iran is a shit neighbor.

          • srean 3 days ago |
            Iran has said it was not them. So far Iran has been quite conscientious about taking responsibility of the targets they have hit or attempted to hit.

            Israel on the other hand has a history of not being so.

            • JumpCrisscross 3 days ago |
              > Iran has said it was not them

              They’ve given mixed messages. You see the new talking points being echoed down thread [1].

              > Iran has been quite conscientious about taking responsibility

              There is no singular Iran. The President apologized. Then the IRGC hit more targets in neutral nations. (Again, unless we use the new definition of neutrality which means everyone is an enemy.)

              [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47474297

              • srean 3 days ago |
                Your [1] and Iran's claim that it did not target Azerbaijan can both be true.

                Yes there is no one central command, but in spite of that whoever is doing the shooting in Iran has been conscientious about taking responsibility.

                I find this believable because Azerbaijan has not been hit again as compared to other neighbouring Arab nations.

    • xdennis 4 days ago |
      > Iran repeatedly stated that they will not attack any country's assets if they do not assist the US/Israel.

      They attacked the UK in Cyprus at the start of the war back when the UK refused to allow any of it's bases to be used by the US. Stop spreading propaganda.

    • mikrotikker 2 days ago |
      What did Turkey do?
  • cardanome 4 days ago |
    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.

    • netsharc 4 days ago |
      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.
      • cardanome 4 days ago |
        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.

        • kortilla 4 days ago |
          How is China getting that oil without problem? Something like 90% of it when through Kharg island which is now rubble.
          • cardanome 4 days ago |
            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.

            • kortilla 2 hours ago |
              “Could rebuild” is not congruent with China having “no problem getting oil”.
        • DoctorOetker 3 days ago |
          > We deserve it for looking the other way while Israel has been mass murdering Palestinians for more than two years now.

          The sad part is how the genocide in Gaza could have been prevented:

          Imagine an alternate history, in which successive precedencies didn't turn a blind eye to Iran, imagine a decade ago (regardless of democrat or republican administration) that they decided to do what they are doing today in Iran. Iran wouldn't have had the funds and resources to sponsor Hamas and Hezbollah. The populations in Gaza and Lebanon wouldn't have been sandwiched between the projected powers of Israel and Iran. Their power structures could have been legitimate democracies etc. In that world there wouldn't have been a reason for Israel to attack and invade, and even if they did in this alternate history, the rest of the world would have strongly condemned it to the point of military intervention on behalf of Gaza / Lebanon.

          Always take not how a faction has risen to power initially. In the case of Iran's regime it was hostage taking. A faction will very often resort to the same tactics and methods it used during its initial ascent to power, a form of survivorship bias.

          If the West hadn't let the situation of Iran rot indefinitely for decades (they even systematically rewarded the regime's behavior by systematically giving in to the hostage politics it conducted, in my opinion they should have just drawn a line and said: return these hostages unconditionally or we treat this as hiding behind a human shield).

          • cardanome 3 days ago |
            The genocide against the Palestinians has not started after October 7th though but long before the Islamic Republic of Iran even existed. In the Nakba of 1948 as much al 750k Palestinians lost their homes.

            Hezbollah came to be as a resistance group against the invasion of Lebanon by Israel.

            The reason both Hamas and Hezbollah exists is because Israel.

            There can not be peace in the region as long as Israel exists. They are a settler colonial state build and sustaining itself by the dead bodies and suffering of the Palestinians.

            > the rest of the world would have strongly condemned it to the point of military intervention on behalf of Gaza / Lebanon.

            That is completely delusional.

            I Iran had fallen ten years ago, there would be no Palestinians anymore. No one would have stopped Israel from killing them. Israel would have annexed South Lebanon, part of Syria, Egypt and so on and created Greater Israel.

      • shepherdjerred 4 days ago |
        TBH I am a little more concerned about people dying from the conflict than paying a bit more for gas
        • undersuit 4 days ago |
          What about the people who will die because they cannot afford the higher prices that will come from a disruption in gas supply?
          • shepherdjerred 3 days ago |
            You could've written that comment in a more constructive way.

            As you probably already know, my point was that it's a bit callous to focus on "this war is expensive and inconvenient" while innocent people are, you know, dying.

    • gizajob 4 days ago |
      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.
      • cardanome 4 days ago |
        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.

        • rcMgD2BwE72F 4 days ago |
          >Mossad agents have been instructed to fire at protestors to increase the death toll.

          Source?

          • geraneum 4 days ago |
            The state TV. It’s impossible they lie.
          • cardanome 4 days ago |
            > 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.

            • throwawayheui57 4 days ago |
              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.

              • srean 4 days ago |
                > fewer people have been killed than those two days of massacre.

                So, how many have been killed in those two days of massacre exactly?

                A credible source please, and "killed", not "accused of killing", "allegedly killed" etc.

                I was following this news in real-time at that time. One thing I noticed was that media outlets started killing/withdrawing many of their stories.

                That made me mighty suspicious.

                • throwawayheui57 3 days ago |
                  Here's (1) a reference from a relatively credible source with a lot of context. There's a section dedicated to the number you're looking for.

                  Worth adding that the regime claims around 3000 were killed while not allowing any independent investigation and also completely blocking the internet for days and arresting reporters. Mighty suspicious indeed.

                  But that is besides my point. Even if we go with the regime's number and compare it with the casualties of the war (2), you can get a picture of the scale of the massacre compared to an actual war against US freakin army!

                  1. https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/campaigns/2026/01/what-hap...

                  2. https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2026/3/1/us-israel-attacks-on...

                  • srean 3 days ago |
                    Thanks. I find both the sources credible.
            • yorwba 4 days ago |
              Those are not sources for the statement you were asked to back up with a source.
        • UltraSane 4 days ago |
          "Mossads agents had been arming people and instructing them to riot. "

          This feels far too much like Iranian government propaganda to be plausible.

          • srean 4 days ago |
            That would be right from the text book of any psyops and insurgency operation. This is as standard operating procedure as it gets.

            It would be very surprising if they didn't. Heck FBI was doing it to citizens at one point, during war against terror.

          • cardanome 3 days ago |
            Mossad has literally admitted to that.

            Let me even quote an 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

            • UltraSane 3 days ago |
              Iranians don't NEED any external motivation to riot. The current Shia Theocracy that runs Iran is completely insane and incompetent and cruel.
              • kelipso 3 days ago |
                These are just propaganda words. Could say the same thing about Israel, US, many countries.
                • UltraSane 3 days ago |
                  So you consider the Shia Theocracy to be sane and sensible?
                • throwawayheui57 2 days ago |
                  Come on! You can do better. You have to at least make it remotely believable.
      • throwaw12 4 days ago |
        > 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?

        • JumpCrisscross 4 days ago |
          > Any credible source for this?

          For tens of thousands? No. That’s the upper end of estimates. For the brutality? Yes. Wikipedia is a good start.

        • UltraSane 4 days ago |
          • throwaw12 4 days ago |
            > Iran has executed three men accused of killing police officers during anti-government protests in January,

            As I said, West considers Iran as enemy, used words by BBC reflects this clearly.

            1. "accused of" - we don't know, but lets say they're "accusing" them

            2. if true, then they have killed the "police officers" (seems many?) so what do you expect from Iran?

        • tim333 3 days ago |
          Not sure how credible but iranintl.com has

          >36,500 killed in 400 cities... Our Editorial Board has now obtained more detailed information provided by the IRGC Intelligence Organization to the Supreme National Security Council.

          they are an Iranian opposition outfit funded but the Saudis. (https://www.iranintl.com/en/202601255198)

          • readitalready 3 days ago |
            iranintl, yah that's an instant rejection.

            There are zero verified sources of any mass killings by the Iranian government. In fact all evidence points to Mossad agents committing the mass killings of Iranian government officials as caught on video, including the wrestler that was just executed for killing a police officer with a machete, on video.

            • tim333 3 days ago |
              Any links to the on video bit? Most stuff on the internet seems to say he didn't do anything except protest.
      • verzali 4 days ago |
        We should have little sympathy for them, but ill thought out war will do nothing to improve things for those citizens. Far more likely the opposite.
        • leereeves 4 days ago |
          This seems to be a fairly well thought out war that's already killed many Iranian leaders, including:

          Ayatollah Ali Khamenei – Supreme Leader

          Major General Abdolrahim Mousavi – Chief of Staff of the Armed Forces

          Major General Mohammad Pakpour – Commander-in-Chief of the IRGC

          Brigadier General Aziz Nasirzadeh – Minister of Defense

          Mohammad Shirazi – Head of Supreme Leader’s military office

          Ali Larijani – Senior national security chief

          Esmaeil Khatib – Minister of Intelligence

          Gholamreza Rezaian – Iranian police intelligence commander

          Gholamreza Soleimani – Basij paramilitary commander

          Saleh Asadi – Head of military intelligence at Khatam‑al Anbiya

          Has there been any other war in which one side so quickly killed the leadership of the other side?

          • greggoB 3 days ago |
            Listing a kill count doesn't amount to evidence that the war has been well thought out, it only tells us the US and Israel are good at assassinations.

            It is clear the initial aim was to decapitate the leadership and expect capitulation of some form or another to follow. This obviously hasn't happened, and so the fallout grows by the day.

          • cardanome 3 days ago |
            Many of these leaders decided to not hide underground but to become martyrs.

            It is really not an accomplishment to murder someone in their own house when they have not been hiding.

            Khamenei was already very old.

            His security begged him to evacuate but he asked them if they can evacuate all Iranians. If they can't why should he get special treatment?

            He knew he could serve his country best by becoming a martyr.

            Meanwhile Israeli leader Netanyahu is so afraid to come out of his hole that people are wondering if he is still alive.

            • JumpCrisscross 3 days ago |
              > really not an accomplishment to murder someone in their own house when they have not been hiding

              A win is a win. Irrespective of whether the enemy’s fuckup put it on a silver platter for you.

              > He knew he could serve his country best by becoming a martyr

              And taking down his inner circle with him. Brilliant man.

          • TheAlchemist 3 days ago |
            The way this war is shown to us (West) is very loopsided - Iran was never going to be able to stop the bombing and they knew it. But they still retain most of their ability to blow up anything they want around their country, which is most of oil and gas fields in the Middle East, and this time they actually proved it.

            We like to think we're winning, but are we ? Iran leadership is supposedly decimated, missile capabilities destroyed etc. And yet, when Israel attacked their gas field, they immediately wiped out 17% of Qatari gas productions capacities which will take 5 years to rebuild and they could have wiped out everything. Seems their leadership structure is doing just fine.

            As for all the killed - what did we actually achieve ? Replace Khamenei with his son - a guy who had all of his family blown up to pieces by US / Israeli ? That should do wonders to Iran's future relationship with those countries.

            • rasz 3 days ago |
              >ability to blow up anything they want around their country

              Only places that falsely believed to be immune due to being of same blood, like Qatar.

              >Replace Khamenei with his son - a guy who had all of his family blown up to pieces by US / Israeli

              Rumor has it son was also blown up, just not completely (supposedly disfigured with leg missing) and is most likely hiding in Moscow.

      • surgical_fire 4 days ago |
        The Iranian government is bad, and yes, it should be toppled, eventually, by its own people.

        This doesn't change the fact that Iran is the aggressed party in an invasion of an incredibly aggressive US-Israel axis that seem to revel in death.

        You can hate the Iranian murderous regime, and also understand that it is fighting against another evil, murderous regime.

        • leereeves 4 days ago |
          > The Iranian government is bad, and yes, it should be toppled, eventually, by its own people.

          You would prefer to tell people in Iran who oppose the regime to take up arms (which they don't have) and fight IRGC soldiers with better training and more resources?

          Best case, if they did, Iran would end up in a situation like Syria. Would that be an improvement?

          More likely, it would simply be a massacre.

          • surgical_fire 4 days ago |
            What I can tell you is that no matter how much I hate the government of my country, I would hate a lot more the foreign country that is destroying civilian infrastructure and murdering my people.

            Let's not pretend that the US and Israel regimes have the best interest of the Iranian people in mind. They want murder.

            • leereeves 4 days ago |
              I really can't say how this is being received in or out of Iran, but I remember after the initial strikes there was widespread footage of Iranian exiles celebrating, even on anti-Trump media.

              Edit: and even people celebrating in Iran itself, which seems incredibly brave.

              "videos posted on social media showed joy and defiance elsewhere, with people cheering as a statue was toppled in the city of Dehloran in Ilam province, dancing in the streets of Karaj city, near Tehran in Alborz province, and celebrating in the streets of Izeh in Khuzestan province. In the town of Galleh Dar in southern Iran, people knocked down a monument commemorating Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, who founded the Islamic Republic in 1979, a video on social media showed."

              https://www.reuters.com/business/media-telecom/polarised-ira...

              Even The Guardian, as anti-Trump as a source can be, reported that "videos shared widely on social media also showed people celebrating, dancing, honking car horns and setting off fireworks as news of the leader’s death broke."

              https://www.theguardian.com/world/2026/mar/01/celebration-or...

              • surgical_fire 4 days ago |
                I bet that in Russia they also have media showing that people in Uraike are celebrating their liberation, etc.

                I am very skeptical of war propaganda. You would do well to be skeptical of it too.

                • kelipso 3 days ago |
                  Seriously. WWII propaganda from multiple countries being compared side by side need to be part of everyone’s high school curriculum.
      • iAMkenough 4 days ago |
        Yeah, but then again the United States has also killed protestors with federal invasions of its cities. As well as slaughtered children with a targeted missle strike on a school.
      • abdelhousni 4 days ago |
        There are only two countries capable of killing civilians by the ten thousands and the world knows them. In fact they're currently bombing Iran and the region, one of them is currently perpetrating a genocide with approval of the day called civilized world. No cameras or international press covering the massacre of Gaza.
        • cmilton 4 days ago |
          This is just completely false. There are multiple countries capable of killing their own by those numbers. All of them are equally disgusting, and should all be held accountable.
      • BenGosub 3 days ago |
        There have been hundreds of thousands of Palestinians brutally murdered by Israel, yet the US has not intervened in Israel yet.
    • einszwei 4 days ago |
      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.

      • cardanome 4 days ago |
        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.

        • GordonS 4 days ago |
          > some civilians have been injured when Iran attacked the hotels where US agents were stationed

          Surely the US are using civilians as human shields?

          • cardanome 4 days ago |
            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.

        • thomassmith65 4 days ago |
          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.

          • anramon 4 days ago |
            >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.

            • JumpCrisscross 4 days ago |
              > 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.

              • breppp 4 days ago |
                I would see this war as the end of a string of wars initiated by Iran through Hamas in October 7.

                This left Israel similar to the USA post 9/11 or Peal Harbor. On a streak to make it never happen again in a very decisive/brutal way. Hegemony wasn't the moving factor for Israel, at least until very late in the war, and due to the same reasons

                • JumpCrisscross 3 days ago |
                  > the end of a string of wars initiated by Iran through Hamas in October 7

                  Locally, yes. Iran not condemning those attacks was a fuckup.

                  More broadly, this is the Levant versus Persia, a power contest as old as civilization.

                  • breppp 3 days ago |
                    I am talking about direct IRGC planning and training for the attack

                    https://www.wsj.com/world/middle-east/iran-israel-hamas-stri... https://www.wsj.com/world/middle-east/hamas-fighters-trained...

                    The attack plan of October 7 is generally so similar to the attack plan prepared for Hezbollah by the IRGC, that it is not surprising it is one and the same.

                    That's why Israel in this current conflict early on made moves on Iran and why the end game is this war.

                    > More broadly, this is the Levant versus Persia, a power contest as old as civilization.

                    Wasn't it more, Egypt and Greece vs Persia while the Levant was rapidly conquered?

            • thomassmith65 4 days ago |
              That's not particularly enlightening, to be frank.

              People always ask here why the community flags every post on these issues. Comments like this are why. Hardly anyone on this site knows even basic information on the nations involved.

              If I were in charge of HN, I'd geoblock anyone from commenting on the Middle East who isn't at an IP from the Middle East. I wouldn't be able to comment either, but at least there might be enlightening information in the comments.

              That said, the first page of any reputable history on Iran/Israel relations would go over 1979, when Israel went from friend of Iran to foe, based on Khomeini's interpretation of Islam.

      • arbuge 4 days ago |
        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.

        • w10-1 4 days ago |
          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.

          • zarzavat 4 days ago |
            Arguably the country that has done the most to cement the Iranian regime is the United States with its sanctions. If Iran had been left to develop into a normal Middle Eastern oil-rich country then things might have turned out differently. The more money people have the harder it is to control them.
        • GordonS 4 days ago |
          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.
          • geraneum 4 days ago |
            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.
            • arbuge 4 days ago |
              From that article, on CBS News which isn't exactly known for being a fan of this administration:

              "Rights groups said the trio were executed without a fair trial and had given confessions under torture."

        • pphysch 4 days ago |
          Allegedly, according to the same political factions that aggressively bombed Iran just weeks later.
          • arbuge 3 days ago |
            No, not just according to those factions. From the same CBS News article:

            > The U.S.-based Human Rights Activists News Agency has recorded more than 7,000 killings, with the vast majority being protesters, while warning the toll could be far higher.

            Neither CBS News nor this agency are friends of the factions you mention. Facts are stubborn things.

            • frm88 3 days ago |
              Critics of the Iranian government, primarily in the West, claim that thousands of people have died in the protests. In particular, the US-based Human Rights Activists News Agency (HRANA) put the death toll at 2,615 on Wednesday.

              https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2026/1/15/what-is-hrana-the-u...

            • pphysch 3 days ago |
              Are you seriously suggesting that Ellison-owned CBS News and US-based "human rights" orgs are not geopolitically aligned with the US government? They are 100% in cahoots.
        • wongarsu 4 days ago |
          The internal conflict over corruption, water issues and handling of the protesters had a decent chance to cause meaningful changes in government. Starting a war and attacking their civilians put those chances to bed.
          • orwin 4 days ago |
            Exactly. And this also want' just a protest. They were protest in the big cities and uprising from suppressed minoritiesm which explain the death toll among people from the regime.

            Iran might have at best have a self-regime change, at worst split in 3. Now that the war is on, the regime consolidated.

        • bad_haircut72 4 days ago |
          Considering theyre now doing airstrikes, there was 100% pre-invasion action that included agitating these protests. Like they're literally bombing them now but we think we werent already doing CIA activity there 6 months ago? Im not saying civilians love the government they probably hate it but... its complicated, what if the person rallying and pushing 1000 people was actually a deep cover agent

          Before I get downvoted to hell Im not conding anything or taking any side, just pointing out an obvious deduction

        • alchemism 4 days ago |
          How does that compare with putting hundreds of thousands of people into cages for arbitrary reasons, I wonder. Or depositing them in random countries to be killed because they are e.g. homosexual.
          • arbuge 3 days ago |
            Breaking a country's immigration laws does come with consequences, yes, at least if the government is willing to enforce to said laws, as it should be. Previously we had governments that weren't.

            If you have a problem with those laws and think our borders should be wide open, that's of course a different matter, and one you should take up with Congress, which makes the laws.

            I think those laws should be changed by the way, to be much friendlier towards Hispanic immigrants. They share our cultural values and are easy for the US to assimilate in my opinion, so long as they're properly vetted for obvious criminal behavior, ability and motivation to work, etc.

        • marcosdumay 4 days ago |
          And that gives US people the right to go there and murder a few thousand extra people?
          • arbuge 3 days ago |
            What it gave the US was an added incentive to take down what is unarguably one of the world's most evil and dangerous regimes.

            Would you attack the US because they "murdered" thousands of Germans to take down Hitler in WW2?

            • jacquesm 3 days ago |
              I you want to point at evil and dangerous regimes I have a list and Iran wouldn't even be in the top 3...
              • arbuge 3 days ago |
                Obviously your list is different from mine.
      • maratc 4 days ago |
      • energy123 4 days ago |
        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.
        • yonixw 4 days ago |
          HN need community notes BAD.
      • JumpCrisscross 4 days ago |
        > 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.

      • flyinglizard 4 days ago |
        Here's a kindergarten Iran attacked just today: https://www.jns.org/news/israel-news/iranian-cluster-bomb-hi...

        The fact Israel has a very effective defensive system (active and passive) does not mean Iranians avoid civilian targets.

      • idop 4 days ago |
        They obliterated a kindergarten in Israel just this morning, and several others since the start of the war. Last week a missile landed right behind my house, just between a kindergarten and an elementary school, damaging both.

        Literally all Israeli casualties were civilian.

        Your comment made me realize international media doesn't care to even publish this, leading to this incredibly skewed view.

        • drcongo 4 days ago |
          Doesn't Isreal have a ban on reporting of strikes inside their borders?
          • idop 4 days ago |
            No, only specifics like exact locations are not publicized.
          • solatic 4 days ago |
            The ban is on reporting the exact locations (i.e. coordinates) of where missiles land, because it's information that is useful in helping the enemy to calibrate where missiles will land. Reporting on other details is perfectly acceptable.
        • einszwei 4 days ago |
          Thanks for correction. I looked up the news and could find reporting that some fragments of a missile did hit kindergarten. Thankfully no kids were there.

          I'd edit my previous comment but I can't.

      • throwaway132448 4 days ago |
        This is obviously made easier when your opposition doesn’t stockpile their weapons in, nor conduct their military operations from, schools and hopsitals.
      • DoctorOetker 4 days ago |
        This is a truly profound insight, the benevolance of Iran's regime is suspiciously proportional to the interception prowess of the nations targeted by Iran. /s

        So every time allied militaries protect their schools and hospitals by intercepting missiles, drones etc from Iran, you give credit to Iran?

    • JumpCrisscross 4 days ago |
      > 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.

    • dyauspitr 4 days ago |
      You have to be pretty shit to get people to defacto support Iran. As usually Trump has led the US into the gutter.
    • UltraSane 4 days ago |
      Iran is actively murdering protesters including a 19 year old.

      https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/ce9mzn7k722o

      • amunozo 3 days ago |
        That's horrible, but has nothing to do with this.
        • UltraSane 3 days ago |
          It really should make you want the Totalitarian Shia Theocracy running Iran to collapse.
          • gzread 3 days ago |
            What's good for the goose is good for the gander, right? Same logic - if correct - would give Iran the moral right to first strike the US.
            • UltraSane 3 days ago |
              I hate Trump also but he is a saint compared to the Iranian Shia Theocracy
              • Schmerika 3 days ago |
                By what metric?

                Certainly not by lives lost, damage done, or dollars embezzled. Not by interference in other countries, or apocalyptic rhetoric.

                So, what exactly is your opinion based on?

                • UltraSane 2 days ago |
                  "By what metric?"

                  By the fact that Trump hasn't killed thousands of people to stay in power. Pretty simple really. Protesting the US government is still legal. Protesting the Iranian government in Iran will get you killed.

                  • Schmerika 2 days ago |
                    > By the fact that Trump hasn't killed thousands of people to stay in power.

                    Oh? How many do you think he has killed?

                    How many people have died so far because of Trump's aid to Israel?

                    How many people have died because of the cuts to USAID?

                    How many Iranians has Trump killed? How many Iranian children? ... Compare to, how many Americans did the Iranian government kill?

                    How certain are you that the conditions in the Iran protests weren't provoked by US and Israeli provocateurs? ... Why?

                    What's your explanation for Trump directing Lockheed Martin to ramp up production of interceptor missiles months before assassinating Iran's leader during negotiations? Months before the protests used as a fig leaf of justification?

                    > Pretty simple really.

                    Idk man. Is it? Maybe thinking Trump is a better person than the leader he helped assassinate is too simple.

                    > Protesting the US government is still legal. Protesting the Iranian government in Iran will get you killed.

                    Protesting the Israeli government in the US can get you thrown in a concentration camp and deported. That's pretty weird, no?

                    Even during the last admin, protesting the Israeli government could get you fired, or attacked by riot police.

                    Does the moral high ground of not murdering protesters give you the right to arm and enable genocide? To murder leaders while pretending to negotiate with them? To bomb schools?

                    • amunozo 2 days ago |
                      Thanks for this comment, really. I always found it weird that people care so much about internal repression of some random countries (not Saudi Arabia, close ally of the US and one of the instigators of this war), but not military actions in third countries of its own (nor again repression by countries which solely exist because the US keeps their leaders in power like, again, Saudi Arabia).
                      • Schmerika a day ago |
                        It's very weird indeed - and yet, it always seems to match with whatever 'random' country the latest shows and news reports have been demonizing.

                        It reminds me of that old joke:

                        > A KGB spy and a CIA agent meet up in a bar for a friendly drink. "I have to admit, I'm always so impressed by Soviet propaganda. You really know how to get people worked up," the CIA agent says. "Thank you," the KGB says. "We do our best but truly, it's nothing compared to American propaganda. Your people believe everything your state media tells them." The CIA agent drops his drink in shock and disgust. "Thank you friend, but you must be confused... There's no propaganda in America."

                        And that's only gotten more true every decade since. I don't see the US ever reaching the level of discourse where we question our 'allies' atrocities the same as [latest boogeyman]'s. And taking any accountability for our own war crimes? Not a chance. We'll invade anyone who tries (see the Hague Invasion Act).

                        At least when it comes to politics, the vast majority of the US lives on the Dunning-Kruger "Peak of Mount Stupid"; failing to clear the lowest possible bar while pointing fingers and laughing at everyone else.

                        All the money, all the access to information, and still that's where we're at. Weird af.

                • gzread 2 days ago |
                  I thought Trump caused more of the first three as well?
          • amunozo 3 days ago |
            And be substituted by what? The outcome can be worse for the Iranian people. Military foreign intervention rarely (never) manages to improve the situation, as it happened in Irak, Afghanistan, Lybia...
    • lm28469 4 days ago |
      They're also doing exactly what they said they'd be doing if attacked in such manner.

      People who say Iran is "crazy" or "lashing out" are falling for the most brain dead propaganda

  • NooneAtAll3 4 days ago |
    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!"

    • pcrh 4 days ago |
      I'm suspicious as well...

      Supposedly this missile was hit during the boost phase over Iran, the evidence is that it was actually targeted at Diego Garcia relies on US reports.

  • shishcat 4 days ago |
    The .io tld is going through rough times :pensive:
  • 10xDev 4 days ago |
    Can we just leave countries alone, like we do with North Korea?
    • AndrewKemendo 4 days ago |
      The reason people leave North Korea alone is because they have nuclear weapon(s)
      • 10xDev 4 days ago |
        So we can only reach stalemate once a country has nukes and otherwise have to start blowing up their schools?
        • AndrewKemendo 4 days ago |
          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

          • cameronh90 4 days ago |
            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.

        • lm28469 4 days ago |
          Why do you think Iran wanted to have nukes?

          It's the only way to not get raped by the US whenever their supreme leader decides it's war time

      • extraduder_ire 4 days ago |
        Prior to that, they had thousands of artillery pieces pointed at Seoul the presumed backing of China if the Korean war resumed.
      • PepperdineG 4 days ago |
        They also have the GDP equivalent of JetBlue Airways
      • energy123 4 days ago |
        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.
        • 10xDev 4 days ago |
          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?
          • surgical_fire 4 days ago |
            Both
      • bigfatkitten 4 days ago |
        And because China won’t allow it.
    • thrance 3 days ago |
      Not until they get nukes. Which is inevitable now, as we've shown Iran that until then, they are liable to being carpet bombed once a year by the imperialist powers that be. And then we'll have one more rogue nation in the world, hurrah!
  • lokar 4 days ago |
    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

    • DrProtic 3 days ago |
      US affected war risk insurance by sinking Iranian ship, this will to although probably not much.
  • mmmm2 4 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.

    • ttul 4 days ago |
      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.

      • vasac 4 days ago |
        Americans can be convinced of anything without too much effort so that isn’t really a factor here.
        • scottyah 3 days ago |
          They just don't need to be convinced of anything. It's not like normal people have a say in this, just a few leaders doing what they want. A few fake news stories saying that there's so much support.
      • tuna74 4 days ago |
        Or the US could just stop bombing Iran? Then there would be no reason for Iran to attack American cities.
        • mmmm2 4 days ago |
          Yeah, that would be nice. I'm worried this will continue to escalate.
          • jacquesm 3 days ago |
            You and 97% of the globe.
      • mmmm2 4 days ago |
        I can't speak for Iran, but it may be a warning against attempting to land troops on Kharg Island. They're showing that they've been "nice" so far, but they have escalation paths America may not have considered. I think most people thought they were limited to short range missile strikes.
    • mikrotikker 2 days ago |
      They were already setting up shop in VZ when the USA took Maduro and told VZ to behave.

      IRGC are bullies and now the USA has shown us that the IRGC is perfectly happy to bully the whole world. Time for them to go.

  • drnick1 4 days ago |
    What kind of game is Iran playing here? It's as if the regime wanted to get nuked.
  • IAmGraydon 4 days ago |
    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.
    • DrProtic 3 days ago |
      On what basis should NATO get involved?

      US and Israel sneak attacked Iran during negotiations that presumably were going very well.

      Iran is attacking only the countries that were involved in the attacks.

  • penguin_booze 4 days ago |
    > see a swift end to the conflict

    I'll tell you a swifter method: rest of the world attack the US efforts and send them home. Then lock up the presidumb [sic] somewhere.

    They stirred the hornets' nest. Now the rest of the world are getting stung, slowly dragging into an all-out war.

    The rest of us could really use a regime change now--and it's not in Iran.

  • tsoukase 3 days ago |
    I still doubt that this enemy of the West, once more, is invented, created and sustained. Trillion dollar armies against a deserted country without allies should be a few days attack from earth and space, while neutralising the country abroad. This is not a modern war, this is a soft fight with goals to destabilise fossil energy and mainly to feed the media with a daily event. The same holds for Russia/Ukraine and in the past Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria whatever.
  • ndsipa_pomu 3 days ago |
    Oh great, here we go with a false flag operation designed to provide an excuse to drag the UK into another war.

    https://labourheartlands.com/the-four-thousand-kilometre-mir...