7 ms·

Pointlessness of this war aside, I fail to see how the situation is materially different than it was prior to the war begining. Iran has generally been an acti

Pointlessness of this war aside, I fail to see how the situation is materially different than it was prior to the war begining. Iran has generally been an active and persistant threat for many US firms long before this war began, and I have a hard time thinking they have had the restraint and the resources to collect together an arsenal of zero-day exploits they have yet to unleash. To me, this just reads as empty threats intended more for the potential economic fear it can produce.

deleted 7mo ago
[deleted]
joe_mamba 7mo ago
>Pointlessness of this war aside It's only pointless as long as you ignore their legitimate attempts of building nukes. If you don't want them to have nukes, then military action is the only way to stop them unfortunately. Because if/once they do get a nuke, it'll be impossible to stop them after that, and they'll hold the entire middle east hostage, so might as well do everything you can to prevent that before it happens, now that Russia is too busy to lend them a hand. >Iran has generally been an active and persistant threat for many US firms long before this war began I doubt this. Iran's leadership, like any dictatorship, just wants to be left alone to subjugate its people and enjoy the masses of wealth and power they have. When you're in such a privileged but fragile position, you don't go around poking the hornet's nest looking to start a fight with the biggest military in the world, because it would mean your end. But Iran will probably retaliate now that they got attacked. OR, it will be a false flag to justify boots on the ground. IDK.
- the_gastropod 7mo ago
  The "legitimate attempts of building nukes" as claimed by the same folks who, ~9 months ago said "Iran's nuclear facilities have been obliterated, and suggestions otherwise are fake news" (https://www.whitehouse.gov/articles/2025/06/irans-nuclear-facilities-have-been-obliterated-and-suggestions-otherwise-are-fake-news/ https://www.whitehouse.gov/articles/2025/06/irans-nuclear-fa...).
  - lm28469 7mo ago
    They've been claiming Iran is about to destroy Israel every 6 months for the past 40 years too Israel, like the US, needs to be in a permanent state of war to keep the ball moving
    - joe_mamba 7mo ago
      >They've been claiming Iran is about to destroy Israel every 6 months for the past 40 years too Remember STUXNET? Have you thought for a second that maybe if their centrifuges and nuclear facilities weren't constantly attacked and sabotaged by US and Israel every step of the way for the past few decades, plus having their top nuclear scientists assassinated every now and then, they could have had nukes a long time ago when those warnings were issued without those constant roadblocks setting them back?
      - Forgeties79 7mo ago
        So the administration lied and Iran‘s nuclear capabilities weren’t “completely obliterated” back in June, and saying otherwise isn’t “fake news”? It can’t be both ways. Either way the administration is lying, so I just don’t trust any of the reasons given for the current conflict. The sad part is this is exactly what Trump and his administration, as well as the larger Republican Party, have wanted for years. My inherent distrust of every government action until I see overwhelming evidence to the contrary.
        joe_mamba 7mo ago
        >It can’t be both ways. It can be over time. A country can rebuild its nuclear ambitions after they've been completely destroyed. Do you think Iran just gave up their nuclear ambition and 40 years of work after a bomb raid? "Think Mark, think"
        Forgeties79 7mo ago
        >Think Mark, think Needlessly patronizing. But moving past that, how could their capabilities have been “completely obliterated” months ago and yet they are now so close to making a bomb that it warranted all this? That doesn’t make any sense. Just like the tariffs or any other controversial decision, the administration is giving different answers to different people at different times. They seed talking points, they do not provide useful information. So again, either June was a failure and they lied or they are lying about this attack.
- nozzlegear 7mo ago
  > It's only pointless as long as you ignore their legitimate attempts of building nukes. If you don't want them to have nukes, then military action is the only way to stop them unfortunately. Because if/once they do get a nuke, it'll be impossible to stop them after that, and they'll hold the entire middle east hostage so might as well do everything you can to prevent that before it happens. Obama had a perfectly good deal in place with Iran before Trump fucked it all up. Military action was not the only way to stop them.
  - joe_mamba 7mo ago
    >Obama had a perfectly good deal in place with Iran before Trump fucked it all up. What makes you think the Iranian regime is trustworthy to actually respect that deal and not just continue building nukes on the side while using diplomacy to string everyone along that they aren't? You know who else had a deal? Ukraine. Did that deal stop them from being attacked by Russia? Can you stop a military invasion by waving the piece of paper with the deal in the enemy's face? Because that's why nukes are the best insurance policy over deals and why Iran desperately wants them. How can people be so gullible to blindly trust Iran's word thinking a deal means anything?
    - the_gastropod 7mo ago
      > What makes you think the Iranian regime is trustworthy I don't think anyone believes the Iranian regime has ever been trustworthy. Probably why part of Obama's deal included inspections, surveillance, and monitoring.
      - reliabilityguy 7mo ago
        Obama’s deal specifically excluded surprise inspections (often referred to as "Anywhere, Anytime"). So, if you are trying to hide something, and you know that the inspection is coming, you will succeed.
        SimianSci 7mo ago
- Forgeties79 7mo ago
  The nukes they’ve been “days away” from making since like 1992? The nuclear capacity we bombed “very successfully” months ago?
  - reliabilityguy 7mo ago
    Having 60% enriched Uranium is about 2 weeks from having a nuke.
    - Forgeties79 7mo ago
      Man time dilation will get ya
      - reliabilityguy 7mo ago
        Yeah, sure. You can read IAEA report yourself: https://www.iaea.org/sites/default/files/25/06/gov2025-24.pdf https://www.iaea.org/sites/default/files/25/06/gov2025-24.pd...
        Forgeties79 7mo ago
        I legitimately thought you were making a joke and that I was doing a yes-and. Anyway have a good one
        joe_mamba 7mo ago
        "If those kids could read, they'd be very upset" - Bobby Hill
- beezlewax 7mo ago
  > Because if/once they do get a nuke, it'll be impossible to stop them after that, and they'll hold the entire middle east hostage Like Israel?
  - joe_mamba 7mo ago
    [flagged]
  - deleted 7mo ago
    [deleted]
  - TurdF3rguson 7mo ago
    Holding hostages has never been part of Israel's playbook, it's always been very much part of Iran's.
    - mothballed 7mo ago
      They held most of gaza hostage, blocking their access to international waters off gaza's own coast, based on the actions of a much smaller subset of those people. That seems about the most classical example of holding hostage as it gets.
      - reliabilityguy 7mo ago
        > based on the actions of a much smaller subset of those people. Interesting way to describe the government the people of Gaza. If Palestinians launch the rockets from Gaza to Israel, why should Israel to continue their trade with them? This is counterintuitive.
        mothballed 7mo ago
        Who says Israel should trade to them? I completely agree with Israel's right of shutting off Israeli borders and trade with Gaza I'm talking about motion from Gazan waters to directly adjacent international waters, none of which involves touching anything sovereign to Israel.
- lukan 7mo ago
  "I doubt this. Iran's leadership, like any dictatorship, just wants to be left alone to subjugate its people and enjoy the masses of wealth and power they have." So ... that is why they only cared about themself and did not involve with Iraq, Lebanon, Syria, Yemen, ..
neilv 7mo ago
Everyone is on IT infosec thin and slippery ice. Taunting someone else on the ice is a bad idea. As is giving anyone reason to want you to plunge to your icy death, rather than to merely fall gently on your butt.
BLKNSLVR 7mo ago
Prior to the war beginning there was a higher percentage of discussion of the Epstein Files.
- ASalazarMX 7mo ago
  And the ongoing genocide in Gaza. Isn't war useful?
  - glob_roman 7mo ago
    [flagged]
    - quantified 7mo ago
      By your definition, every assault is a genocide. ESH.
      - glob_roman 7mo ago
        [flagged]
Human-Cabbage 7mo ago
China and/or Russia might have a collection of zero-days they've been sitting on, which they could surreptitiously provide to Iran. Of course, there's attribution risk there, and the opportunity cost of not saving those zero-days for their own later use.
- bawolff 7mo ago
  It seems kind of unlikey to me. Cyber attacks are unlikely to meaningfully change the result of the war, so it would kind of just be a waste from the china/russia perspective. They so far havent lifted a finger to do anything for iran that wasn't free for them, so i doubt they would waste exploits on this.
bdcravens 7mo ago
Sleeper cells are probably a bigger risk than zero days.
pear01 7mo ago
Indeed. Remember this is the same regime that was insisting their leader was alive and about to make a speech when he had been dead for hours in the opening strikes of the conflict. They said they would sink American aircraft carriers if attacked. Meanwhile, the American president went on TV and stated they've blown through so many layers of leadership they are not sure who they could even reach out to. Iran can clearly barely defend itself. The idea they will suddenly pull off something meaningful now strains credulity.
Larrikin 7mo ago
I assumed this meant bombing or shooting up tech firm headquarters, outpost, and targeting higher level managers and execs. They were always hacking all the time.
- SimianSci 7mo ago
  Iran has always lacked an ability to project power at a distance. Outside of sympathetic lone operators, there really isnt much to suggest they can do anything more than ramp up rhetoric and calls for violence. The reason why I call it empty threats is because it accomplishes its goal no matter the outcome. If a sympathetic lone operator uses this as an excuse to start shooting, they can claim the credit. But if all it does is stoke fear that "Something somewhere might happen" then it's still a win for them.
  - jzb 7mo ago
    "Iran has always lacked an ability to project power at a distance" I'm curious what you're basing this on, since Iran has been supplying Russia with drones, etc. for much of the war in Ukraine and so far has launched attacks into Jordan, Iraq, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, Qatar, the United Arab Emirates, Oman, and Cyprus since the US began its attacks. Iran may not be able to strike at sites in the US, but it could certainly target data centers in the Middle East with some hope of success. I'm not at all confident the current administration has accurately assessed Iran's capabilities or has the ability to protect the assets of US-based companies (or US citizens) in that region.
    - deleted 7mo ago
      [deleted]
    - pear01 7mo ago
      Your post is extremely misleading. Shipping drones in a box or whatever they are doing so Russians can use them is completely different from what we mean by projecting power. In many cases the Russians are actually manufacturing the drones themselves based off the Iranian plan. That's not anything like the USA's power projection, where B2s can takeoff in Missouri, bomb Iran and come home without ever landing or even being shot at. I mean it's just not even close. Launching attacks and having "some hope of success" is weak. And that's what Iran is and has always been, weak. Yes they launch attacks. Most of these fail. They have nowhere near the level of lethality, precision, force projection and penetration of Israel or the United States. When are Americans going to learn nationstates and some radical blowing themselves up are two different things? The latter is the threat to Americans here. You don't stop it by blowing up the former. History has always shown in fact that doing that makes the latter problem worse.
ignoramous 7mo ago
> I have a hard time thinking they have had the restraint and the resources to collect together an arsenal of zero-day exploits they have yet to unleash The semi-official IRGC account warns of attacks on offices and infrastructure of US & Israeli firms in the ME with drones and missiles, not zero-days.
- bawolff 7mo ago
  In which case why is this a news story? They have already been doing that since the war began (rip AWS data centers in UAE and Bahrain)
jwilber 7mo ago
You really don’t see how the situation is materially different? The bombed oil fields, hotels, dead American soldiers - all business as usual?
- pear01 7mo ago
  Weird of you to neglect to mention the hundreds of dead Iranians, including not only many civilians on their own soil but also layers of the Iranian leadership. Including of course the assassination of the supreme leader. I'm not saying his death is a bad thing. But that would be the most "materially different" part of this time vs "business as usual". The other reason this is relevant is because it might lead one to reasonably conclude Iranian options for retaliation have already been exhausted. If they have some capability in reserve what are they waiting for?
  - jwilber 7mo ago
    That has, unfortunately, been business as usual in Iran for the last few months. But these are all additional points in support of what is already said.
jmyeet 7mo ago
In a just world many people would go the gallows for the decades of harm the US has inflicted on Iran for basically no reason whatsoever other than to benefit oil companies. We overthrew their democratically elected government to install the Shah as a puppet dictator because the British goaded us into it by hand-waving about "communism" after Iran nationalized their own oil reserves from the Anglo-Iranian Company (which became BP). What followed was a brutal era of repression where American companies took a slice of oil revenue. Once this became untenable, another of our puppets, Saddam Hussein, ejected the future Ayatollah Khomenei from Iraq in 1978. Why? Because we wanted the religious fundamentalists to win instead of the communists, which might bring Iran into the Soviet sphere of influence. we then propped up a decade of war with Iraq by supplying Iraq with weapons. More than a million people died. Iran has weathered decades of sanctions, which is a fancy way of saying "we're going to starve you and deny your citizens basic medical care". The death toll for this is also likely in the millions. We've let our rabid attack dog in the region, Israel, bomb Iranian consulates (eg Damascus), assassinate scientists, diplomators and negotiators, bomb them with impunity and otherwise commit regular war crimes. We've gone to war for no other reason than Israel wants Iran to be a fail-state because it threatens the Greater Israel project [1]. It's clear that there was no military planning in any of this or, more likely, military planners probably said "this is a bad idea, we can't win" and they were ignored. Iran continued complying with the JCPOA for at least a year after Trump cancelled it at the behest of Sheldon Adelson [2]. All of this while Saudi Arabia, our "ally", provided material suport to the 9/11 hijackers [3]. Our attack dog spies on us. A lot eg Jonathon Pollard [4]. And Jeffrey Epstein was almost certainly a Mossad access asset that compromised every level of our government, our companies and our educational institutions. We are the bad guys here and I hope one day Iran gets some justice for the harm we've inflicted upon it. [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greater_Israel https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greater_Israel [2]: https://fpif.org/these-three-billionaires-paved-way-for-trumps-iran-deal-withdrawal/ https://fpif.org/these-three-billionaires-paved-way-for-trum... [3]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alleged_Saudi_role_in_the_September_11_attacks https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alleged_Saudi_role_in_the_Sept... [4]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jonathan_Pollard https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jonathan_Pollard
- throw310822 7mo ago
reliabilityguy 7mo ago
> Pointlessness of this war aside This is not a pointless war. You may not like Trump or Bibi, but geopolitics-wise this war make perfect sense on many levels. First, it limits China's ability to hoard cheep oil as Iran has to sell its oil with a discount due to being sanctioned. China hoards oil as it plans to attack Taiwan and it understands that there will be sanctions on oil trade. So, to minimize the shock on its economy China hoards oil. [1] Second, Iran is the reason why Gulf states are surrounded by instability: Houthis, armed and funded by IR, in Yemen make Saudis and UAE uneasy. Iraqi militias funded and armed by IR as well sabotage internal politics of Iraq the same way Hizballah destabilizes Lebanon. No one in the Gulf (except Qatar maybe, up until recently) wanted strong IR. These countries and their peace is essential for US and the world economy. Third, if IR gets nukes, most of the Gulf nations would want nukes too. They already see themselves surrounded by IR-funded militias. We do not need more nukes, we need less nukes in the world. And I have no idea how people simply ignore the fact that IR already has 400+kg of 60%-encriched uranium. Why if not for bombs? So yeah, geopolitics-wise this war makes perfect sense. Islamic Republic is major destabilizing factor in the region, and this war attempts to resolve it. Why the current admin cannot articulate it clearly, idk. [1] https://jkempenergy.com/2026/02/15/chinas-oil-stocks-and-readiness-for-war/#:~:text=China%20has%20been%20accumulating%20crude,is%20following%20long%2Dstanding%20precedent. https://jkempenergy.com/2026/02/15/chinas-oil-stocks-and-rea...
- FpUser 7mo ago
  >"but geopolitics-wise this war make perfect sense" For the US - maybe, assuming they do not get bloody nose at some point.
- SimianSci 7mo ago
  I call it pointless because I and many other Americans have been told these things before. We are always in a constant "Red Queen's Race" with other nations as a means of establishing dominance. We subsidize allies like Israel with billions of dollars that have never been allocated by our congress, and which only serve to subsidize the healthcare of Israeli citizens while we continue to have nothing of the sorts. "Bro, just trust me Iran is SO CLOSE!" for the past 40 years is not convincing us that this war has any benefit to us. Americans are already on the hook for trillions of dollars in debt we cannot pay as a country, and now we want to continue exploding the deficit to the tune of $1 Billion per day. Its existential threat after existential threat with no consideration to the actual troubles americans are facing in the here and now. Its just endless wars with no end in sight. Outside of manufacturing consent on behalf of Israel, posts such as yours seem highly dedicated to trying to convince nobody aside from the wealthy few Americans with international holdings.
quantified 7mo ago
We just gave them a grudge to last another generation. They will be more actively seeking any opportunity to cause havoc than before. I'd expect employees of Iranian descent to be under greater scrutiny than before, though most here probably escaped the regime with great hatred of it.

deleted 7mo ago

[deleted]

joe_mamba 7mo ago

>Pointlessness of this war aside It's only pointless as long as you ignore their legitimate attempts of building nukes. If you don't want them to have nukes, then military action is the only way to stop them unfortunately. Because if/once they do get a nuke, it'll be impossible to stop them after that, and they'll hold the entire middle east hostage, so might as well do everything you can to prevent that before it happens, now that Russia is too busy to lend them a hand. >Iran has generally been an active and persistant threat for many US firms long before this war began I doubt this. Iran's leadership, like any dictatorship, just wants to be left alone to subjugate its people and enjoy the masses of wealth and power they have. When you're in such a privileged but fragile position, you don't go around poking the hornet's nest looking to start a fight with the biggest military in the world, because it would mean your end. But Iran will probably retaliate now that they got attacked. OR, it will be a false flag to justify boots on the ground. IDK.

the_gastropod 7mo ago
The "legitimate attempts of building nukes" as claimed by the same folks who, ~9 months ago said "Iran's nuclear facilities have been obliterated, and suggestions otherwise are fake news" (https://www.whitehouse.gov/articles/2025/06/irans-nuclear-facilities-have-been-obliterated-and-suggestions-otherwise-are-fake-news/ https://www.whitehouse.gov/articles/2025/06/irans-nuclear-fa...).
- lm28469 7mo ago
  They've been claiming Iran is about to destroy Israel every 6 months for the past 40 years too Israel, like the US, needs to be in a permanent state of war to keep the ball moving
  - joe_mamba 7mo ago
    >They've been claiming Iran is about to destroy Israel every 6 months for the past 40 years too Remember STUXNET? Have you thought for a second that maybe if their centrifuges and nuclear facilities weren't constantly attacked and sabotaged by US and Israel every step of the way for the past few decades, plus having their top nuclear scientists assassinated every now and then, they could have had nukes a long time ago when those warnings were issued without those constant roadblocks setting them back?
    - Forgeties79 7mo ago
      So the administration lied and Iran‘s nuclear capabilities weren’t “completely obliterated” back in June, and saying otherwise isn’t “fake news”? It can’t be both ways. Either way the administration is lying, so I just don’t trust any of the reasons given for the current conflict. The sad part is this is exactly what Trump and his administration, as well as the larger Republican Party, have wanted for years. My inherent distrust of every government action until I see overwhelming evidence to the contrary.
      - joe_mamba 7mo ago
        >It can’t be both ways. It can be over time. A country can rebuild its nuclear ambitions after they've been completely destroyed. Do you think Iran just gave up their nuclear ambition and 40 years of work after a bomb raid? "Think Mark, think"
        Forgeties79 7mo ago
        >Think Mark, think Needlessly patronizing. But moving past that, how could their capabilities have been “completely obliterated” months ago and yet they are now so close to making a bomb that it warranted all this? That doesn’t make any sense. Just like the tariffs or any other controversial decision, the administration is giving different answers to different people at different times. They seed talking points, they do not provide useful information. So again, either June was a failure and they lied or they are lying about this attack.
nozzlegear 7mo ago
> It's only pointless as long as you ignore their legitimate attempts of building nukes. If you don't want them to have nukes, then military action is the only way to stop them unfortunately. Because if/once they do get a nuke, it'll be impossible to stop them after that, and they'll hold the entire middle east hostage so might as well do everything you can to prevent that before it happens. Obama had a perfectly good deal in place with Iran before Trump fucked it all up. Military action was not the only way to stop them.
- joe_mamba 7mo ago
  >Obama had a perfectly good deal in place with Iran before Trump fucked it all up. What makes you think the Iranian regime is trustworthy to actually respect that deal and not just continue building nukes on the side while using diplomacy to string everyone along that they aren't? You know who else had a deal? Ukraine. Did that deal stop them from being attacked by Russia? Can you stop a military invasion by waving the piece of paper with the deal in the enemy's face? Because that's why nukes are the best insurance policy over deals and why Iran desperately wants them. How can people be so gullible to blindly trust Iran's word thinking a deal means anything?
  - the_gastropod 7mo ago
    > What makes you think the Iranian regime is trustworthy I don't think anyone believes the Iranian regime has ever been trustworthy. Probably why part of Obama's deal included inspections, surveillance, and monitoring.
    - reliabilityguy 7mo ago
      Obama’s deal specifically excluded surprise inspections (often referred to as "Anywhere, Anytime"). So, if you are trying to hide something, and you know that the inspection is coming, you will succeed.
      - SimianSci 7mo ago
Forgeties79 7mo ago
The nukes they’ve been “days away” from making since like 1992? The nuclear capacity we bombed “very successfully” months ago?
- reliabilityguy 7mo ago
  Having 60% enriched Uranium is about 2 weeks from having a nuke.
  - Forgeties79 7mo ago
    Man time dilation will get ya
    - reliabilityguy 7mo ago
      Yeah, sure. You can read IAEA report yourself: https://www.iaea.org/sites/default/files/25/06/gov2025-24.pdf https://www.iaea.org/sites/default/files/25/06/gov2025-24.pd...
      - Forgeties79 7mo ago
        I legitimately thought you were making a joke and that I was doing a yes-and. Anyway have a good one
      - joe_mamba 7mo ago
        "If those kids could read, they'd be very upset" - Bobby Hill
beezlewax 7mo ago
> Because if/once they do get a nuke, it'll be impossible to stop them after that, and they'll hold the entire middle east hostage Like Israel?
- joe_mamba 7mo ago
  [flagged]
- deleted 7mo ago
  [deleted]
- TurdF3rguson 7mo ago
  Holding hostages has never been part of Israel's playbook, it's always been very much part of Iran's.
  - mothballed 7mo ago
    They held most of gaza hostage, blocking their access to international waters off gaza's own coast, based on the actions of a much smaller subset of those people. That seems about the most classical example of holding hostage as it gets.
    - reliabilityguy 7mo ago
      > based on the actions of a much smaller subset of those people. Interesting way to describe the government the people of Gaza. If Palestinians launch the rockets from Gaza to Israel, why should Israel to continue their trade with them? This is counterintuitive.
      - mothballed 7mo ago
        Who says Israel should trade to them? I completely agree with Israel's right of shutting off Israeli borders and trade with Gaza I'm talking about motion from Gazan waters to directly adjacent international waters, none of which involves touching anything sovereign to Israel.
lukan 7mo ago
"I doubt this. Iran's leadership, like any dictatorship, just wants to be left alone to subjugate its people and enjoy the masses of wealth and power they have." So ... that is why they only cared about themself and did not involve with Iraq, Lebanon, Syria, Yemen, ..

neilv 7mo ago

Everyone is on IT infosec thin and slippery ice. Taunting someone else on the ice is a bad idea. As is giving anyone reason to want you to plunge to your icy death, rather than to merely fall gently on your butt.

BLKNSLVR 7mo ago

Prior to the war beginning there was a higher percentage of discussion of the Epstein Files.

ASalazarMX 7mo ago
And the ongoing genocide in Gaza. Isn't war useful?
- glob_roman 7mo ago
  [flagged]
  - quantified 7mo ago
    By your definition, every assault is a genocide. ESH.
    - glob_roman 7mo ago
      [flagged]

Human-Cabbage 7mo ago

China and/or Russia might have a collection of zero-days they've been sitting on, which they could surreptitiously provide to Iran. Of course, there's attribution risk there, and the opportunity cost of not saving those zero-days for their own later use.

bawolff 7mo ago
It seems kind of unlikey to me. Cyber attacks are unlikely to meaningfully change the result of the war, so it would kind of just be a waste from the china/russia perspective. They so far havent lifted a finger to do anything for iran that wasn't free for them, so i doubt they would waste exploits on this.

bdcravens 7mo ago

Sleeper cells are probably a bigger risk than zero days.

pear01 7mo ago

Indeed. Remember this is the same regime that was insisting their leader was alive and about to make a speech when he had been dead for hours in the opening strikes of the conflict. They said they would sink American aircraft carriers if attacked. Meanwhile, the American president went on TV and stated they've blown through so many layers of leadership they are not sure who they could even reach out to. Iran can clearly barely defend itself. The idea they will suddenly pull off something meaningful now strains credulity.

Larrikin 7mo ago

I assumed this meant bombing or shooting up tech firm headquarters, outpost, and targeting higher level managers and execs. They were always hacking all the time.

SimianSci 7mo ago
Iran has always lacked an ability to project power at a distance. Outside of sympathetic lone operators, there really isnt much to suggest they can do anything more than ramp up rhetoric and calls for violence. The reason why I call it empty threats is because it accomplishes its goal no matter the outcome. If a sympathetic lone operator uses this as an excuse to start shooting, they can claim the credit. But if all it does is stoke fear that "Something somewhere might happen" then it's still a win for them.
- jzb 7mo ago
  "Iran has always lacked an ability to project power at a distance" I'm curious what you're basing this on, since Iran has been supplying Russia with drones, etc. for much of the war in Ukraine and so far has launched attacks into Jordan, Iraq, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, Qatar, the United Arab Emirates, Oman, and Cyprus since the US began its attacks. Iran may not be able to strike at sites in the US, but it could certainly target data centers in the Middle East with some hope of success. I'm not at all confident the current administration has accurately assessed Iran's capabilities or has the ability to protect the assets of US-based companies (or US citizens) in that region.
  - deleted 7mo ago
    [deleted]
  - pear01 7mo ago
    Your post is extremely misleading. Shipping drones in a box or whatever they are doing so Russians can use them is completely different from what we mean by projecting power. In many cases the Russians are actually manufacturing the drones themselves based off the Iranian plan. That's not anything like the USA's power projection, where B2s can takeoff in Missouri, bomb Iran and come home without ever landing or even being shot at. I mean it's just not even close. Launching attacks and having "some hope of success" is weak. And that's what Iran is and has always been, weak. Yes they launch attacks. Most of these fail. They have nowhere near the level of lethality, precision, force projection and penetration of Israel or the United States. When are Americans going to learn nationstates and some radical blowing themselves up are two different things? The latter is the threat to Americans here. You don't stop it by blowing up the former. History has always shown in fact that doing that makes the latter problem worse.

ignoramous 7mo ago

> I have a hard time thinking they have had the restraint and the resources to collect together an arsenal of zero-day exploits they have yet to unleash The semi-official IRGC account warns of attacks on offices and infrastructure of US & Israeli firms in the ME with drones and missiles, not zero-days.

bawolff 7mo ago
In which case why is this a news story? They have already been doing that since the war began (rip AWS data centers in UAE and Bahrain)

jwilber 7mo ago

You really don’t see how the situation is materially different? The bombed oil fields, hotels, dead American soldiers - all business as usual?

pear01 7mo ago
Weird of you to neglect to mention the hundreds of dead Iranians, including not only many civilians on their own soil but also layers of the Iranian leadership. Including of course the assassination of the supreme leader. I'm not saying his death is a bad thing. But that would be the most "materially different" part of this time vs "business as usual". The other reason this is relevant is because it might lead one to reasonably conclude Iranian options for retaliation have already been exhausted. If they have some capability in reserve what are they waiting for?
- jwilber 7mo ago
  That has, unfortunately, been business as usual in Iran for the last few months. But these are all additional points in support of what is already said.

jmyeet 7mo ago

In a just world many people would go the gallows for the decades of harm the US has inflicted on Iran for basically no reason whatsoever other than to benefit oil companies. We overthrew their democratically elected government to install the Shah as a puppet dictator because the British goaded us into it by hand-waving about "communism" after Iran nationalized their own oil reserves from the Anglo-Iranian Company (which became BP). What followed was a brutal era of repression where American companies took a slice of oil revenue. Once this became untenable, another of our puppets, Saddam Hussein, ejected the future Ayatollah Khomenei from Iraq in 1978. Why? Because we wanted the religious fundamentalists to win instead of the communists, which might bring Iran into the Soviet sphere of influence. we then propped up a decade of war with Iraq by supplying Iraq with weapons. More than a million people died. Iran has weathered decades of sanctions, which is a fancy way of saying "we're going to starve you and deny your citizens basic medical care". The death toll for this is also likely in the millions. We've let our rabid attack dog in the region, Israel, bomb Iranian consulates (eg Damascus), assassinate scientists, diplomators and negotiators, bomb them with impunity and otherwise commit regular war crimes. We've gone to war for no other reason than Israel wants Iran to be a fail-state because it threatens the Greater Israel project [1]. It's clear that there was no military planning in any of this or, more likely, military planners probably said "this is a bad idea, we can't win" and they were ignored. Iran continued complying with the JCPOA for at least a year after Trump cancelled it at the behest of Sheldon Adelson [2]. All of this while Saudi Arabia, our "ally", provided material suport to the 9/11 hijackers [3]. Our attack dog spies on us. A lot eg Jonathon Pollard [4]. And Jeffrey Epstein was almost certainly a Mossad access asset that compromised every level of our government, our companies and our educational institutions. We are the bad guys here and I hope one day Iran gets some justice for the harm we've inflicted upon it. [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greater_Israel https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greater_Israel [2]: https://fpif.org/these-three-billionaires-paved-way-for-trumps-iran-deal-withdrawal/ https://fpif.org/these-three-billionaires-paved-way-for-trum... [3]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alleged_Saudi_role_in_the_September_11_attacks https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alleged_Saudi_role_in_the_Sept... [4]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jonathan_Pollard https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jonathan_Pollard

throw310822 7mo ago

reliabilityguy 7mo ago

> Pointlessness of this war aside This is not a pointless war. You may not like Trump or Bibi, but geopolitics-wise this war make perfect sense on many levels. First, it limits China's ability to hoard cheep oil as Iran has to sell its oil with a discount due to being sanctioned. China hoards oil as it plans to attack Taiwan and it understands that there will be sanctions on oil trade. So, to minimize the shock on its economy China hoards oil. [1] Second, Iran is the reason why Gulf states are surrounded by instability: Houthis, armed and funded by IR, in Yemen make Saudis and UAE uneasy. Iraqi militias funded and armed by IR as well sabotage internal politics of Iraq the same way Hizballah destabilizes Lebanon. No one in the Gulf (except Qatar maybe, up until recently) wanted strong IR. These countries and their peace is essential for US and the world economy. Third, if IR gets nukes, most of the Gulf nations would want nukes too. They already see themselves surrounded by IR-funded militias. We do not need more nukes, we need less nukes in the world. And I have no idea how people simply ignore the fact that IR already has 400+kg of 60%-encriched uranium. Why if not for bombs? So yeah, geopolitics-wise this war makes perfect sense. Islamic Republic is major destabilizing factor in the region, and this war attempts to resolve it. Why the current admin cannot articulate it clearly, idk. [1] https://jkempenergy.com/2026/02/15/chinas-oil-stocks-and-readiness-for-war/#:~:text=China%20has%20been%20accumulating%20crude,is%20following%20long%2Dstanding%20precedent. https://jkempenergy.com/2026/02/15/chinas-oil-stocks-and-rea...

FpUser 7mo ago
>"but geopolitics-wise this war make perfect sense" For the US - maybe, assuming they do not get bloody nose at some point.
SimianSci 7mo ago
I call it pointless because I and many other Americans have been told these things before. We are always in a constant "Red Queen's Race" with other nations as a means of establishing dominance. We subsidize allies like Israel with billions of dollars that have never been allocated by our congress, and which only serve to subsidize the healthcare of Israeli citizens while we continue to have nothing of the sorts. "Bro, just trust me Iran is SO CLOSE!" for the past 40 years is not convincing us that this war has any benefit to us. Americans are already on the hook for trillions of dollars in debt we cannot pay as a country, and now we want to continue exploding the deficit to the tune of $1 Billion per day. Its existential threat after existential threat with no consideration to the actual troubles americans are facing in the here and now. Its just endless wars with no end in sight. Outside of manufacturing consent on behalf of Israel, posts such as yours seem highly dedicated to trying to convince nobody aside from the wealthy few Americans with international holdings.

quantified 7mo ago

We just gave them a grudge to last another generation. They will be more actively seeking any opportunity to cause havoc than before. I'd expect employees of Iranian descent to be under greater scrutiny than before, though most here probably escaped the regime with great hatred of it.