4 ms·

> Iran has always lacked an ability to project power at a distance. Sure. Now they maybe able to reach Greece. Give them five years and they will develop missi

> Iran has always lacked an ability to project power at a distance. Sure. Now they maybe able to reach Greece. Give them five years and they will develop missiles that can reach France, or even UK. I am sure europeans would love the idea of fanatical regime having arms that can reach them, especially, if we consider that EU today does not have very robust air defense. Even Israel that planned for this war for a while has rockets that penetrate their defenses. I would prefer the politicians not to take those gambles.

pear01 7mo ago
Great logic. China and America might find themselves at war in the coming years. Should we just get it over with and attack them now? Where did you pull Greece from? The Iranians can barely hit anything next door. Maybe in five years the regime would have collapsed during a succession or economic crisis. Perhaps this perhaps that. Initiating a war is a gamble in of itself. Now Americans all over the world are potentially at increased risk from lone wolves. A failed Iranian state might be the site of horrible atrocities to come. For a post that seems to contemplate the future you seem to exhibit a strange lack of reflection.
- reliabilityguy 7mo ago
  China has both the nukes and ballistic missiles. Obviously, the calculus for the war with China completely different: you create a situation where China prefers not to attack Taiwan. > Maybe in five years the regime would have collapsed during a succession crisis. Perhaps this perhaps that. Maybe, but the war in Iran is not about Iran itself, at least from the US standpoint. It's about cutting China off from cheap oil that they buy from Iran with a huge discount. For Trump, to get a win is enough to get a new supreme leader who is more aligned with the west, like in Venezuela. > A failed Iranian state might be the site of horrible atrocities to come. Why would it fail? Iran is not Iraq or Syria or Libya. Like, nothing in common at all. If you analyze Iraq, Syria, and Libya pre-war and Iran pre-war you would see that none of the conditions that lead these countries to become failed states exist in Iran. IF you are interested, I can elaborate. > For a post that seems to contemplate the future you seem to exhibit a strange lack of reflection. I am not.
  - pear01 7mo ago
    > China has both the nukes and ballistic missiles. Obviously, the calculus for the war with China completely different: you create a situation where China prefers not to attack Taiwan. The same can be said of Iran re creating off-ramps from conflict or bad outcomes. That's what the "nuclear deal" was meant to be about. The one the current President tore up because his predecessor was responsible for it. > Maybe, but the war in Iran is not about Iran itself, at least from the US standpoint. It's about cutting China off from cheap oil that they buy from Iran with a huge discount. For Trump, to get a win is enough to get a new supreme leader who is more aligned with the west, like in Venezuela. Afaik the administration has not articulated that view. It's not appropriate to take a scenario that might be plausible and put it into the President's mouth. You don't get to say what the war is about "from the US standpoint". That's the President's job. > Why would it fail? Iran is not Iraq or Syria or Libya. Like, nothing in common at all. If you analyze Iraq, Syria, and Libya pre-war and Iran pre-war you would see that none of the conditions that lead these countries to become failed states exist in Iran. IF you are interested, I can elaborate. This is simply incorrect on so many levels I don't know where to start. But since you invited elaboration, please by all means.
    - reliabilityguy 7mo ago
      > The same can be said of Iran re creating off-ramps from conflict or bad outcomes. That's what the "nuclear deal" was meant to be about. It was a bad deal that structurally did not prevent IR from building a bomb. This deal did not allow for "Anytime,Anywhere" inspections, had a sunset clause, and simply put provided financial relief to IR for the next 20 years or so. You can read the conditions yourself, and you will arrive to the same conclusion. > Afaik the administration has not articulated that view. It's not appropriate to take a scenario that might be plausible and put it into the President's mouth. You don't get to say what the war is about "from the US standpoint". That's the President's job. No, it is not. Politics are not about putting all the cards on the table, especially geopolitics. We may not like it, but it is the way it is. > This is simply incorrect on so many levels Like what? > But since you invited elaboration, please by all means. Sure, first of all, Iranians see themselves as one nation despite their ethnic differences. Even in areas with separatist ideas, like the Iranian Kurdistan or Baluchistan, separatists are an absolute minority. Unlike Iran, Syria, Iraq, and Libya do not see themselves as one nation. These countries had minorities ruling over majorities under the idea of pan-arabism, which is not a nation-centric movement at all. Obviously, when the regimes fell you have a situation where majority is pissed at minorities for years of oppression, and neither the minorities not the majorities do not see themselves as one nation. Add to this external funding, and you get prolonged civil war. In Libya you have Qatar vs. UAE. In Syria -- Turkey vs. Iran In Iraq -- you have Iran vs. US (that backed transitional government). Iran is nothing like that. Iranians see themselves as one nation for the most part. You can see it via the Women Life Freedom movement, which is supported by most of Iranians and is centered about women rights. Nothing like that can ever exist in Syria, Iraq, or Libya due to insane cultural difference between these countries and Iran.
- bawolff 7mo ago
  > Where did you pull Greece from? They hit cyprus, Greece seens to be a plausible estimate of the outer edge of their range.
  - pear01 7mo ago
    With what? And the damage caused was what? The answer: A drone. The damage, little to none. What a powerful response to an outright attack on their country. This is the capability we are supposed to start a war over? Sorry it does not follow that politicians in Greece and beyond in Europe were gambling with their citizens lives by entertaining the possibility Iran might launch a drone to crash unceremoniously off-target in Cyprus if their regime was attacked. I don't think anyone in Cyprus cares, actually the only thing this really seems to have kicked off in Cyprus is a protest movement against the American military presence there.
    - bawolff 7mo ago
      > The answer: A drone. The damage, little to none. I'm sure that will be a real comfort to all the people who have died from drone strikes.
      - pear01 7mo ago
        I would think people killed by the machinery of needless wars would appreciate the same fate not falling on others. You omitted that part out of your quote to do what, imply I don't care about dead drone victims? Because I believe we shouldn't launch wars needlessly? What point are you trying to make? Should we bomb Toyota dealerships because of all the automobile fatalities? If you disagree should I imply you don't care about dead car crash victims?
bdangubic 7mo ago
> Give them five years and they will develop missiles that can reach France, or even UK. Copy/Paste from 1980’s stories like this or you typed it in manually?
- reliabilityguy 7mo ago
  What?
  - bdangubic 7mo ago
    https://www.aljazeera.com/gallery/2025/6/18/the-history-of-netanyahus-rhetoric-on-irans-nuclear-ambitions https://www.aljazeera.com/gallery/2025/6/18/the-history-of-n... https://www.reddit.com/r/AskMiddleEast/comments/1l9t7yl/netanyahus_iran_nuclear_bomb_claim_timeline/ https://www.reddit.com/r/AskMiddleEast/comments/1l9t7yl/neta... ... ...
    - reliabilityguy 7mo ago
      At the end IR does have nuclear material enriched to 60%. So, he was right?
      - bdangubic 7mo ago
        in 30 more years they'll get to 65% and in 100 more years maybe to 70% ;)
za3faran 7mo ago
This sounds like a straw man. What reason does Iran have to attack Europe? They don't engage in "mowing the lawn" like some other entity in the region.
- reliabilityguy 7mo ago
  For what reason IR attacked Cyprus?
  - za3faran 6mo ago
    British military facilities.

pear01 7mo ago

Great logic. China and America might find themselves at war in the coming years. Should we just get it over with and attack them now? Where did you pull Greece from? The Iranians can barely hit anything next door. Maybe in five years the regime would have collapsed during a succession or economic crisis. Perhaps this perhaps that. Initiating a war is a gamble in of itself. Now Americans all over the world are potentially at increased risk from lone wolves. A failed Iranian state might be the site of horrible atrocities to come. For a post that seems to contemplate the future you seem to exhibit a strange lack of reflection.

reliabilityguy 7mo ago
China has both the nukes and ballistic missiles. Obviously, the calculus for the war with China completely different: you create a situation where China prefers not to attack Taiwan. > Maybe in five years the regime would have collapsed during a succession crisis. Perhaps this perhaps that. Maybe, but the war in Iran is not about Iran itself, at least from the US standpoint. It's about cutting China off from cheap oil that they buy from Iran with a huge discount. For Trump, to get a win is enough to get a new supreme leader who is more aligned with the west, like in Venezuela. > A failed Iranian state might be the site of horrible atrocities to come. Why would it fail? Iran is not Iraq or Syria or Libya. Like, nothing in common at all. If you analyze Iraq, Syria, and Libya pre-war and Iran pre-war you would see that none of the conditions that lead these countries to become failed states exist in Iran. IF you are interested, I can elaborate. > For a post that seems to contemplate the future you seem to exhibit a strange lack of reflection. I am not.
- pear01 7mo ago
  > China has both the nukes and ballistic missiles. Obviously, the calculus for the war with China completely different: you create a situation where China prefers not to attack Taiwan. The same can be said of Iran re creating off-ramps from conflict or bad outcomes. That's what the "nuclear deal" was meant to be about. The one the current President tore up because his predecessor was responsible for it. > Maybe, but the war in Iran is not about Iran itself, at least from the US standpoint. It's about cutting China off from cheap oil that they buy from Iran with a huge discount. For Trump, to get a win is enough to get a new supreme leader who is more aligned with the west, like in Venezuela. Afaik the administration has not articulated that view. It's not appropriate to take a scenario that might be plausible and put it into the President's mouth. You don't get to say what the war is about "from the US standpoint". That's the President's job. > Why would it fail? Iran is not Iraq or Syria or Libya. Like, nothing in common at all. If you analyze Iraq, Syria, and Libya pre-war and Iran pre-war you would see that none of the conditions that lead these countries to become failed states exist in Iran. IF you are interested, I can elaborate. This is simply incorrect on so many levels I don't know where to start. But since you invited elaboration, please by all means.
  - reliabilityguy 7mo ago
    > The same can be said of Iran re creating off-ramps from conflict or bad outcomes. That's what the "nuclear deal" was meant to be about. It was a bad deal that structurally did not prevent IR from building a bomb. This deal did not allow for "Anytime,Anywhere" inspections, had a sunset clause, and simply put provided financial relief to IR for the next 20 years or so. You can read the conditions yourself, and you will arrive to the same conclusion. > Afaik the administration has not articulated that view. It's not appropriate to take a scenario that might be plausible and put it into the President's mouth. You don't get to say what the war is about "from the US standpoint". That's the President's job. No, it is not. Politics are not about putting all the cards on the table, especially geopolitics. We may not like it, but it is the way it is. > This is simply incorrect on so many levels Like what? > But since you invited elaboration, please by all means. Sure, first of all, Iranians see themselves as one nation despite their ethnic differences. Even in areas with separatist ideas, like the Iranian Kurdistan or Baluchistan, separatists are an absolute minority. Unlike Iran, Syria, Iraq, and Libya do not see themselves as one nation. These countries had minorities ruling over majorities under the idea of pan-arabism, which is not a nation-centric movement at all. Obviously, when the regimes fell you have a situation where majority is pissed at minorities for years of oppression, and neither the minorities not the majorities do not see themselves as one nation. Add to this external funding, and you get prolonged civil war. In Libya you have Qatar vs. UAE. In Syria -- Turkey vs. Iran In Iraq -- you have Iran vs. US (that backed transitional government). Iran is nothing like that. Iranians see themselves as one nation for the most part. You can see it via the Women Life Freedom movement, which is supported by most of Iranians and is centered about women rights. Nothing like that can ever exist in Syria, Iraq, or Libya due to insane cultural difference between these countries and Iran.
bawolff 7mo ago
> Where did you pull Greece from? They hit cyprus, Greece seens to be a plausible estimate of the outer edge of their range.
- pear01 7mo ago
  With what? And the damage caused was what? The answer: A drone. The damage, little to none. What a powerful response to an outright attack on their country. This is the capability we are supposed to start a war over? Sorry it does not follow that politicians in Greece and beyond in Europe were gambling with their citizens lives by entertaining the possibility Iran might launch a drone to crash unceremoniously off-target in Cyprus if their regime was attacked. I don't think anyone in Cyprus cares, actually the only thing this really seems to have kicked off in Cyprus is a protest movement against the American military presence there.
  - bawolff 7mo ago
    > The answer: A drone. The damage, little to none. I'm sure that will be a real comfort to all the people who have died from drone strikes.
    - pear01 7mo ago
      I would think people killed by the machinery of needless wars would appreciate the same fate not falling on others. You omitted that part out of your quote to do what, imply I don't care about dead drone victims? Because I believe we shouldn't launch wars needlessly? What point are you trying to make? Should we bomb Toyota dealerships because of all the automobile fatalities? If you disagree should I imply you don't care about dead car crash victims?

bdangubic 7mo ago

> Give them five years and they will develop missiles that can reach France, or even UK. Copy/Paste from 1980’s stories like this or you typed it in manually?

reliabilityguy 7mo ago
What?
- bdangubic 7mo ago
  https://www.aljazeera.com/gallery/2025/6/18/the-history-of-netanyahus-rhetoric-on-irans-nuclear-ambitions https://www.aljazeera.com/gallery/2025/6/18/the-history-of-n... https://www.reddit.com/r/AskMiddleEast/comments/1l9t7yl/netanyahus_iran_nuclear_bomb_claim_timeline/ https://www.reddit.com/r/AskMiddleEast/comments/1l9t7yl/neta... ... ...
  - reliabilityguy 7mo ago
    At the end IR does have nuclear material enriched to 60%. So, he was right?
    - bdangubic 7mo ago
      in 30 more years they'll get to 65% and in 100 more years maybe to 70% ;)

za3faran 7mo ago

This sounds like a straw man. What reason does Iran have to attack Europe? They don't engage in "mowing the lawn" like some other entity in the region.

reliabilityguy 7mo ago
For what reason IR attacked Cyprus?
- za3faran 6mo ago
  British military facilities.