6 ms·
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
by mikeyouse 7mo 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 7mo agoExcellent point. Maybe it's the goal of this attack to demonstrate this capability.
- mytailorisrich 7mo agoIran 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...
- mda 7mo agoLike they flattened Afghanistan? It is funny people thinks land war in an huge mountainous country with 90 million people is easy.
- mytailorisrich 7mo agoI wrote "flatten", not "invade".
- mda 7mo agoflatten with what?
- drnick1 7mo agoLike 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 7mo ago> destroy their only source of revenue (oil fields) That’s the worlds source or revenue.
- subscribed 7mo agoYou 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 7mo agoLmao, 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 7mo agoThink 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 7mo agoWe 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 7mo agoNever 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 7mo agoInconceivable!
- applfanboysbgon 7mo agoYou 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 7mo agoThere 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 7mo agoAyatollah 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 7mo agoDid he also released a religious decree stating as much? Because otherwise you're comparing apples to mushrooms. Not even themselves kingdom.
- rayiner 7mo agoDo the missiles Iran has been raining down on other countries for decades not count as WMDs?
- jl6 7mo agoNo. There’s a definition from the UN here if you’re interested: https://unterm.un.org/unterm2/en/view/UNHQ/9626F6CEB2A92C9B85256A0000078872 https://unterm.un.org/unterm2/en/view/UNHQ/9626F6CEB2A92C9B8...
- breppp 7mo 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
- deleted 7mo ago[deleted]
- mda 7mo agoAttacking 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 7mo agoThis 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 7mo agoIran 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 7mo agoHence my point that Iran's "strategy" is very questionable
- 7mo ago
- throwaway27448 7mo agoWhat 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.
- chasd00 7mo agoIdk, 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 7mo agoThat'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 7mo agoThey 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 7mo 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 7mo agoMaybe 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 7mo agoAfter being caught developing nuclear weapons for real numerous times, now it is really for real?
- pepperoni_pizza 7mo agoWere they caught by the same people who found WMDs in Iraq by any chance?
- breppp 7mo agothe 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/middleeast/chemical-weapons-iraq-pentagon-secrets.html https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2014/12/03/world/middlee... https://www.nytimes.com/2015/02/16/world/cia-is-said-to-have-bought-and-destroyed-iraqi-chemical-weapons.html https://www.nytimes.com/2015/02/16/world/cia-is-said-to-have...
- kevbin 7mo ago[flagged]
- gravisultra 7mo agoActually it would be better to kill Netanyahu and the IDF.
- gambutin 7mo ago[flagged]
- gravisultra 7mo agoSuccessfully remove Israel's influence from western politics and media and let the Palestinians have their land back.
- gambutin 7mo ago[flagged]
- gravisultra 7mo agoThat's up to the Palestinians to decide, it's their land.
- gambutin 7mo ago[flagged]
- gravisultra 7mo agoHistory. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nakba https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nakba https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Balfour_declaration https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Balfour_declaration
- rayiner 7mo 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 7mo agoThe 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.
- tgma 7mo ago[flagged]
- spaghetdefects 7mo agoThis was a religious war launched by Israel during Purim, a Jewish holiday celebrating the mass murder of Persians. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Purim https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Purim
- rayiner 7mo ago[flagged]
- spaghetdefects 7mo agoSaying that your enemy "plans" to do something, is never justification for mass murdering civilians. It's interesting that this is basically the same playbook Zionists are currently using. Hurl some accusations, then start killing civilians.
- rayiner 7mo agoHaman’s plans weren’t theoretical. He had taken steps to put them into action, just like Iran has taken steps for decades in attacking Israel. Likewise, the people that were killed weren’t civilians. They were supporters of Haman. Undoubtedly, some innocent people were killed. That’s just how war works.
- spaghetdefects 7mo ago> modern scholarship generally regards it as a historical novel with legendary elements, not a reliable account of Purim’s origins. It's fiction.
- rayiner 7mo agoYou're the one who brought up Purim!
- jmyeet 7mo agoI'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.
- deleted 7mo ago[deleted]
- nomdep 7mo ago[flagged]
- lm28469 7mo 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 7mo agoThat 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 7mo agoWhoever 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