6 ms·

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 t

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 7mo 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 7mo ago
  There is probably a hardline faction within Iran that still thinks it gains from further bombing and forced isolation.
  - PixyMisa 7mo ago
    Yep. The IRGC runs the country at this point, and they do not have anyone else's best interests in mind.
  - jhanschoo 7mo 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 7mo 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 7mo ago
        Not without 100K coffins. And that doesn't really sell all that well in the US.
        kombookcha 7mo ago
        Exactly. The price to actually do this is simply not one the US is willing to pay.
- hshdhdhj4444 7mo 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 7mo 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 7mo 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 7mo 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 7mo 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.
- yongjik 7mo 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.
  - DoctorOetker 7mo ago
    [flagged]
    - yongjik 7mo ago
      So you are embarrassed that your leaders don't want their soldiers to die in a war started by another country without providing any semblance of justification? ...I'm just glad that European politicians take their soldiers' lives more seriously than the court of public opinions. Well, at least some of them. That's the mark of being an adult.
      - DoctorOetker 7mo ago
        [flagged]
        beedeebeedee 7mo ago
        > I think many in the Pentagon are relieved that they were finally able to convince a president of what needed to be done a long time before Like your other comments, this is abjectly false. Our generals and admirals specifically warned against going to war with Iran.
        DoctorOetker 7mo ago
        I am willing to hear you out on this, but the Pentagon employs a lot of personnel, can you demonstrate that the sentiment you describe was actually representative? Clearly those who do believe in this intervention don't have the same incentive to speak up as those that disagree with it. It is also rather vague to conflate warnings with disagreement: They can believe in the validity of an approach but still have the legal obligation to not just inform the president of the values and benefits of such a mission, but also warn him of any potential negative outcomes. Warning someone about a path of action, is not equivalent to disagreeing with that path of action, it can be their job description to provide such warnings. That said, I would like to read more about what you are referring to, to make sure we are talking about the same things.
- Spooky23 7mo 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 7mo ago
    one missile fails, the other is intercepted your conclusion: US will pull those resources back?
    - Spooky23 7mo 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 7mo ago
        By the time it takes the missiles to reach there, the planes could be in the air.
        machomaster 7mo 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 7mo 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 7mo 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 7mo 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 7mo ago
    All countries publicly understate the max range that their missiles can go. This is generally understood in the defense community.
    - deleted 7mo ago
      [deleted]
    - ofrzeta 7mo ago
      What's the point? Naively one would think it is the opposite.
      - NomDePlum 7mo ago
        [dead]
      - Glawen 7mo 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 7mo 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 7mo ago
> whether or not Iran would limit themselves to military targets This question has long been answered
- machomaster 7mo 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 7mo 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 7mo ago
      So just like US and Israel?

big-and-small 7mo 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 7mo ago
There is probably a hardline faction within Iran that still thinks it gains from further bombing and forced isolation.
- PixyMisa 7mo ago
  Yep. The IRGC runs the country at this point, and they do not have anyone else's best interests in mind.
- jhanschoo 7mo 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 7mo 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 7mo ago
      Not without 100K coffins. And that doesn't really sell all that well in the US.
      - kombookcha 7mo ago
        Exactly. The price to actually do this is simply not one the US is willing to pay.
hshdhdhj4444 7mo 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 7mo 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 7mo 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 7mo 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 7mo 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.
yongjik 7mo 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.
- DoctorOetker 7mo ago
  [flagged]
  - yongjik 7mo ago
    So you are embarrassed that your leaders don't want their soldiers to die in a war started by another country without providing any semblance of justification? ...I'm just glad that European politicians take their soldiers' lives more seriously than the court of public opinions. Well, at least some of them. That's the mark of being an adult.
    - DoctorOetker 7mo ago
      [flagged]
      - beedeebeedee 7mo ago
        > I think many in the Pentagon are relieved that they were finally able to convince a president of what needed to be done a long time before Like your other comments, this is abjectly false. Our generals and admirals specifically warned against going to war with Iran.
        DoctorOetker 7mo ago
        I am willing to hear you out on this, but the Pentagon employs a lot of personnel, can you demonstrate that the sentiment you describe was actually representative? Clearly those who do believe in this intervention don't have the same incentive to speak up as those that disagree with it. It is also rather vague to conflate warnings with disagreement: They can believe in the validity of an approach but still have the legal obligation to not just inform the president of the values and benefits of such a mission, but also warn him of any potential negative outcomes. Warning someone about a path of action, is not equivalent to disagreeing with that path of action, it can be their job description to provide such warnings. That said, I would like to read more about what you are referring to, to make sure we are talking about the same things.
Spooky23 7mo 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 7mo ago
  one missile fails, the other is intercepted your conclusion: US will pull those resources back?
  - Spooky23 7mo 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 7mo ago
      By the time it takes the missiles to reach there, the planes could be in the air.
      - machomaster 7mo 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 7mo 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 7mo 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 7mo 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 7mo ago
  All countries publicly understate the max range that their missiles can go. This is generally understood in the defense community.
  - deleted 7mo ago
    [deleted]
  - ofrzeta 7mo ago
    What's the point? Naively one would think it is the opposite.
    - NomDePlum 7mo ago
      [dead]
    - Glawen 7mo 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 7mo 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 7mo ago

> whether or not Iran would limit themselves to military targets This question has long been answered

machomaster 7mo 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 7mo 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 7mo ago
    So just like US and Israel?