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?
jandrewrogers 9 minutes 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.
bawolff 49 minutes 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.
dragonelite 5 minutes 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 1 minutes ago [-]
[delayed]
AnotherGoodName 1 hours 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 56 minutes 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.
kenhwang 2 minutes 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 seem to be a common problem with every Western country right now with a peacetime military budget.
chatmasta 46 minutes 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 30 minutes 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.
breppp 55 minutes ago [-]
> Pointless if they use a conventional payload (too small payload to be cost effective militarily)
Iran's missiles are used as a terror weapon against civilian population, which is hardly what anyone would consider the optimal use of a rather expensive ballistic missile.
No reason (apart for already proven suicidal tendencies) not to fire one on New York just for the terror value
throw310822 22 minutes ago [-]
> Iran's missiles are used as a terror weapon against civilian population
Classic. An advanced tech US missile hits a school and kills 200 schoolgirls? "A tragic mistake, it happens in war". A much less advanced Iranian rocket hits a building? "Terrorists! They point their weapons at civilians!"
Since Iran was attacked and it has a right to defend itself, we should give it more precise weapons so it can hit directly the military headquarters in central Tel Aviv.
kortilla 13 minutes ago [-]
Intent is literally the difference in terrorism though. The US hitting 500 targets in Iran and one of them being a school is the exact opposite of a strategy of terrorism. With terrorism you explicitly target civilians to drive fear.
Trying to hit the Burj Khalifa without targeting any military or high political office is terrorism.
When Iran launched at military bases or tried to shoot at planes, it was not called terrorism.
golemiprague 3 minutes ago [-]
[dead]
bdangubic 48 minutes ago [-]
that would be stupid and their regime is not stupid
breppp 38 minutes ago [-]
Hardly, after attacking all their friends in the region, which would leave them even more isolated after the war, I would not attribute careful strategic planning either
cjbgkagh 15 minutes ago [-]
“Better to be feared than loved” - Niccolo Machiavelli
watwut 12 minutes ago [-]
They were not mutual friends. They were mutually hostile.
And the friends are hosting american soldiers and bases.
breppp 8 minutes ago [-]
Qatar and Oman were mutually hostile? that's a very unique interpretation of Middle Eastern politics
jopsen 18 minutes ago [-]
Do you think launching a dumb ICBM at New York would make the US put boots on the ground.
I kind of doubt it's enough. This wouldn't be another 9/11, it would be merely be retaliation.
kortilla 12 minutes ago [-]
It already looks like the US is sending marines over. Any excuse to make it more politically palatable would be latched onto.
bdangubic 9 minutes ago [-]
the war is wildly unpopular in the US (rightfully so) - attacking US would rally the country (rightfully so) and regime would fall within a week (with significant casulties on our side)
9991 17 minutes ago [-]
They're Muslims. You can debate whether that means 'stupid', but they've come to totally erroneous opinions on the structure of reality.
bdangubic 7 minutes ago [-]
first, what does it matter whether they are Muslims or not? second, what is the structure of reality?! you may have some notion you know what “reality” is given what your media allows you to think - the actual reality is vastly different than you think it is - that is a certainty
sofixa 51 minutes ago [-]
> Iran's missiles are used as a terror weapon against civilian population
They've also sucessfuly been used against energy and military infrastructure.
breppp 39 minutes ago [-]
Those were mostly UAVs, you can see the abysmal aiming ability in Israel, where they have largely stopped aiming at facilities and moved to cluster warheads to maximize civilian hit ratio in large metropolis
alephnerd 55 minutes 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.
That might not work with the current administration. Which probably a/the problem.
madaxe_again 1 hours ago [-]
Iran have boats.
derektank 1 hours 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 1 hours ago [-]
The question is do they have a launcher that fits in a shipping container...
myth_drannon 1 hours ago [-]
[flagged]
fnordpiglet 1 hours ago [-]
They’ve been preparing for this day for 5 decades, and I wouldn’t believe this administrations propaganda if they claimed the sky was blue.
1over137 7 minutes ago [-]
>They’ve been preparing for this day for 5 decades...
So have the USA & Israel I suspect.
nozzlegear 58 minutes ago [-]
Five decades doesn't seem to mean much when most of their leadership, military and air defenses can be laid prostrate by the US and Israel in a couple of days. I don't ever take Trump for his word, but neither do I think there's wisdom in believing that a technologically superior force couldn't easily wipe out Iran's ballistic-capable navy just because they've been preparing for a long time.
verdverm 1 hours ago [-]
Large surface and mini subs, yes. They still have many small boats for laying mines. These are indistinguishable from a typical motor boat.
Look at how Ukraine has denied Russia access to most of the Black Sea. It's going to be real hard to stop Iran from creating enough uncertainty to ease the worries of the shipping world. Iran will have to say they are done threatening the straight.
nozzlegear 1 hours ago [-]
We're losing the plot here. What use are small motor boats for launching ballistic missiles?
verdverm 48 minutes ago [-]
Comments and threads typically digress into related topics, so I don't see the plot lost, rather the context expanded in a subthread.
Many experts think Iran has already won. They don't have to lay mines to seed doubt, they don't need boats to close the straights, shaheds are sufficient. One does need to define what it means to "win"
For Iran, it seems the regime will stay in power, you can't remove them from the air. The geography and population size of Iran will prove more challenging than Iraq or Afghanistan. There is very little support for Trump's War. They never sought to persuade the people, it appears they have no plan b (which they wish to be illegal /s)
Hubris is an apt way to describe Trump's approach to Iran. One evidence to this is that they thought Venezuela was the model for Iran. A SA dictator is nothing like a religious movement that has taken root for ~50 years.
What does winning look like for the US & Israel? Trump has already claimed they won, but have more winning to do. What they have said changes daily and between who's talking. I imagine this will continue after hostilities end, they will backfill their goals to claim they "won", like so many other things they do this with.
The real winners from this? Probably Russia and China more than others.
irishcoffee 18 minutes ago [-]
I was just talking about winning the “plant-bombs” vs “detect and-blow-up-bombs” chess game. I have no comment on the rest of what you said, nor do I care who “wins” here, I have no say in the matter and have chosen zero emotional investment.
spiderfarmer 1 hours ago [-]
Don’t believe Hegseths obvious buffoonery. They still have boats.
alephnerd 1 hours 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]
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.
maratc 1 hours 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.
tptacek 55 minutes 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.
chimineycricket 10 minutes ago [-]
Maraaji' is the pluralized version in Arabic, but nothing wrong with saying marjas. Marji would be most wrong though.
rayiner 49 minutes ago [-]
Your in-depth knowledge of completely random things never ceases to amaze me.
tptacek 42 minutes ago [-]
I'm Catholic and Twelver Shiism is the closest thing Islam has to Catholicism. It's a really neat system.
thaumasiotes 42 minutes ago [-]
> But there are several other marja (marjas? marji?)
Wikipedia has romanized: [singular] marji'; plural marāji'.
cardanome 1 hours 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.
tonyedgecombe 56 minutes ago [-]
I don't know but I can certainly blame them for oppressing and murdering their own citizens.
watwut 5 minutes 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.
FpUser 18 minutes 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.
breppp 60 minutes ago [-]
After being caught developing nuclear weapons for real numerous times, now it is really for real?
pepperoni_pizza 54 minutes ago [-]
Were they caught by the same people who found WMDs in Iraq by any chance?
breppp 51 minutes ago [-]
the IAEA, presumably you trust UN agencies?
in any case, these are the mythical WMDs found in Iraq:
Oh we trust them no? Because you do sound like someone who would tell me the UN is controlled by Hamas.
edit: looking at post history, you only comment political Israel-related content on HN. I don't think this interaction is going to go anywhere.
14 minutes ago [-]
1659447091 31 minutes 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 18 minutes 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
throwaway27448 1 hours 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.
throwaway295729 9 minutes ago [-]
Well if the last year is an indicator, changing and bypassing rules at whim is definitely not limited to the Ayatollahs. If anything, they’ve been fairly consistent.
greesil 1 hours ago [-]
Excellent point. Maybe it's the goal of this attack to demonstrate this capability.
rayiner 58 minutes 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?
jmyeet 52 minutes 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.
5 minutes ago [-]
mytailorisrich 1 hours 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 1 hours 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.
rayiner 56 minutes ago [-]
Do the missiles Iran has been raining down on other countries for decades not count as WMDs?
oa335 42 minutes ago [-]
No.
“ A weapon of mass destruction is a nuclear, radiological, chemical, biological, or other device that is intended to harm a large number of people”
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 58 minutes 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.
mda 48 minutes ago [-]
Like they flattened Afghanistan? It is funny people thinks land war in an huge mountainous country with 90 million people is easy.
mytailorisrich 45 minutes ago [-]
I wrote "flatten", not "invade".
mda 30 minutes ago [-]
flatten with what?
breppp 1 hours 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 31 minutes 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 9 minutes 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
42 minutes ago [-]
throwaway27448 60 minutes 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.
kevbin 1 hours ago [-]
[flagged]
gravisultra 1 hours ago [-]
Actually it would be better to kill Netanyahu and the IDF.
kevbin 56 minutes ago [-]
[flagged]
gambutin 57 minutes ago [-]
[flagged]
gravisultra 55 minutes ago [-]
Successfully remove Israel's influence from western politics and media and let the Palestinians have their land back.
gambutin 54 minutes ago [-]
[flagged]
nslsm 43 minutes ago [-]
They could move to a place where their behaviour is tolerated. Maybe in Mars.
gravisultra 53 minutes ago [-]
That's up to the Palestinians to decide, it's their land.
> Jewish holiday celebrating the mass murder of Persians.
You’re leaving out a key part of the story aren’t you? “Having found out that Mordecai is Jewish, Haman plans to kill not just Mordecai but the entire Jewish minority in the empire.”
Your analogy to what’s happening now is quite apt, though. Iran had peaceful relations with Israel for decades. It was the second Muslim country to recognize Israel. But for decades since then it has been funding terrorism and launching missiles aimed at Israel.
spaghetdefects 34 minutes ago [-]
Saying 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.
lokar 6 minutes 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
cardanome 1 hours 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.
einszwei 37 minutes 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.
arbuge 14 minutes ago [-]
They did however murder thousands of protesters in their own streets in January, and who knows how much more dissidents over the years.
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.
gizajob 54 minutes 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 44 minutes 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.
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 16 minutes ago [-]
>Mossad agents have been instructed to fire at protestors to increase the death toll.
Source?
typon 6 minutes ago [-]
There is zero proof that Iranian government has killed thousands of their own citizens. Please stop spouting Zionist propaganda
netsharc 59 minutes 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 34 minutes 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 7 minutes ago [-]
How is China getting that oil without problem? Something like 90% of it when through Kharg island which is now rubble.
spaghetdefects 1 hours 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 55 minutes 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.
Yeah, US/Israel won this war as quickly as Russia won their war with Ukraine. Incredible how much winning you can do once you get over-confident.
sofixa 46 minutes ago [-]
> destroying
The same Iran that just launched missiles at Diego Garcia, a critical American base? The same one that severely damaged Qatari LNG infrastructure two days ago? The same one that continues sending missile and drone attacks at various targets? Has effectively blocked the Strait of Hormuz and forced a +50% spike in oil prices? Ruled by the regime that has no intention of going anywhere?
We must have different definitions of destroyed.
spaghetdefects 57 minutes ago [-]
No, the US/Israel are losing the war. Iran is successfully controlling the economic situation and continuously removing western forces from the Middle East. They are also successfully targeting Israel every day. There's very little support for this war in the US and Trump is on the ropes.
NooneAtAll3 1 hours 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!"
georgeburdell 1 hours 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 1 hours 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 1 hours 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.
swat535 34 minutes 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 9 minutes ago [-]
If anything, the attack on Iran has increased their support.
US and Israel doesn'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 in this post about 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.
US and UK have screwed the relation up by organising coup, scuttling democratic processes, downing domestic passenger jet without apology, and 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 has one, the current conflict would not have happened.
spaghetdefects 1 hours 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.
gambutin 44 minutes ago [-]
[flagged]
cardanome 54 minutes 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.
sofixa 49 minutes 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.
gambutin 45 minutes ago [-]
Iranian kids have been chanting death to Israel and death to USA for 47 years now. They’ve been waiting for this.
srean 8 minutes ago [-]
Well, if you take down their democracy and down their domestic passenger jets, no country is going to respond to that with flowers in their hair
gizajob 53 minutes ago [-]
There’s only so many decades you can say “death to America, death to Israel” and fund proxies against them until they say enough is enough and deal with the baiting once and for all.
cardanome 41 minutes ago [-]
Or maybe you could ask yourself why people chant this. Maybe people don't fancy your mass murder of their Palestinian brothers and sisters. Maybe Iran didn't appreciate the US supporting Saddam Hussein to fight a war against Iran where he used chemical weapons against the population.
The might be a reason the whole region hates Israel and the US. Just saying.
spaghetdefects 1 hours ago [-]
Iran was attacked. Israel and the US are the threat, Iran is just practicing very common sense self-defense.
brabel 1 hours ago [-]
How convenient for Trump that now all Europe now has a pretext to send the help they were asked for.
fidotron 1 hours 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.
shishcat 58 minutes ago [-]
The .io tld is going through rough times :pensive:
AndrewKemendo 1 hours 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.
noir_lord 1 hours ago [-]
Would the Americans and Isreali’s start bombing mainland Iran and takin out their weapons and oil/gas infrastructure as retaliation?.
spaghetdefects 59 minutes 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 20 minutes ago [-]
i believe the parent comment was being sarcastic
chronic20001 59 minutes 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.
visuhire 1 hours 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 1 hours ago [-]
Sometimes getting shot down is the goal or at least a test to see what kind of response you’ll get
roughly 1 hours 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.
srean 5 minutes 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.
picture 46 minutes 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 37 minutes 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
srean 4 minutes ago [-]
I doubt whether the missile had sufficient range/fuel. More like a warning shot.
Rebelgecko 1 hours ago [-]
If you're already at war, why waste resources on warning shots?
56 minutes ago [-]
AndrewKemendo 49 minutes ago [-]
Sometimes it’s worth it to test in production
alephnerd 1 hours 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].
Agreed, there’s so much intelligence in this act it’s really astonishing
10xDev 55 minutes ago [-]
Can we just leave countries alone, like we do with North Korea?
AndrewKemendo 48 minutes ago [-]
The reason people leave North Korea alone is because they have nuclear weapon(s)
extraduder_ire 7 minutes ago [-]
Prior to that, they had thousands of artillery pieces pointed at Seoul the presumed backing of China if the Korean war resumed.
10xDev 41 minutes ago [-]
So we can only reach stalemate once a country has nukes and otherwise start blowing up their schools?
AndrewKemendo 33 minutes 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
Rendered at 18:25:02 GMT+0000 (Coordinated Universal Time) with Vercel.
* 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?
Of course, there is a significant gap between Iran possessing the capability, having the temperament to use it, and actually doing so.
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.
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.
Intercepted? In the UK, by what? London has no missile defence system that I am aware of.
Iran's missiles are used as a terror weapon against civilian population, which is hardly what anyone would consider the optimal use of a rather expensive ballistic missile.
No reason (apart for already proven suicidal tendencies) not to fire one on New York just for the terror value
Classic. An advanced tech US missile hits a school and kills 200 schoolgirls? "A tragic mistake, it happens in war". A much less advanced Iranian rocket hits a building? "Terrorists! They point their weapons at civilians!"
Since Iran was attacked and it has a right to defend itself, we should give it more precise weapons so it can hit directly the military headquarters in central Tel Aviv.
Trying to hit the Burj Khalifa without targeting any military or high political office is terrorism.
When Iran launched at military bases or tried to shoot at planes, it was not called terrorism.
And the friends are hosting american soldiers and bases.
I kind of doubt it's enough. This wouldn't be another 9/11, it would be merely be retaliation.
They've also sucessfuly been used against energy and military infrastructure.
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...
That might not work with the current administration. Which probably a/the problem.
This launch demonstrates that if the answer to both of those questions is still no, they can still place them at threat.
So have the USA & Israel I suspect.
Look at how Ukraine has denied Russia access to most of the Black Sea. It's going to be real hard to stop Iran from creating enough uncertainty to ease the worries of the shipping world. Iran will have to say they are done threatening the straight.
For Iran, it seems the regime will stay in power, you can't remove them from the air. The geography and population size of Iran will prove more challenging than Iraq or Afghanistan. There is very little support for Trump's War. They never sought to persuade the people, it appears they have no plan b (which they wish to be illegal /s)
Hubris is an apt way to describe Trump's approach to Iran. One evidence to this is that they thought Venezuela was the model for Iran. A SA dictator is nothing like a religious movement that has taken root for ~50 years.
What does winning look like for the US & Israel? Trump has already claimed they won, but have more winning to do. What they have said changes daily and between who's talking. I imagine this will continue after hostilities end, they will backfill their goals to claim they "won", like so many other things they do this with.
The real winners from this? Probably Russia and China more than others.
> 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...
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.
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.
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.
Wikipedia has romanized: [singular] marji'; plural marāji'.
Can anyone blame them for considering developing nuclear weapons for real now? I can't.
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.
And if you tell me that US /Israel are bombing Iran to protect rights of oppressed then I have that wonderful bridge.
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...
Oh we trust them no? Because you do sound like someone who would tell me the UN is controlled by Hamas.
edit: looking at post history, you only comment political Israel-related content on HN. I don't think this interaction is going to go anywhere.
> "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
This means there were active facilities, materials and know how even after the war
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.
Can you elaborate on what kind of strikes the Ayatollah was carrying out within the old range limit?
The war of choice is really the US's Teutoburg Forest moment.
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...
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.
“ A weapon of mass destruction is a nuclear, radiological, chemical, biological, or other device that is intended to harm a large number of people”
https://www.dhs.gov/topics/weapons-mass-destruction.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weapon_of_mass_destruction#Def...
https://unterm.un.org/unterm2/en/view/UNHQ/9626F6CEB2A92C9B8...
No-one believes that Iran is not pursuing nuclear weapons, either... or that they wouldn't if they had developed the capability.
This practice is known as taqqiya. It’s ok to lie if you’re deceiving the enemy.
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
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
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nakba
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Balfour_declaration
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Purim
You’re leaving out a key part of the story aren’t you? “Having found out that Mordecai is Jewish, Haman plans to kill not just Mordecai but the entire Jewish minority in the empire.”
Your analogy to what’s happening now is quite apt, though. Iran had peaceful relations with Israel for decades. It was the second Muslim country to recognize Israel. But for decades since then it has been funding terrorism and launching missiles aimed at Israel.
That’s a lot of traffic
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.
Not condoning anyone but shows the priority of both sides.
This one was just this week: https://www.cbsnews.com/news/iran-execution-teen-wrestler-ja...
So there's that.
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.
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.
Source?
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.
> 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.
https://www.cnn.com/2025/04/02/middleeast/us-b2-bombers-dieg...
The same Iran that just launched missiles at Diego Garcia, a critical American base? The same one that severely damaged Qatari LNG infrastructure two days ago? The same one that continues sending missile and drone attacks at various targets? Has effectively blocked the Strait of Hormuz and forced a +50% spike in oil prices? Ruled by the regime that has no intention of going anywhere?
We must have different definitions of destroyed.
the "notable distance/unexpectedly high range" quoted everywhere seems like a nice war justification: "see, they do have rockets that can threaten us!"
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.
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.
US and Israel doesn'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 in this post about 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.
US and UK have screwed the relation up by organising coup, scuttling democratic processes, downing domestic passenger jet without apology, and 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 has one, the current conflict would not have happened.
Iran is more united than ever because of the imperialist war. That is what you get when you turn state leaders into martyrs.
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.
The might be a reason the whole region hates Israel and the US. Just saying.
It's basically bait for WW3, and luckily so far the EU particularly are not biting.
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.
No that’s too easy.
Give hope to Iran / Islamic world for a few months, then take it away.
Unfortunately I’m not sure their current audience is gonna pick up the implied threat.
I don't think they did it this time, but they have in the past.
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"
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
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...
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