These attacks feel like a last gasp of air before death. There is no strategy except to use the last remaining resources to inflict damage to wherever possible but obviously this is not a strategy that will lead to survival.
Iran's communication specifically calls these bases foreign soil. and "reassures" the host countries that the attacks are not against them. In this case it would be UK soil.
I was talking about the explanation for hotels only.
The general strategy makes a lot of sense for a desperate regime: Instead of striking Israel(densest AA network in the world, long flight path so lots of time to intercept) they will force US to expend AA material all over theater and make US allies question credibility of defense. It's not like only hitting Israel or US will improve their reputation.
> The general strategy makes a lot of sense for a desperate regime
The issue is that they are also attacking their closest friends in the region, as opposed to the other gulf nations which were merely pressuring the US not to attack due to fear.
They have thrown the stone in the metaphorical glass house towards the oil facilities very early in the conflict.
I think this is more an issue of mismanagement rather than strategy. They probably do have a very acute command and control issue due to the strikes.
It's also a good preview of how Iran with nuclear weapons would play out
You are flatly wrong. These countries are internationally recognized sovereign nations and members of the UN. They have independent, often conflicting interests and foreign policies. Meanwhile the US bases are held under formal leases, not through force.
I am not privy to the inner workings of sociopaths' brains but it might be because they are supplying fuel to the US bases, or the word "American" in the company name, or maybe they are mad that Saudi Arabia got Bill Burr cancelled.
This comes after attacking US, French bases and civilian infrastructure in Bahrain, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, UAE as well as their close friends and mediators in Qatar and Oman
Well yeah, but they still had a chance to play the victim after the US/Israel strikes (especially if some of the reports about how the negotiations went down are true). Lots of people are still primed to listen to it. But they're not interested in making it easy for their apologists, I guess.
I see the headline's now been changed to "RAF base in Cyprus hit by drone strike"
The Telegraph is, of course, strongly anti-EU, so the original headline might well have been a form of shit-stirring - "look how weak the EU are being by not retaliating!", or something along those lines.
I think it is, seeing as she says 'While the Republic of Cyprus was not the target'
>While the Republic of Cyprus was not the target, let me be clear: we stand collectively, firmly and unequivocally with our Member States in the face of any threat.
> the Sovereign Base Areas of Akrotiri and Dhekelia (SBA), is a British Overseas Territory that consists of two separate areas on the island of Cyprus.
A sovereign state has been attacked, in the middle of negotiations. Their leader has been assassinated, civilians murdered. What should they do?
They have every right to resist this criminal assault.
I really don't see where North Korea comes into it. My initial post was actually echoing what we hear in the UK every time Israel assaults its neighbours.
It's North Korea talk because they are the extreme example of illegitimacy.
"A sovereign state"
Sovereign by who's terms?
A gang of people hold another group of people hostage, we have to respect their supposed sovereignty?
And the sovereignty of the majority of the people who reject the regime and who are murdered, tortured?
We're just going to respect a group of thugs claim to control national sovereignty?
The point being - the regimes lack of legitimacy aggravates their claim to 'sovereignty'.
"They have every right to resist this criminal assault."
They probably don't (lack of legitimacy) - and - this really isn't a situation of 'rights' anyhow, this is a break down in order, it's just about power.
And of course - 'rights' - the rights of their citizens murdered and tortured, how do that integrate into this question?
There are international laws here, but there is also legitimacy.
If we could be certain (and we almost could) that literally the vast majority of people in Iran, do not believe in the legitimacy of their own government ...
... then it's ridiculous to talk about 'a sovereign state' or 'a leader' has been killed.
There is a 'Theocratic Feudal Clan' holding power in the country, and they were attacked.
Israel is a very odd state, but with similar lack of legitimacy - except that Iran has made directly claims to the total destruction of the state, and Israel's internal crimes notwithstanding, they have a practical right to defend themselves.
The assault was ordered by a semi-Feudal Lord of 'House Trump' - as US citizens don't support this war, neither was the Executive given consent by Congress.
'Sovereignty' is mostly rhetorical term in a context were legitimacy is not applied.
This is a war being fought where none of the citizens approve of any of it, the claims on all sides are aggrandized.
This conflict is probably best understood like those in Europe before Napoleon and national armies etc..
You know who's really illegitimate, those pesky americaners. If they hadn't given a big and ILLEGAL, big bad in terms of international law, declaration to King George. Then the whole world wouldn't have spent the last 80 years with a gun to their heads while the US runs roughshod over every country on earth creating endless instability and wars.
And while we're speaking of people that hold guns to everyone's heads, there is one country that is waging war all over the world. It's govt also executed people in broad daylight for the crimes of taking their kid to school and helping a person beaten up by the administration's goons. Would you entertain the idea of similar airstrikes against the head of that country?
> Iran is supporting massive conflicts in Yemen, and is building non-defensive weapons capabilities.
None of THIS rhetoric even responded to the quotes you highlighted.
You'll have to do better than calling people racist for no apparent reason.
If there is one tiny, little barely a sliver of a silver-lining out of all of this Trump insanity, is that we don't hear a lot of people getting called racist for being disagreeable anymore, there are real issues to deal with.
>And while we're speaking of people that hold guns to everyone's heads, there is one country that is waging war all over the world. It's govt also executed people in broad daylight
Isn't that Iran? Remember the mass killings of the protestors? 36000 intentional deaths (Iran) vs 50 possibly accidental deaths (USA) [0]. Even if the deaths in the US were mediated by a burning hatred with the fire of a thousand suns that could still only amount to a few thousand death equivalents in a country where more than three hundred million people live (USA) vs 93 million in Iran.
We see ICE being evil in front of us, we don't see the actions of the Iranian regime, our 'daily ire' is reserved for the Orange Menace, so it badly distorts our rhetoric.
I don't think anyone should care about the Iranian regime - other than it might get worse, or unstable, or create a regional conflict that will just create more problems for everyone.
We're already seen those "defensive strikes" wipe out a school. This is an unprovoked, reckless, criminal attack, the perpetrators of which should be sent to the Hague.
> in order to extract resources from the local government in Iraq and Lebanon.
How evil of them to do that. They should have known only the United States of America has the divine right to invade countries and extract their resources. https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c4grxzxjjd8o
> That's called Imperialism and was common among european powers in the 19th century
> How evil of them to do that. They should have known only the United States of America has the divine right to invade countries and extract their resources
Yes, OP was already saying Iran is free to act because the US is an imperial power. I was merely stating that he is conveniently ignoring Iran's imperialist behavior
Equating Iran's struggle against a genocide in Palestine with Imperialism is misinformed at best, criminal at worst. Either way, only a zionist could say that, which makes this conversation completely useless.
These attacks feel like a last gasp of air before death. There is no strategy except to use the last remaining resources to inflict damage to wherever possible but obviously this is not a strategy that will lead to survival.
Iran's communication specifically calls these bases foreign soil. and "reassures" the host countries that the attacks are not against them. In this case it would be UK soil.
Akrotiri and Dhekelia are, in fact, UK soil. That's why they're called Sovereign Base Areas.
How does Iran communication describe the attacking of Saudi ARAMCO oil facilities and hotels in Bahrain and Dubai?
>hotels in Bahrain and Dubai
IRGC claims they are being used to house US troops that left their base (in the case of Bahrain) and/or intelligence ops.
I guess the US marines are also operating the Saudi oil facility and French base on their time off
Their actual current explanation is that they can't control their armed forces
https://www.jpost.com/middle-east/iran-news/article-888422
I was talking about the explanation for hotels only.
The general strategy makes a lot of sense for a desperate regime: Instead of striking Israel(densest AA network in the world, long flight path so lots of time to intercept) they will force US to expend AA material all over theater and make US allies question credibility of defense. It's not like only hitting Israel or US will improve their reputation.
> The general strategy makes a lot of sense for a desperate regime
The issue is that they are also attacking their closest friends in the region, as opposed to the other gulf nations which were merely pressuring the US not to attack due to fear.
They have thrown the stone in the metaphorical glass house towards the oil facilities very early in the conflict.
I think this is more an issue of mismanagement rather than strategy. They probably do have a very acute command and control issue due to the strikes.
It's also a good preview of how Iran with nuclear weapons would play out
These countries are not sovereign states. They are western puppets with western armies on their territory. It makes these attacks only legitimate.
You are flatly wrong. These countries are internationally recognized sovereign nations and members of the UN. They have independent, often conflicting interests and foreign policies. Meanwhile the US bases are held under formal leases, not through force.
I am not privy to the inner workings of sociopaths' brains but it might be because they are supplying fuel to the US bases, or the word "American" in the company name, or maybe they are mad that Saudi Arabia got Bill Burr cancelled.
Ehh, Iran funds Hezbollah which routinely threatened Cyprus with war if it didn't concede maritime boundaries with reserves of natural gas.
This comes after attacking US, French bases and civilian infrastructure in Bahrain, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, UAE as well as their close friends and mediators in Qatar and Oman
They're really determined to prove that they're the bad guys after all, huh?
LOL they were attacked first. The bad guys in this story are Israel and their puppets the USA.
Hard to compete with bombing female elementary schools.
Last I checked this was never confirmed to have actually happened.
https://xcancel.com/araghchi/status/2027732295629873332
After all? As if funding proxies in Lebanon, Syria, Yemen and Iraq that undermine the state government’s sovereignty was not enough
Well yeah, but they still had a chance to play the victim after the US/Israel strikes (especially if some of the reports about how the negotiations went down are true). Lots of people are still primed to listen to it. But they're not interested in making it easy for their apologists, I guess.
Ok thanks, I agree
> Cyprus, an EU country
RAF base is on "sovereign British land", A vestige of colonialism. Technically not EU.
I see the headline's now been changed to "RAF base in Cyprus hit by drone strike"
The Telegraph is, of course, strongly anti-EU, so the original headline might well have been a form of shit-stirring - "look how weak the EU are being by not retaliating!", or something along those lines.
That's not how the EU views it,
https://x.com/vonderleyen/status/2028357886355570992
I think it is, seeing as she says 'While the Republic of Cyprus was not the target'
>While the Republic of Cyprus was not the target, let me be clear: we stand collectively, firmly and unequivocally with our Member States in the face of any threat.
This is correct.
> the Sovereign Base Areas of Akrotiri and Dhekelia (SBA), is a British Overseas Territory that consists of two separate areas on the island of Cyprus.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Akrotiri_and_Dhekelia
Iran has the right to defend itself.
This is North Korean logic.
Who is Iran?
The tiny minority of people with guns to everyone's heads?
The entity acting right now is a small ruling clique presenting themselves as 'Iran'.
A regime loses legitimacy to act when they don't have internal legitimacy - or does not act with legitimacy either.
Iran is supporting massive conflicts in Yemen, and is building non-defensive weapons capabilities.
That does not make US or Israel automatically 'the good guys' as they have their own lack of legitimacy problems.
US president started a war without Congressional approval, against wishes of allies. Unclear objectives, zero popular support.
Israel illegally colonizes West Bank, kills civilians etc.
It's all shades of grey, but there are lighter and darker shades.
And to make more complicated, lighter and darker given context as well.
A sovereign state has been attacked, in the middle of negotiations. Their leader has been assassinated, civilians murdered. What should they do?
They have every right to resist this criminal assault.
I really don't see where North Korea comes into it. My initial post was actually echoing what we hear in the UK every time Israel assaults its neighbours.
It's North Korea talk because they are the extreme example of illegitimacy.
"A sovereign state"
Sovereign by who's terms?
A gang of people hold another group of people hostage, we have to respect their supposed sovereignty?
And the sovereignty of the majority of the people who reject the regime and who are murdered, tortured?
We're just going to respect a group of thugs claim to control national sovereignty?
The point being - the regimes lack of legitimacy aggravates their claim to 'sovereignty'.
"They have every right to resist this criminal assault."
They probably don't (lack of legitimacy) - and - this really isn't a situation of 'rights' anyhow, this is a break down in order, it's just about power.
And of course - 'rights' - the rights of their citizens murdered and tortured, how do that integrate into this question?
There are international laws here, but there is also legitimacy.
If we could be certain (and we almost could) that literally the vast majority of people in Iran, do not believe in the legitimacy of their own government ...
... then it's ridiculous to talk about 'a sovereign state' or 'a leader' has been killed.
There is a 'Theocratic Feudal Clan' holding power in the country, and they were attacked.
Israel is a very odd state, but with similar lack of legitimacy - except that Iran has made directly claims to the total destruction of the state, and Israel's internal crimes notwithstanding, they have a practical right to defend themselves.
The assault was ordered by a semi-Feudal Lord of 'House Trump' - as US citizens don't support this war, neither was the Executive given consent by Congress.
'Sovereignty' is mostly rhetorical term in a context were legitimacy is not applied.
This is a war being fought where none of the citizens approve of any of it, the claims on all sides are aggrandized.
This conflict is probably best understood like those in Europe before Napoleon and national armies etc..
You know who's really illegitimate, those pesky americaners. If they hadn't given a big and ILLEGAL, big bad in terms of international law, declaration to King George. Then the whole world wouldn't have spent the last 80 years with a gun to their heads while the US runs roughshod over every country on earth creating endless instability and wars.
> The tiny minority of people with guns to everyone's heads?
Yes, I am sure the patients in this hospital were holding guns to Trump's head. https://www.aljazeera.com/video/newsfeed/2026/3/2/baby-and-p...
And while we're speaking of people that hold guns to everyone's heads, there is one country that is waging war all over the world. It's govt also executed people in broad daylight for the crimes of taking their kid to school and helping a person beaten up by the administration's goons. Would you entertain the idea of similar airstrikes against the head of that country?
> Iran is supporting massive conflicts in Yemen, and is building non-defensive weapons capabilities.
You know who else is supporting that massive conflict in Yemen? The United States of America. https://www.hrw.org/news/2025/06/04/yemen-us-strikes-on-port...
> It's all shades of grey, but there are lighter and darker shades.
I'm guessing they correlate 100% with the shade of the skin of the people involved.
None of THIS rhetoric even responded to the quotes you highlighted.
You'll have to do better than calling people racist for no apparent reason.
If there is one tiny, little barely a sliver of a silver-lining out of all of this Trump insanity, is that we don't hear a lot of people getting called racist for being disagreeable anymore, there are real issues to deal with.
>And while we're speaking of people that hold guns to everyone's heads, there is one country that is waging war all over the world. It's govt also executed people in broad daylight
Isn't that Iran? Remember the mass killings of the protestors? 36000 intentional deaths (Iran) vs 50 possibly accidental deaths (USA) [0]. Even if the deaths in the US were mediated by a burning hatred with the fire of a thousand suns that could still only amount to a few thousand death equivalents in a country where more than three hundred million people live (USA) vs 93 million in Iran.
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_deaths_in_ICE_detentio...
Yes, proportionality tends to tip us over.
We see ICE being evil in front of us, we don't see the actions of the Iranian regime, our 'daily ire' is reserved for the Orange Menace, so it badly distorts our rhetoric.
I don't think anyone should care about the Iranian regime - other than it might get worse, or unstable, or create a regional conflict that will just create more problems for everyone.
From who? Did the UK attack Iran?
The UK supports the attacks by giving logistical support to the US through the use of UK airbases.
It seems this was not the case, but this has all changed now for sure
https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cj98egkl7l1o https://www.theguardian.com/world/2026/jan/20/what-are-chago...
Those articles are both out of date.
Yes, they both show the UK had an interest in not participating or reducing their participation.
This is probably military strategy 101 not to push your enemies together when they are having a rift
From a coalition of which the UK is a part.
Hideous double-speak in this article.
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2026/mar/01/uk-to-allow...
We're already seen those "defensive strikes" wipe out a school. This is an unprovoked, reckless, criminal attack, the perpetrators of which should be sent to the Hague.
Yes, they did.
Well, actually yes they did contribute to the attack on the Republic. See[1].
[1] : https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c20l1v0ldqzo
Your link actually says they were contributing to the defense not the attack
> The US-Israeli strikes were launched after negotiations to limit Iran's nuclear programme ended without a deal. The UK did not participate.
Yes that is true. The UK contributes to the defense operations of the imperial aggressors against the Republic.
What's your view on the Republic's imperial aggression against Iraq, Lebanon and Yemen?
Which Republic are we talking about? The Islamic Republic or the western "republics"?
I am talking about the Islamic Republic setting up local mercenary forces in order to extract resources from the local government in Iraq and Lebanon.
That's called Imperialism and was common among european powers in the 19th century
> in order to extract resources from the local government in Iraq and Lebanon.
How evil of them to do that. They should have known only the United States of America has the divine right to invade countries and extract their resources. https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c4grxzxjjd8o
> That's called Imperialism and was common among european powers in the 19th century
Fortunately, the USA does not want to revive such practices, as they indicated in this speech: https://nymag.com/intelligencer/article/marco-rubio-munich-t...
> How evil of them to do that. They should have known only the United States of America has the divine right to invade countries and extract their resources
Yes, OP was already saying Iran is free to act because the US is an imperial power. I was merely stating that he is conveniently ignoring Iran's imperialist behavior
Equating Iran's struggle against a genocide in Palestine with Imperialism is misinformed at best, criminal at worst. Either way, only a zionist could say that, which makes this conversation completely useless.
Can't say how taking over Iraq for economic reasons helps the Palestinians but sure
Good thing they stopped with that, eh?
oh ofc, the citizens' armies are the actual imperial forces. Do Whites hear themselves?
Citizen armies? You haven't talked to a Lebanese lately haven't you?