During the entire gulf war (Iraq, 1990-91), only two F-15s were shot down via surface-to-air engagement. At the time, Baghdad was known to have the highest density of SAM protection out of any city in the world.
An F-15 being shot down in Iran after weeks of strategic bombing of their anti-air defense systems is not a good sign.
> A second Air Force combat plane crashed in the Persian Gulf region on Friday, and the lone pilot was safely rescued, according to two U.S. officials who spoke on condition of anonymity to discuss operational matters. The A-10 Warthog attack plane went down near the Strait of Hormuz about the same time that an Air Force F-15E was shot down over Iran, the officials said. In that incident, one crew member was rescued and search-and-rescue operators are looking for the second airman. Officials provided scant details about the A-10 crash, including how and where it happened.
there's some additional osint rumor mill that a blackhawk helicopter involved in rescue operations was also shot down but claims that crew been recovered
On top of these cases there is all of the aircraft that has been destroyed while grounded. The high tech AWACS getting blown up was a big hit, among others. The losses are likely much worse than we know since the military has been trying to keep a lid on most of them.
Not to mention the multiple THAAD radars taken offline. Those are $500M assets - and only 8 exist in the world. 24,000 precise transceivers all liquid cooled… not available on Amazon for next day deliver either.
a single AN/FPS-132 radar costs $1.1 bln, not $500m. And Iran stuck 17 of the CENCCOM sites hosting radars of all kinds across Qarar, Bahrain, Iraq, UAE, Saudi, Jordan, Israel, etc).
Total cost is so much bigger, it is staggering. The whole CENTCOM is blind basically, as well as Iron Dome which relied on these radars - all blind now, in addition to long-range early nuke detection to protect CONUS is also blind.
in addition to cost, they all require Rare Earth Minerals, and China has banned the export of these (they own like 99% of the market).
So not only CENTCOM is blind and incurred damage in high single digit billions, but also will be unable to repair the damage any time soon (probably for decades) even if the funding were made to be available
Government obviously pretty silent on all these failures and media doesn't want to dig and ask hard questions
>So not only CENTCOM is blind and incurred damage in high single digit billions, but also will be unable to repair the damage any time soon (probably for decades) even if the funding were made to be available
not just what i quoted, but your source does not say any of what you are saying.
your source says: Satellite images show damage near vital equipment on sites in at least five countrieshttps://archive.ph/QHNXW
If we are speaking of interception/penetration, these are also solved by Iran using several strategies that Israel/CENTCOM did not expect:
1. use of cluster munitions
2. exhaustion of expensive interceptor inventory (exchanging $7000 shahed drone for $3-5 mln worth of PAC-3 interceptors)
3. Use of penetration aids
4. Changing trajectory at the terminal stage
5. coordinating swarm attacks (let AD to intercept SRBMs, while the real damage is caused by abundant cheap Shaheds that fly too slow and low to be detected)
Both you and the Guardian are confused (or perhaps the Guardian is just trying to ride the popular understanding of the "Iron Dome" as a super catch all missile defense system vs reality). The Iron Dome has nothing to do with shooting down ballistic missiles. The Iron Dome isn't designed to target ballistic missiles: it targets short-range rockets and artillery like the ones fired by Hamas and Hezbollah, and has been modified to also target slow-moving drones (although the Iron Beam is intended to be the main drone defense system in the future). The Iranian missiles are targeted by different systems: David's Sling and the Arrow 2 and 3.
The Iron Dome does not depend on the American radar system in Qatar that Iran hit. It would be crazy for it to do so when it only targets short range attacks. If someone is telling you that the "Iron Dome is blind" because an American radar in Qatar got hit by a missile, you should probably update the amount you trust that source negatively, since not only is that not true, but it doesn't even pass the sniff test to anyone who knows what the Iron Dome is.
> The Iron Dome has nothing to do with shooting down ballistic missiles
This is not true, Tamir interceptors have been upgraded to target ballistic missiles. It is extremely visible when this happens, as the interceptors fly a very different path than usually.
you are arguing semantics, both me and Guardian using the term "iron dome" as a collective of all air defense systems in Israel (not that one system built to counter cheap rockets), because all these systems are integrated into one military network, including the GCC/CENTCOM radars that were destroyed.
if you replace "iron dome" with "air defense network" everything else would still be true
The problem is you do not understand how these systems work and are making claims that don't pass the sniff test to anyone who does know how these work. For example, you claim multiple times that Shahed drones have somehow exacerbated these Iron Dome missile interceptor issues, and now claim you're not talking about the literal Iron Dome — you're talking about who knows what (you don't specify any actual, concrete system and instead use a metaphorical understanding from the popular press). The problem is: actually, the literal, real Iron Dome does target Shaheds! So if it's the radar system that was the problem and caused the metaphorical Iron Dome to be "blind" — why did drones matter, if those are targeted by the literal Iron Dome that doesn't use that radar? Are you meaning to talk about David's Sling, which targets missiles and drones? But David's Sling is a medium range system that doesn't use the American radar in Qatar either! Arrow 3? Guess what — it has nothing to do with Shaheds, and has nothing to do with the American radar system either — it uses an IAI radar system.
The Iranian hit on the American radar in Qatar hasn't left the "Iron Dome" blind, figuratively or literally, and your proposed mechanisms of actions don't make sense.
you have constructed a strawman argument and are arguing with it, mostly semantics and splitting hairs.
Perhaps a problem here is that we are mixing up two theatres: Israel and GCC.
Iron dome exists in Israel, but the radars and air defense network was degraded in GCC, it is these patriots there that are having interceptor issues and shahed drone issues.
Israel is not being bombed by shaheds, it is being bombed by ballistic missiles that they are having problems intercepting and alerting population in advance.
you can check with the sourc elinks I provided that confirm that the radars in GCC were part of the early warning system for israel, and hitting radars in Qatar has impacted directly AD network in israel (reduced alert time significantly)
None of your links support that claim or even try to make it. The Haaretz article is complaining about a day of unusually short missile notifications on March 7, a week later than the Iranian strike on the radar (and now a month-old claim, which lasted only a day — if that was due to the radar, why did it not start the day the radar was actually hit, and why did it only last a day when the radar remains ruined today?). One of your articles is about drones, which has nothing to do with the radar system, and you are now backpedaling all of your drone-related claims for Israeli air defense despite making many drone claims earlier (why is that?). The other is the Guardian article that doesn't make that claim, and one is about the American Patriot missile defense system, not Israeli ones.
Recent reporting has indicated that contrary to your claim that the American radar system getting hit has left the Iron Dome "blind," Israeli missile detection has actually improved over the course of the war:
ohh, they use AI... this sounds like a YC startup pitch, I bet they also use AI agents and Claude Code to improve air defense...
then why all these radars were even needed in the first place? why did US taxpayers spent billions procuring installing and maintaining these radars, if simpel fine-tuning with Claude Code would work just as well ??
Well, I see you've graduated from wishcasting the Iron Dome being "blinded" by a radar it doesn't use to being confused that shooting down missiles involves AI.
Depending on what you call AI, AI has been used for targeting for awhile. It's just usually called 'automated control' or something. This is more a re-categorizing of targeting algorithsm, and calling it AI.
not sure you are aware that you pass for the ignorant who's stuck in denial of reality.
you are arguing against official annoucements from the IDF explaning why the civilian alert system now only gives short notice and will do so from now on, and you argue on the basis of fallacious rhetoric.
"I am morally correct therefore I need not be factually correct".
Stop doing this: it completely undermines the political argument because it makes it clear you are as uninterested in reality as the current administration.
It's rich to declare "they're lying" while happily being disinterested in the truth or clear communication.
Iron Dome is a specific interceptor system, and you can trivially look up what it is on Wikipedia.
Iron Dome is still not a catch-all term for the entire Israeli defense system, and all the other claims the poster has made are not supported by their links or evidence.
As noted: Iron Dome intercepting ballistic missiles is an apparent new capability which it was not expected to be capable of: so it's kind of weird to turn up and say "Iron Dome can't intercept ballistic missiles anymore!" when no one except whoever developed the upgrades would've expected it to do that, and Israel has a number of other still unrelated to THAAD ballistic missile interceptor systems.
that after 4 years of Ukraine war where those tactics have been widely used, in some cases by both sides, and where Russia has even been using the same Iranian drones
I've read that NATO radars in Turkey were equally important to provide early warning to Israel. It's not far-fetched to assume that US radars in the middle-east did too. US THAAD in Israel would definitely be networked into those.
I think that there is a problem here - you're talking about the firing of the defense system at targets, whereas knowing that that radar needs to be readied because missiles have been detected is what the other radar system provided.
> Government obviously pretty silent on all these failures and media doesn't want to dig and ask hard questions
Some analysts are sure drumming up the severity [0]. In the fog of war, it is hard to tell what's exaggerated and what's not. The proposal by the current US Admin to increase defence spending by 40% to $1.5t is not a welcome sign for those opposed to heavy spending, for any number of reasons.
> In the fog of war, it is hard to tell what's exaggerated and what's not.
Honestly it's more than that. Propaganda and lies put out by ALL actors in this conflict. If you want to understand what's going on I think you have the expose yourself to as many competing sources as you can find. And still you're going to end up with a very shoddy picture. The term for this is epistemic collapse.
One of the things I have disliked about the Iranian conflict is that their propaganda/messaging has been, by quite a margin, more reliable than what the US/Israel have been putting out.
I like to think that I live in a free/liberal democratic portion of the world, but seeing the "other side" being more honest really puts a dent in things.
> One of the things I have disliked about the Iranian conflict is that their propaganda/messaging has been, by quite a margin, more reliable than what the US/Israel have been putting out.
The most recent example - I have been seeing reels/tik toks fronted by young women, that push Iranian talking points, they were saying that Trump's announcements on the conflict were timed to manipulate markets, and to "watch tomorrow"
They were referring to a Sunday before the Markets opened, and right on cue President Trump started making announcements that had a massive effect on market movements
Previously the USA government were downplaying (then retaliatory) Iranian drone attacks on bases in the middle east, claiming zero damage, and laughing at the attackers, the Iranians provided footage that showed real damage, and the US military released statement(s) that agreed with the Iranian claims.
Now, I'm not going to pretend that the Iranian regime is anything but a steaming pile of ew, but the lesson we were supposed to learn from the Vietnam war, and the Iraq war (II), was that hearts and minds are the key to "winning", and that's built on trust, which is built on transparency and honesty.
not only that, one big fact is that the Trump administration attacked twice Iran during negotiations. That sort of backstabbing gives you a sense of what their word is worth.
The easy example is that meta was full of influencers confirming the war was over, with the us having won, at a time Iran's own statements declared otherwise. That was a while back.
>One of the things I have disliked about the Iranian conflict is that their propaganda/messaging has been, by quite a margin, more reliable than what the US/Israel have been putting out.
Kek. Tell me you live in a bubble without telling me you live in a bubble.
"Both are doing propaganda, but one side's propaganda is totally less propaganda" gave me a good laugh today, thank you
The multiple sources don't know either, the reason the picture is shoddy is it is necessarily composed of the primary information that is coming from ... people with the strongest incentive to lie. There aren't a lot of independent ways to assess the situation. And of course that is part of the fog of war - even the militairy struggles to put together a picture of what is going on. I'd imagine that defining where the front-line is presents a complex and uncertain exercise for the commanders involved.
The only thing I think can be said reliably is that this has been going on for weeks, the Strait seems to be more closed than open, Trump is clearly out of his depth and the US is sending more units to the area. All of those point to a serious problem for the US military.
> it's baffling the US wasn't more prepared in its gulf bases.
Probably want to drop the assumptions about it having anything much to do with US interests. Better to start looking at who has had the alliance that contained them damaged and their oil sanctions lifted.
Problem is that there was too much propaganda in that war, that parsing propaganda is too difficult even for military watchers, let alone general public. Only when american weapons are being destroyed that, US MIC is willing to acknowledge that may be million+ usd missiles are not solution to cheap drones.
...and how decisively Trump was prosecuted for the 6/1/21 attempted ~coup~ tourism, and for how thoroughly the Epstein child abuse ring was dismantled, and...
Yes, the only chance the US has going forward is to primary all current incumbents and hold both party leadership accountable for complicity in treason.
Haha, by whom? There are zero higher-ups who are actually getting institutional backing and are in favor of this.
Look at how Mamdani didn't even get any backing. Quite the opposite, he was obstructed. And he's 100x more palatable to them than the idea of prosecuting the traitors.
This is the second time in 2 weeks I’ve seen a comment like this on HN. 37 years old. Been on here 16 years. Incredibly odd to me. Just announce “can someone else tell me if this is true?”
I watched an interview with a retired British military guy who said that the radar destruction does complicate things, but the US still has the other AWACs, so there is still early warning and visibility, just complicates things and reduced range/more risk.
The E3 fleet is aging and difficult to keep airworthy. Of the 32 or so planes the US has, it sounds as though they struggle to keep the operational number above 16, and moving more to the gulf means they have to pull them from other theaters. In short, they simply don't have enough to provide coverage of all the areas they want them.
This was completely foreseeable and is a situation that appears to have arisen entirely due to vest interests stifling procurement of a suitable replacement in order to spruik up business for their own competing, but unfinished offering. Prior to the war in Iran, total cancellation of the procurement of E7's had been announced.
that's true about assertions, but blindly saying "Fact check!" is still an attempt to offload a wished-for effort onto other people while simultaneously sowing seeds of discernment and distrust into the topic.
What happens when someone yells "Fact check!" at absolutely true things constantly? It erodes confidence. That's why "Person yelling fact check" isn't a typical or generalized role in normal discourse.
Yes, it's good to correct the incorrect. How does one do that typically? A rebuttal.
A supposed 'deferment to experts' on the internet is worth next to nothing, just a way to paint yourself a bit more altruistically while producing FUD.
I asked if anyone could rebut it. Normally I'd do the work myself, but I'm not very up to speed on this stuff and I wasn't in a good place to do a bunch of research, and someone who's been following it more closely could probably do a better job pretty quickly. The comment smelled like a possible propaganda account to me, making what I thought were some pretty wild claims, and the commenters that were there were piling on because tribalism, so I was trying to act like an antibody in HN's immune system against nonsense, and flag it. Sorry if it sounded like a demand, it was probably too terse.
And it's worse than spam when someone is posting incorrect things and people are downvoting people questioning it. As another user has already posted, the Iron Dome does not use the same radar they are talking about and is not "blind"
IMHO, people making claims should provide the evidence for them. One link is behind a paywall and the other clearly states that it is making informed speculations.
I could make all sorts of claims on the spot here. It doesn't create a duty for people reading this thread to go investigate them.
You're so close, just one more step, and it's easy, just have to step away from keeping it hypothetical.
<SPOILER>
Then it certainly does not create a duty for people to go investigate, when the only difference is "someone replied telling someone to fact check"
</SPOILER>
You're the one in this thread claiming people are responsible for "going and finding the evidence" of other people's unsourced claims. You could have just not replied since you didn't have something to contribute.
I apologize for not quoting you directly “Then go get some!”. That’s what you said in response to there being no evidence. Would you like a link to your comment?
"People are responsible for going and finding the evidence" and "Then go get some!" are not paraphrases of each other. They don't share a single word, or advance a similar idea. I am uncertain linking comments can change that.
I'm not sure what's going on: "People are responsible for going and finding the evidence" and "Then go get some!" are not paraphrases.
Best steelman I can come up with is you're seeing deep red, so it's hard to see "Then go get some!" is suggesting he could fact-check his own question instead of asking the room to do it for him.
Which is the opposite of your characterization that I think people are responsible for investigating strangers' unsourced claims. We violently agree, not disagree.
Making this exchange all the curiouser.
Are you inebriated? I only ask because it's unusual to see someone on HN choosing to say obviously incorrect things, aggressively, on purpose, just to talk down to someone. Much less making bullying attempts based on comment history.
Did a quick search, didn’t see confirmation that they’re blind/that all radars had been knocked out. Was asking whether others who know more about this topic than me would confirm.
Traveling with kids on spring break, I don’t have time to read all war related news, and it tends to set off my propaganda account alarm when someone registers a new account to drop a bunch of assertions on such a politically divisive topic. So I was asking whether someone could confirm things like “The whole CENTCOM is blind basically, as well as Iron Dome which relied on these radars - all blind now, in addition to long-range early nuke detection to protect CONUS is also blind.”
There’s a good reason new accounts are colored green.
No problem - Trump is asking for an FY 2027 1.5 TRILLION dollar military budget, and just said that Medicare and Medicare may need to be cut to afford it.
In a "rational" world the quagmire of Iran would make such a move unlikely, but with this administration the prospect of an "easy win" could have them just go for it.
After all, nobody's stopping them. The Constitution only remains so that the 2A fanatics can LARP at being patriots.
Absolutely. A big part of the western Ukrainian defense was solely to drain the Russian military apparatus and drain they have. It will take Russia decades to rebuild their fighting force. Now Russia and China are doing it right back to us and the intelligence gained from this conflict is extremely valuable. Come to find out the US has been sitting on ego in its military more than actual might. The previously untouchable machines of war in the sky are now very much touchable. All that's left is for them to sink a battle ship. If Iran can shoot them down, you can bet China can inflict exponentially more harm. Drain our intercept missiles, destroy radars, corrode relationships, etc. At this point, China has the world on a silver platter if they want it.
Russia has rebuilt their military, which was neglected at the beginning of the war. The Russian and Ukrainian armies have adopted to drone warfare, which the rest of the world lags behind.
They haven't rebuilt the manpower. They've lost no less than a few hundred thousand fighting age men over the course of the war. It will take them 20-30 years minimum just for those births to occur and those newborns to make it to military age.
That works for Iran because US air-defense is still comprised mainly of advanced and expensive systems (like the Patriot). It doesn't work as well in Ukraine or Russia because both have figured out drone interceptors quite well. Both countries do the type of attack drone clustering you suggest. I read somewhere that a strike like from Russia that might include 60-70 drones + ballistic missiles in the hopes that one or 2 get through.
you miss that i was talking about 650km/h "drones" (because, yes, it was already 3rd year of war, and 200km/h drone like Shahed became much easier target - this is why Russia has started to also use the 600km/h modification of Shahed with RC jet engine). There is related discussion under that comment addressing your point about interception.
>Both countries do the type of attack drone clustering you suggest
Ukraine still isn't completely there. They do attack Russia with up to 200 drones/day. They seem to never cluster more than a few, and the drones they are using are comparably small - 50kg warhead - and slow, 100+ km/h, almost always less than 200km/h. So they are easy to intercept/shoot down, almost never penetrate Moscow air defense, and do noticeable damage only when hitting flammable targets like oil/gas industry related.
In case you haven't been following Ukraine, that's what it's doing. It has multiple cheap long range drones (FP-1, FP-2, etc) plus more expensive ones (FP-5), and it's making them in the millions a year, I think.
They just took out 40% of Russian oil export capacity.
no, the million or two is small battlefield drones, mostly quadcopters carrying an RPG warhead or similarly sized payload. The long range drones - and they carry only relatively small, like 20-50kg payloads - are well under 100 thousands. FP-5 was declared 1 per day half a year ago. By now i think we've seen may be 10-20 such missiles used - they use real turbo jet engine, there isn't much of them available, and they are expensive.
>They just took out 40% of Russian oil export capacity.
Yes, Ust-Luga and Primorsk. Very successful hits. Painful for Putin. Yet it isn't a knock-down. Russia is like a big drunk guy in a street fight - just delivering painful blows to him doesn't help, you have to deliver a knock-out blow, and unfortunately Ukraine still seems far from it.
> Rare Earth Minerals... ...unable to repair the damage any time soon (probably for decades)
Look bro, if we can make SR-71s out of pizza ovens, I'm pretty sure somewhere in the CIA can scrounge up a few ounces of gadoluminium. Tankie dreams are placation for those who wait for somebody else to make the birdseed fall from the sky.
For the United States, the government doesn't have the capability to extricate Israel from its political system, but the feds can create blowback for Israel which makes them less capable to influence the US in the future while achieving other strategic aims in the region. US war planners know plenty about blow back and I think this is being done on purpose. I am terrified for innocent Israelis, Iranians and Gulf state residents that have been led into this. Most of the states and peoples in the Middle East who have been destroyed used to be allies with the US. That isn't on accident.
Nope, that would take congressional approval and congressional leaders are all bought by the people that paid for the Iran Sanctions Act of 1996. At this point only DoD and CIA can make it happen, thus why I mention any of this.
Moved on how? Satellites are useful for launch detection and cueing but as far as we know there isn't a satellite constellation capable of tracking airborne targets with enough precision for targeting. And the military couldn't really keep such satellites secret: the emissions would be impossible to hide.
The problem is that the losses indicate something worse. A breakdown of doctrinal disciplin- mostly created by chronic underestimation of advesaries in the region. If Israel can pulp the proxxies that easy, iran would be easy. Thus it was not necessary to do what ukraine does- mostly keeping planes in the air so they are not bombed on the runway, rotating them among bases - etc.
Which is specified as a strategy in the doctrine of the airforce.
This is exactly the situation I think of when I hear news of rescue missions. Running a rescue in a place with functional air defense is a recursive rescue problem that could quickly get out of control.
The first time I ever attempted a rescue mission in KSP, I ended up stranding 5 different kerbals in various orbita nearby trying to get the first one, and of course every one was a bigger and more complicated craft trying to save as many kerbals as possible. Eventually I just gave up and put a giant cross memorial in orbit, part as a reference to Neon Genesis Evangelion, and part as a memorial to the like 6 kerbals I left stranded in space.
Kerbals don't need food or water and can live forever on a limited air supply. I once rescued a kerbal who got stuck around their equivalent of Venus for multiple years. So it's all fine, they'll patiently wait...
My neighbor was a helicopter pilot in Vietnam, the one mentioned in this article who came back with over 100 bullet holes in his helicopter after the rescue operation: https://historynet.com/rescue-in-death-valley-with-hhm-163-t... That rescue wasn't to retrieve a pilot, but nearly 200 surviving soldiers being overrun.
It's difficult to squeeze stories out of him, mostly because it was so long ago and ancient history to him. Just to put his timeline in perspective, after the war he befriended a captain of the White Russian Navy who had to flee after losing the Russian Revolution. Alot of White Russians ended up in San Francisco, which is where my neighbor settled down in the '60s. He was also a military escort for Nelson Rockefeller, I think during one Rockefeller's campaigns. Once a staunch Republican, needless to say he's not a fan of where the Republican Party has ended up since then. Still a gung-ho Marine, though, who keeps insisting on climbing over our 10-foot fence whenever he locks himself out of his house, which means I have to jump the fence. Were it anyone else I'd just call and pay for a locksmith myself, or badger him to finally give me copies of his keys.
>Lifted off the ground, the pig began to spin as it flew through the air at 125 miles per hour (200 km/h). It arrived on board uninjured, but in a disoriented state. When it recovered, it attacked the crew.
Iranian Air defense getting lucky is different to it being impenetrable.
This is not a binary situation, and a lucky F-15 kill would not make it a good idea to concentrate more assets in an area where the US will now focus more resources.
…against the viet cong, where the biggest risk was the pilot getting pierced from small arms fire (in addition to the helo going down from pilot error). Quite different from the anti-air weapons modern day Iran possesses.
But I’m responding to the rescue mission comment, which, since Vietnam, have overwhelmingly employed helicopters (Huey’s then, Black Hawks today). But machinery aside, the larger point is that air operations will likely go worse here than they did in Vietnam, unfortunately for both sides.
I imagine Trump would threaten to nuke a major city if it didnt stop and pilots werent returned safe. Not that I agree, but I think that's what he would emotionally do.
Cheaper to operate than any fighter, longer endurance, good for patrolling over the Strait. Filling the gap between helicopters and fighters with a big, but cheap cannon.
Geran-2 (which is Russian licenced Shahed drone) also carries air-to-air missile, so sending slow archaic manned airframe is just suicide mission (aka shaheed)
That is not a Shahed drone, that is a Geran-2 drone. Which is similar from the outside but not the same. Also Iran doesn't have stock of R-60s I think.
Well, bijowo1676, you need a RADAR to find the target before you shoot at it. An IRST can be used, or an off board track, but that is a an expensive and limited capability technique, and usually used to augment a RADAR, not replace it. The missile IR seeker has a narrow FOV.
"Just fine" for what? AGM88 is air-to-ground and manpads are surface-to-air. If you're implying that manpads work just fine instead of A-10s, you're wrong.
Well, they absolutely can with a BRRRRT, but if you mean "AGM 88 HARMs are a poor weaponeering choice against a Misagh-3", then sure, no argument here. But a dude on a hilltop with a shoulder tube is not the only type of air defense.
I'm not sure why any of this is relevant. The question I was responding to was about why A-10s are even in-theatre, given there's no boots on the ground yet.
The answer to that question is "they're probably doing SEAD". They might also be there to hit Iranian naval drones, though I doubt it'd be effective in that role.
Well, A-10s are well suited for strafing runs, etc. Presumably they'd be sent in if the area they're entering is presumed safe. That clearly didn't pan out.
The reality is avoiding a ground operation was probably the wrong move at this point (ignoring the spicier broader debate of if the whole Iran campaign was the right call or not)
It's really hard to truly guarantee surface to air capabilities are gone when you're relying purely on sat images + aerial surveillance (and obviously this carries risk). Iran has fairly portable SAM systems that are public knowledge.
> ignoring the spicier broader debate of if the whole Iran campaign was the right call or not
How spicy of a debate is that really? How many people outside of the admin and the dwindling hardcore trump base actually thought this was a good idea?
Clearly this war isn't popular but that's a far cry from saying there's no debate. Like many other topics/questions we're seeing people following their tribe and bubbles rather than actual debating.
I would question to what extent repeating propaganda, qualifies as debate.
Even if you do say that it qualifies, it doesn't qualify as productive debate.
There is really no productive debate to be had here. Even if you think that Iran needed to be bombed, it took absurd incompetence to start doing so before planning how to handle asymmetric warfare against drones in an affordable way.
Repeating propaganda does not generally qualify as debate.
Why isn't there a productive debate to be had here?
Your arguing that the incompetence has to do with handling drones. To me that statement feels close to "repeating propaganda" because the Shaed drones are generally handled in an affordable way which is by shooting them with bullets from helicopters: https://www.youtube.com/shorts/uZ07pcDGE70
There are endless videos and news stories about how drones are shot down effectively by the UAE (with AH-64 cannons), by Israel (where Iran doesn't even bother sending drones over because none of them make it), and by Ukraine (including with newer counter-drone tech they have).
The propaganda says "we fire a 2 million dollar THAAD missile on a 50k dollar drone". Many can be shot down cheaply. Some are shot down with $500k AA missiles. We also need to account for anything destroyed on the ground and not launched. So it seems like your opening argument can certainly at the very least be debated.
OTOH it is true that some drones got through and inflicted significant damage. But maybe that's unavoidable to some degree.
Even beyond the base statement. If you think Iran needed to be bombed, e.g. because they were manufacturing 100 long range ballistic missiles per month and because they had enough nuclear material to make 12 bombs and were working on all the technology pieces to be able to put them on ballistic missiles and launch them, then what would be the alternative universe where we somehow magically came up with solutions to the asymmetric nature of this war? Would waiting for them to have a lot more missiles and drones and bury them deeper be a good thing or a bad thing. What would be the odds of the regime either compromising and giving up their abilities or collapsing without external intervention.
I also think there was an initial “euphoria” (I guess) during the initial days of the campaign.
People I know (even Iranian expats) were excited to see the regime get hammered and there was hope for possibility of change (and also a little bloodlust)… but I think as the war drags on and the US is exposed to be in an un-winnable mess, sentiment will continue to sour.
This has already started to happen in Nate Silver’s post you linked.
Trump has been talking about destroying Iranian desalination plants, and "bombing the country back to the stone age". This is no surgical decapitation strike, nor one just targetting Iran's military capabilities. This is a vicious senile old man living out his dictator "I can do anything I like" fantasies, who could care less about helping the Iranian people, or those in America for that matter.
I am shocked that the Democrats are not making clear to the military that engaging in crimes against humanity may have consequences for them -- not to speak, of course, of politicians higher up in the chain of command.
75 million using the YouGov number and just under 100 million using the Nate Silver average. (I think you must have used the more Trump-favorable number AND included children in your computation, which is not reasonable.)
Also worth noting that Nate Silver's measure has been declining for almost 3 weeks, the majority of the duration of the invasion.
Before the invasion, a University of Mariland poll says 55 million and a YouTov poll says 71 million support. These are useful numbers because we know there's a rally around the flag effect that distorts thinking during a conflict.
20-25% of Americans would support Trump pulling his pants down and taking a shit on the floor in the oval office on live TV. These people's opinions shouldn't be taken into account or respected in these discussions.
That is an interesting take. Seen from elsewhere in the world, we cannot afford not taking into account a big chunk of the American electoral body, which is effectively at war with us (by various means).
Essentially, a MESA movement, “Make the Earth Shit Again”.
The obvious implication is that the rest of the world is at war with the US (by various means), and should act accordingly, starting with a wide-ranging consumer boycott of all US products.
> Obama vs. Alan Keyes. Keyes was from out of state, so you can eliminate any established political base; both candidates were black, so you can factor out racism; and Keyes was plainly, obviously, completely crazy. Batshit crazy. Head-trauma crazy. But 27% of the population of Illinois voted for him. They put party identification, personal prejudice, whatever ahead of rational judgement. Hell, even like 5% of Democrats voted for him. That's crazy behaviour. I think you have to assume a 27% Crazification Factor in any population.
Herschel Walker got 48.6% of the Georgia vote against Warnock. Slightly different in that Walker was a popular football hero in Georgia but he was also clearly mentally incompetent.
You can see that factor in a large number of polls on all kinds of subjects. It doesn't matter what the question is, a fifth to a quarter of the population will make the dumbest, least consistent, most self defeating choice every time. I think if you can get ~70% of the population on board with something that's all that should matter because the bottom 25% of the intelligence curve are literally incapable of making good decisions and worrying about them or their opinions will only lead to disaster. I also think that this is a major flaw of a lot of democratic systems because if a movement can effectively mobilize that group to vote as a bloc then it can easily sway policy. Add in messed up systems like in the US where you can amplify the power of that bloc beyond their population and it easily explains how we got here
The problem with this line of argument is that people will put you in that camp as well and paint you as the "dumbest". Let's take it as truth that 25% of a population are morons. You say those morons are all in the camp that opposes your policy/opinions. The other side says those morons are all in your camp (including you). And that's how we shut discussion down and get more polarization.
I think the reality is a lot of people aren't that smart. And sometimes even smart people can make bad choices. The average IQ is 100.
"• Individuals who identify as Republican have greater probability knowledge
• Individuals who identify as Republican have higher verbal reasoning ability
• Individuals who identify as Republican have better question comprehension
• Cognitive ability’s effect on party identity works through socio-economic position"
At least this does not seem to support the common opinion here of presumably a democrat leaning crowd (based on the comments) who seem to think that their opponents are all morons.
Bottom line of sorts for me is that we need to be able to debate issues from first principles and based on facts. We often go to appeal to emotion and herd mentality instead. Very much so on these sorts of partisan button pushing threads.
Your first link says 28% support it, so somewhere between 28 and 37%. I do wonder how many of those people could find Iran on a map, though I suppose you could ask the same about the people who are against it.
The number for boots on the ground is more like 12% though. And the people opposed to the war span various bubbles or tribes, including some right-wing influencers. You can easily find critiques of the conflict from various former military and intelligence officials across many podcasts, news media and Youtube channels.
Surprisingly so, I would say. Without going into any identifying details, my buddy, who is otherwise fairly reasonable, thinks it was. I disagree. Reported country split ( US ) seems to fall some along common political lines though, so maybe we shouldn't be so surprised.
Then again.. I can no longer can rely on those surveys in any meaningful way.
This is what bringing democracy looks like?! The regime is more entrenched than ever and our commander in chief keeps threatening to commit war crimes on a massive scale. If he follows through on what he says he will do and obliterates all the civilian infrastructure in the country it will kill mass numbers of innocent people and turn millions of survivors into impoverished refugees.
As bad as the regime is, and it's very bad, what we're doing is even worse for most Iranians and the odds a democratic government arises from the ashes of our bombing campaign is incredibly unlikely.
Yes, bombing schools, universities and dessalination plants is a sure way to have more democracy in a country. Especially double taps where you kill the rescuers.
The US have so many examples where they did so and worked!
Oh, didn't you hear, we actually _triple tapped_ the school, so after the first wave of rescuers was also hit, anyone who came to help was also attacked.
Even if true, it's legally incorrect, btw. There are 2 kinds of warcrimes: Rome treaty (the only legal definition) and Geneva convention. The Rome treaty allows countries to opt-out of the treaty, and then nothing on their territory qualifies as a war crime. Iran has opted out of the Rome treaty, and so when it comes to international law, nothing that happens on Iranian soil is a war crime.
And we all know WHY islamists want it that way. But of course they will confuse matters as propaganda ...
Second, "colloquial" definition of a war crime are Geneva convention violations. And ignoring that EVERY attack Iran executed in the 2 days was a warcrime in that definition. Every last one. They didn't even try to go after military targets for days. But ignoring that.
What warcrimes do, in the sense of the Geneva convention, is that they are justifications for the UNSC to intervene, should it want to. Well, Russia, China and France have just declared that the UNSC does not follow the reasoning that these are warcrimes. Not because they don't believe Geneva convention violations aren't heinous crimes (of course Iran has violated it constantly for 50+ years with constant heinous crimes), but that these states don't see any reason to act.
> Second, "colloquial" definition of a war crime are Geneva convention violations.
The other "colloquial" definition of a war crime is "things we prosecuted the Nazis for at Nuremberg".
One side here is playing "world's police", so this "but those people (that we've painted as fundamentalist extremist terrorists) are committing war crimes so why shouldn't we get to, too?" isn't exactly the fine upstanding argument that you seem to think it is, just as it's not when the IDF responds to children throwing rocks at main battle tanks with live ammunition and turning off the power to a country for three days.
I find it absolutely incredible anyone would choose to use such arguments to defend Iran's islamist regime. Why?Unfortunately every conflict has 2 sides. This is what the side you're defending does:
(man it's difficult to get a list of links into hacker news) (also: stolen from a reddit summary)
Recently, Iran has lowered the entry age into the Iranian military to 12, and they have a long and storied history of using child soldiers in the Iran/Iraq war as suicide bombers - and sending them into minefields tied together with rope to prevent escape, so they could be human minesweepers for tanks and adult soldiers [1].
550,000+ child soldiers were used in the Iran/Iraq war, with over 36,000 as young as NINE years old being killed. Martyrdom is taught in Iranian schools to this day [2].
UNICEF reports 1/5 of ALL marriages in Iran are child marriages. They can legally marry 13 year old girls, and can marry any age with the father’s permission; it’s likely higher than 1/5 as in rural regions it’s common for marriages to not be reported [3].
They just slaughtered 30,000+ civilian protestors in January who were demonstrating against a literal terrorist puppet state who has committed some of the worst human rights atrocities in the world in the span of their 50 year history [4].
Ayatollah Khomeini (Iran’s Supreme Leader) stated virgin women are to be raped prior to their executions (largely for minor acts) so they don’t die a virgin, and justified it through his interpretation of his religion [5].
Here’s Iranian Parliament chanting “Death to America”, which they do constantly [6].
They are directly funding and arming internationally recognized terror groups [7]. Based on Intelligence estimates, Iran-funded terrorist groups have been responsible for thousands of deaths, including hundreds of American personnel, since the 1979 revolution. Major casualties are attributed to Iran-backed proxies such as Hezbollah in Lebanon, Hamas and Palestinian Islamic Jihad (PIJ) in Gaza, and various Shiite militias in Iraq [8].
And are visibly, via satellite, enriching uranium past 60% which is only used for acquiring nuclear weapons [9].
This is far from a complete list. We're not even discussing that iranian clergy are literally pimping underage girls for sex, which sharia is perfectly fine with (and also happens in other muslim states, including sunni ones) as long as what we'd call the pimp is an imam.
> I find it absolutely incredible anyone would choose to use such arguments to defend Iran's islamist regime. Why?Unfortunately every conflict has 2 sides. This is what the side you're defending
Pump the brakes and do not put words into my mouth.
There is not one statement in anything I've said here that defends Iran's islamist regime.
Because I don't.
Stop getting yourself all bent out of shape that side professing a moral/ethical superiority might be held to standards that befit that supposed superiority.
"According to witness accounts verified by satellite-based analyses, the school was triple tapped by three distinct strikes."
War crime isn't just a legal definition, just like the world was genocide-free before WW2. And by your reasoning it's totally fine to genocide people as long as no treaty/law prevents it. Of course it isn't.
Most people would agree to say that bombing a school or a dessalination plant is a war crime, whatever the convention was signed before. Schoolchildren are not responsible for the IRGC's actions.
If you trust wikipedia without checking the talk page, and frankly in anything remotely involving Israel, you've lost the plot. Sorry but it just isn't remotely neutral on more and more subjects.
And this is the old trick: judging one side by absolutist morals, and then claiming SOME portion of the other side was innocent. Obviously, this is a fallacy and not a reasonable way to judge the morals of an action.
In reality, of course, nearly everyone the Iranian government attacks is totally innocent, and that's 100% intentional on their part. From toddlers in Argentina to Metro goers in Brussels. In Brussels, in an Iranian organized terror attack the guy put 5 bullets in a baby in a child carriage, waiting to shoot the mother (she survived, by the way) until she collapsed to the ground. THAT is who is being targeted here. That was not an accident.
That's one side, and the other side ... makes mistakes.
Clearly, the moral problem here is a mistake by the other side. Clearly THAT's the problem that needs to be solved.
Removing an evil actor requires, frankly, evil actions. Any real moral system will allow for that. Have you ever been to Dresden? What happened there is far worse than even Hiroshima. There's a shelter you can visit there, with a book like in Lord of the rings. It is open to a partially burnt page with the text that people were panicking when the wind drew fire into the shelter during the bombing. People caught on fire, put it out in panic, and it would immediately catch on fire again. Then those people collapsed. The text ... ends there, with spilled ink. There are 2 child carriages in that basement.
This action is considered morally justified, even by the survivors at the time, despite the fact that it didn't even achieve it's military objectives (the factories it targeted weren't destroyed, the city center was, and the aircraft factories, the main target, had stopped producing for lack of inputs months before the attack started)
Both historically and in moral source texts you will find people give enormous moral leeway to actions meant to save others. To remove an evil actor. That is even the case when they cause incredible damage.
And you whataboutism is childish, on top of the basic fact that the school bombing happened in the first days of the war, after a stupid and sadistic decapitation strike that destroyed any chance of negotiated settlement.
It's not the US' job to punish the IRGC for their crimes, and now that they started this idiotic war, the situation in Iran is even worse than when it started, including for the population. Which is yet another complete, objective failure and a proof that bombing populations don't lead to regime change.
> That's one side, and the other side ... makes mistakes.
This is a widely biased interpretation absolving an army whose chief has declared "no quarters" (=war crime) and conducts double-tap strikes on civilian infrastructure. And who bombed Dresden, Gaza, Vietnam or Cambodia? Why was it wrong then, but now it's cool?
The BBC article in no shape, way, or form supports your statement that the school was "triple tapped".
The article was written by an Iranian, but let's just for a moment assume that they're not monumentally biased and instead let's look at the pictures and the text.
The picture in the BBC article clearly shows one impact point in the middle of the school building, and also one each in the surrounding IRGC buildings.
What "eyewitnesses" would have observed from some distance away would have been a series of explosions. Six to eight bombs, all dropped in rapid succession, likely from two to four planes.
Double-tapping (or triple tapping) involves a long delay between the initial hit and the follow-up hit. The idea being to also kill the emergency services personel that turn up... half an hour later.
The article carefully misquotes the locals who witnessed a series of explosions to suggest that this was a series of attacks on the school itself, but fails to scrape together the evidence to sell this narrative:
"suggesting it was hit more than once" -- but not proving. Actually, not showing that at all, since the picture clearly shows one hit on the building!
"around the Shajareh Tayebeh primary school" -- but not in the school.
"the area was "struck by multiple" -- the area around the school is an IRGC base, not "more school".
"Two damaged buildings" -- and then they admit one is the IRGC building leaving... one school building that was hit, once.
"difficult to independently verify" -- here the BBC admits to repeating IRGC propaganda without even bother to check the picture they put in their own article that obviously contradicts their biased narrative.
"speculation about what the intended target" -- what speculation? It was the IRGC base! It was a former IRGC building! Nobody in their right mind would "speculate" about this. This is a brazen lie.
"may have been used"
"who may have been operating"
etc...
I could keep on going, but why bother? This BBC article is total garbage, packed with deceptive language, weasel words, and "just asking questions".
The real, factually true heinous act here is the sloppiness of the US administration in keeping up with the changing status of IRGC targets. They got lazy, killed a 168 students and teachers, which is horrific.
We can blame them for their hubris. We can blame them for starting the war in the first place. We can lay the blame at their feet for any number of things.
But please don't repeat a made-up story of unbelievable, cartoonish evil. It's obvious that the US administration didn't set out to on-purpose kill school children! It's obvious that they didn't "double tap" the school building! It's obvious that they thought that they were hitting an IRGC building and it turned out not to be so. They made a mistake, but a mistake surrounded by deliberate war. Be angry at them starting this unnecessary war, which they did on purpose.
Why is it so hard to accept the basic fact that Iran - and Palestine (and China, and Russia, and Cuba, and ...) do not allow free press or free communication? That means with rare exceptions (unless someone is willing to risk their life for it) you ONLY have access to propaganda.
In any society that doesn't allow free press:
ANY television broadcast = government propaganda
Red Cross/Crescent = disguised government propaganda (Hamas/Iran's islamist regime)
ANY internet message = disguised government propaganda
ANY story published in the BBC with sources from that country = disguised government propaganda
ANY information delivered by anyone who wasn't risking their lives = disguised government propaganda
ANY information delivered by a foreign journalist "invited" into the country (ie. CNN in this conflict) = government propaganda (like "embedded journalists" in US army)
You do not have ANY information from within Iran except propaganda and very rare, very incomplete viewpoints (slowly) anonymously smuggled out. That's it. Yes, this means you generally just do not know. Not even if "the Red Cross/Crescent" says so, because they cannot risk saying anything but the government's viewpoint.
I get that this is very hard to understand for someone living in the US or Europe but that's how it is.
This was the case in the cold war with all the communist regimes. This is currently the case with Russia. With Cuba. With China. And, of course, with Iran. There is no information BUT propaganda from both sides. Nothing but that.
And sorry to point out the obvious, but given the choice between the US army and Iran's mullahs ... even Trump beats the islamist mullahs in reliability and credibility. Yes this is choosing the best option between Syfilis and Gonorrhea. But Trump wins that contest. Easily. Hands down.
Finding websites, or even 100-year old books that obviously lie about Israel is not exactly hard. Here's one you might not know about (look at the author, yes, it's really him): https://www.thehenryford.org/collections/explore/artifact/48... (now this one is a rant, still far above average though)
And the BBC. Ahh the BBC. They used to actually have journalists, and ... well, clearly, they've decided that actually having journalists around the world is not that relevant to producing news anymore. The quality of their work is dropping like a stone year over year. Also, when it comes to reporting about the UK, they've obviously switched to just being a propaganda outlet. Even the historical articles about the poverty in Manchester, which is certainly not improving, can hardly be found on the BBC anymore. And there are no new articles made about it. And reporting on Scottish independence movements or Northern Ireland ... they've started just outright denying anything like that exists. BBC was great, up to about 20 years ago. Now it's barely more authoritative than any other news outlet. You know, the ones that almost exclusively just repeat press releases. You want to know what a government has to say about an event? BBC is your friend. You want to know the sentiment on the ground in an event? BBC doesn't even try to collect that anymore, and when it is presented to them, they refuse to report it. And they've "become political", on a great many different subjects.
There's other things on wikipedia where what we'd consider evil is winning more and more over time. The Armenian genocide, for example, where ever more attention is going to denying it ever happened. And the many genocides that happened at the end of the Ottoman empire at muslim hands, of which the Armenian genocide is merely the biggest example, have already lost the fight on wikipedia. Or the whitewashing of the extremely bloody and, frankly, disgusting early muslim history. Muslim slavery is getting erased, especially what young female slaves ... islam's involvement in the holocaust (ie. the involvement of muslim clergy in creating Nazi SS extermination squads in the balkan. It's still there ... you just won't find it linked anywhere). Or the downplaying of aspects of communism (such as the fact that socialist theory is rabidly, even violently, even murderously, anti-immigrant). Or ... every year the list extends further and further.
> This is a widely biased interpretation ...
What do you hope to achieve by doubling down on the totally one sided view of the situation? Iran's government is evil, massacres everyone it can, brutally tortures and executes children, sells underage girls for sex (perfectly legal in sharia as long as the pimp claims to be an imam) and deserves everything that's happening to it 100x over.
The link provided comes from the BBC. Wikipedia simply acts as an aggregator on certain topics, which is convenient to share in such debates.
Your ad hominem against the BBC is laughable, please provide a list of correct media sources then. And don't try to debate the content of course!
> Iran evil
The US and Israel have no goal to change that, so the population will in the end have a destroyed infrastructure, and a hardliner regime even more brutal than ever. Mission accomplished!
Even if you believe in the most absurd conspiracy theories you could still accurately classify US efforts as "trying to change Iran's behavior to the world for the better". So this is entirely, 100%, false.
And, yes, we all hope for more, which may or may not happen.
Ah yes, US efforts along with their actions against Venezuela, Lybia, Cambodia, Syria, Vietnam, Irak or North Korea. It totally worked, and those countries were much better than before the bombing!
When you think about it, every country between Pakistan and the mediterranean sea was bombed by the US in the last 30 years. How did it end up?
At some point the people in power very well know what's happening. Bombing schools, bridges, universities and hospitals don't create better regimes.
They just prove that hardliners of the IRGC were right from the start. Moderates have nothing to show, since the Trump admin never wanted to negociate. Yet another massive US self-own.
And I don't see why it is a conspiracy theory. Trump showed with Venezuela that he didn't care at all about democracy. And Israelis don't either. You are the one absorbing the blatant propaganda lies of the Trump administration.
... and then, of course, we switch moral fallacies. The supposed superiority of doing nothing. Hope you never need an ambulance, because of course, clearly, according to your reasoning the moral action would be to let you die.
And btw: your motivation, obviously that you want Iran hardliners to win inside Iran, is showing. Carefully placing the blame for the actions of the hardliners with the US. Needless to say, that is not a moral position at all.
There's many problems. First: every agent with agency is of course responsible for their own actions. Which means Iran's regime, islamists and islamic clergy are despicable monsters because of what they did.
That there is a reason they did what they did does not explain their actions in any moral sense. It makes it worse, of course. It means that they're indeed fully responsible for their actions, that they're not insane, made a choice, and their choice shows them to be truly despicable, immoral and disgusting human beings.
You are conflating "doing something" with "doing something useful".
The US could have chosen not to kill the supreme leader (who was the only one able to drive a change), a large part of the moderates in the government and negociators.
It could have chosen to send other people than crooked incompetent real estate managers to negotiate with Iranians about complex nuclear issues.
It could have chosen to propose an acceptable plan to Iranians that allowed room for negotiation, not just a blanket capitulation and surrender.
Your view of foreign policy is immature, similar to a child trying to wash the dishes and breaking them as he does. When the parents arrive, he cries and says "but I'm trying to help!".
And I don't like the IRGC but I also would prefer to avoid the humanitarian and refugee crisis and civil war in a 90M pop country. Which will happen after the US "liberates" them by bombing civilian infrastructure such as water treatment or electricity plants. Did they ever say "thank you"?
Because I know that others will pick up the pieces after the US and Israeli meatheads in power will come back home. Just like it happened in Irak, Syria, and Lybia.
All of those are choices the US government DID make, and Iran threw into their face before we switched to this. Which of course changes whose view of foreign policy is immature, but who cares? This is just a discussion forum.
Aren't those war crimes? Will anything be done about that I wonder. And if your goal is bringing democracy and liberating a people from a oppressive regime, then hurting the people by making their air unbreakable or bombing the water plants is NOT how you go about.
I understand that war is not pretty and regime change is brutal to all parties involved, but this is done in the worst way possible.
Most probably nothing. If things get really bad and there is a revolution or something of that magnitude in the US there may be a Nuremberg moment. Don’t count on it. Whatever government will come next will do everything they can to shield American generals and officials because otherwise they would be afraid the same thing would happen to them once they leave office. The only thing that could keep these people accountable is the American people through Congress. So yeah, probably nothing. Which is bad, because these war crimes are up there with what supposedly evil regimes did in the past.
> As a person who believes in democracy, I'm pretty on board with it.
As others have stated. This war will not bring democracy. Bombing Iranians have united them with the regime.
Also, US and Israel do not want a democracy in Iran. Israel would prefer a non-functioning place like Palestine or a mostly non-functional place like Lebanon that they can easily control.
Well, I have no idea. I'm just guessing it's not the reason I like the war.
I generally only attempt to scrutinize government action, and not government reason for action. Random citizens are at such an information disadvantage that I think it would be impossible to have an informed opinion as an outsider on the reasoning.
It could be as simple as "Iran kept trying to assassinate me so I'm going to assassinate them". Maybe he was pressured by Israel, I really have no idea.
> I generally only attempt to scrutinize government action, and not government reason for action
This might be the wildest opinion I've read.
You're onboard with the US bombing another country ("I like the war"), but you don't know, or care WHY. You just think it was a good idea.
"Random citizens are at such an information disadvantage that I think it would be impossible to have an informed opinion as an outsider on the reasoning."
I'm trying to give you the benefit of the doubt here, but if you re-read your own words, you've just said a random citizen like yourself can't possibly know enough to have an informed opinion, yet you gave us your opinion, which is that you think they should have bombed Iran.
You need to reread my words. I never said I can't possibly know enough to have an informed opinion generally. Nor did I say it's impossible to have an informed opinion in what I gave my opinion on.
> Random citizens are at such an information disadvantage that I think it would be impossible to have an informed opinion as an outsider on the reasoning.
Denazify… oops, wrong country, sorry. "Changing the regime". But it cannot possibly be true because regime change, just like foreign wars are bad according to Trump. So, in reality, who knows?
My guess is that some nutcases at the pentagon got an adrenaline rush during the little adventure in Venezuela and looked for another country to mess with. It’s obvious that no real thought was put into what exactly is the point of all of this or how to actually get to that point. I mean, they were surprised that Turkey was upset and that Iran closed the Gulf. Or that none of the allies Trump has been shitting on for decades showed up. This does not point to any serious thought process.
If this is a troll it is masterful. If it's an honest opinion I would invite you to check your skull for unexpected holes where your brain may have fallen out.
You say this like a system of international law has ever existed that effectively restrains the most powerful nations in the world, democracies or otherwise.
The math teacher was more along the lines of as x approaches zero or was it f(x). It was a really really long time ago since I've had a math teacher, but the approaches zero was something said frequently
An unfortunate and unintended consequence of counterattacking the invader. Very different from bombing a school due to bad intelligence in an unprovoked attack.
A more likely explanation is that butterfly mines were dropped by Russian armed forces; see Human Rights Watch:
Russian forces have used at least seven types of antipersonnel mines in at least four regions of Ukraine: Donetsk, Kharkiv, Kyiv, and Sumy.
There is no credible information that Ukrainian government forces have used antipersonnel mines in violation of the Mine Ban Treaty since 2014 and into 2022.
Of course this is all tradition to bring rebellious minorities back into Russkiy Mir, just look at how Grozny looked in 2000. That was Putin's first war, started when he was prime minister.
Literally none of the fighting countries want Iran to be democratic. Neither USA nor Israel nor Iran. Israel dont want the country functional and would prevent democracy. USA idea of regime change is to keep regime, change head for someone who pays extortion money. And if Iranian leadership wanted democracy they would have one. Not sure if you noticed, but American admin loves dictators and insults democracies
So ,WTF are you talking about here.
Also, bombing city with that double tap tactic during protests ensures you kill protesters.
Having Iran be "non functional" would just be asking for even more hardliners take over, like what happened in syria. I don't take this to be actually indicative of their viewpoints.
Or in Gaza, and it is not an accident. As far as they are concerned it’s working great. Israel is in a state of permanent warfare, which completely silences any kind of debate about what country it wants to be, enables racist nationalists who can freely go about burning villages, and it keeps Bibi out of prison. None of what has happened in the last 20 years or so in the region strikes me as particularly well thought out with a long term strategy besides keeping all their neighbours in the Middle Ages.
I think that you will find that many people think that we ought to solve the 50 year old problem in the Mideast once and for all. Now that the Russians are busy, that Venezuela is down, that Syria has fallen, and that the Chinese are minding their own business is a good time to decapitate Iran. Also Cuba is next.
Permanently disarming Iran, and creating conditions favorable to the fall of the Islamist terrorist regime that has been bullying the Mideast since 1979.
No idea, but it's safe to say that Iran has lost most of their navy and air force already. It's harder to tell how many launchers, missiles, and drones Iran has left however, as it is deliberately hiding and conserving munitions for what they expect will be a protracted conflict.
The other unknown is how far the U.S., Isreal, and potentially other countries are willing to go. Turning the lights off and literally sending Iran back to the stone age wouldn't be so difficult at this stage, but would probably rule out the possibility of a deal that sees Iran disarm and hand over the enriched uranium.
You're basically advocating for war crimes which the US has already started to do.
Iran had already offered to give up the enriched uranium bit that is off the table now. Iran should and will pursue a nuclear weapon in order to protect themselves from American and Israeli imperialism.
I don't see the difference between the US and Iran given what you are suggesting. How would you treat an Iranian attack on the Golden Gate Bridge? Would you call that a cowardly terror attack?
Yeah, does sending them back to the stone age buy us anything good? 90 million starving migrants with an understandable axe to grind with the US? Or are we just going to kill them all and become the monsters we claim to hate?
You realize that Iran will retaliate by attacking their neighbors' power and desalinization plants? Do you want most of the ME to go dark and lacking water?
Even Netenyahu has said you can't do regime change without some sort of boots on the ground. Iran is much bigger and more mountainous than Iraq. The IRGC has a couple hundred thousand active personell.
North Korea was able to get nuclear weapons because we didn't want the carnage of artillery bombardment to Seoul that would have been the retaliation, had we stopped them.
Iran was close to achieving that same thing with ballistic missile bombardment of Europe.
The problem is that Iran, unlike NK, is run by a fanatical death cult with stated goal of attacking United States and history of running proxy militias in every nearby failed state, in a neighborhood that has no shortage of failed states.
The US defense secretary (excuse me, War secretary) is almost covered with tattoos and mottoes celebrating the Crusades [1]. I wouldn't go around accusing other countries of being run by "death cults" if I were you. We have a nuclear-armed death cult called Christian Dominionism here at home.
Their idea of "martyrdom" is killing people who disagree with them. Not, "it can be ok to kill people who disagree with you once it reaches the point of war," but, "these people's forebears didn't listen to our god, so we must always hunt them, and also the jews."
IF(highest sacrifice in your cult is dying while trying to kill those who disagree with you because of same) THEN (you are in a death cult)
> it can be ok to kill people who disagree with you once it reaches the point of war
How does this work out when we are the ones that decided to start the war? Does saying the word "war" suddenly absolve us of the crimes we commit in that war?
> Their idea of "martyrdom" is killing people who disagree with them. Not, "it can be ok to kill people who disagree with you once it reaches the point of war," but, "these people's forebears didn't listen to our god, so we must always hunt them, and also the jews."
You know the one about extraordinary claims requiring extraordinary evidence?
>You know the one about extraordinary claims requiring extraordinary evidence?
I will give you the benefit of the doubt on asking for these claims, but you should consider what burden of proof you are asking for: constant political slogans advocating attacks? Or do you need the leader to explicitly state that that's not just a slogan? Forthright statements in their religious texts advocating the same?
And would you expect that level of specificity and forthrightness of other comparable claims?
No need for any benefits of the doubt, let me make myself perfectly clear. I think that you're throwing wild claims, relying on the general ignorance and media conditioning of the average American (largely the audience on this forum) in order to provide "familiar vibes" as the foundations of your claims in the minds of that audience.
Now, specifically, you said that: "Their idea of "martyrdom" is killing people who disagree with them". Are "they" Iranians? Shia? Muslims in general? People of the middle east in general? After having settled the question of who "they" are, you are then claiming that if they kill those who merely disagree with them, they consider those doing the killing to be martyrs? That would disagree with the common understanding of what a martyr is worldwide, and hence my comment about your claim being quite extraordinary.
I challenge you to not try to steer the topic away from my questions, or make additional claims without being specific and providing evidence for those either. I am not interested in widening the scope of the conversation into endless arguing.
Ok, I'll be clear too. I think your questions are meant not to seek answers, but as aspersions, and I am skeptical that any evidence, overwhelming though it might be in other cases, would satisfy you in this instance. Iran is exceptional in providing so much evidence of the leadership's ill intentions, and by your generalizations I doubt you are aware of them.
More playing to vibes. For the passive reader, given that no evidence whatsoever was provided (let alone of the extraordinary kind) despite having been given ample opportunity to do so, please consider the extraordinary claims to be effectively retracted.
What makes you think the Iranian regime wants a destroyed country as opposed to setting up strong opposition to the West in the region? "Fanatical Death Cult" just sounds like propaganda for justifying war with them as opposed to diplomatic solutions. North Korea and Russia saber-rattle plenty. It's a tactic.
The military advantage of colonial powers, and the political weakness of the pawn countries is reduced making the great game harder. Venezuela and Syria fell because internally they were divided and the US could find traitors willing to sell out. That didn't happen in Iran, and Cuba will defend themselves if they are united.
> How many people outside of the admin and the dwindling hardcore trump base actually thought this was a good idea?
Almost every single Iranian in the diaspora. And every person who heard Iran chant Death To America while building a nuclear program and a ballistic missile program.
The A-10 is a horrible friendly-fire as a service. Might as well use the thing as a bomb truck while you are still forced to keep it in service because certain brain cell lacking individuals think brr is good.
They do. India-Pakistan was basically a field trial of Chinese AD. It failed miserably but the Chinese blame operator error (which is still valuable info; there is no reason to assume a PLA ground operator would be more competent than a Pakistani one).
They sell them. Military gear (at least aircraft and missiles) aren't cheap like an AK47. They have enjoyed watching India and Pakistan in their latest air battles. Lots of operational intel gleaned from that.
It's an airplane. It is as susceptible to doors not being bolted on as much as a civilian flight. Maybe actually a higher chance of some benign mechanical issue as it is well known that air crews are often overworked with little to no sleep with the high tempo of sorties in these types of missions. Lots of historical examples of US military aircraft crashing from mechanical issues and not being shot down
At war there's a lot more pressure on ground and air crews that can lead to more mistakes. Also the mission would be flown closer to the limits vs. training.
So... We don't know? If your question is whether that's a good guess/greater than zero probability then sure. Is it a certainty? No. The Iranians will claim they shot it down. The Americans may or may not admit and if they deny then people will say they're lying.
In the first Iraq war, the KARI system in Iraq, which was built by Thompson-CSF, had its specifications leaked and the US obtained access to back doors and codes that allowed it to bypass and/or disable much of that system. You need to remember that the US and much of the West had friendly relations with Iraq and provided some infrastructure assistance and military support because Iraq invaded Iran.
No such analogous advantage exists in Iran, which is a much larger country, with better air defenses, and no western contractors ready to provide back doors into systems.
By that same logic that fact that we only lost 1 F-15 in, what, almost 3 weeks of bombing is actually a pretty good sign. Especially when you factor in that the Russians (proven) and Chinese (yet to be proven) are assisting Iran and Iran has been buying and building all of this military infrastructure at the expense of living conditions for its people just for this very attack, only to have almost everything obliterated.
And 3 weeks in to the war and the US is flying refueling tankers to refuel Blackhawks in the very area the F-15 was shot down to recover the pilots (1 so far has been received) should be much more informative than it seems to be.
Is that reliable? The IRGC basically runs the economy and takes a significant cut. The IGRC is also separate from the military. The nuclear program, quite obviously for military use, may also not be included. What about support for proxy groups? Hezbollah alone gets support above $1B per year.
I tried to check the amounts normalized for % of GDP.
Conservative estimates put them at half of the 2% GDP military spend. However, the IRGC's tentacles are also estimated to siphon off something like +50% of the GDP.[0]
Not all of that money's going to military hardware, but they have a substantial slush fund and use the Iranian resource base as a military piggy bank.
Which is a logical result of decades of sanctions, allowing only the insiders to profit from the country's ressources while the common man is bared from providing an alternative. Sanctions do not work and only entrench regimes, as we see in Russia, Cuba, North Korea and now Iran.
I've just been at a conference where some high-up guy from germany was talking about the effect of sanctions... russia used to sell wood pulp to germany, german factories would produce paper products and then sell a lot of them back to russia.
Then sanctions came, no more very cheap wood pulp for the german industry, and after a year of sanctions, the russians built (i think) 4 large paper factories, so even after the sanctions end, that business is not coming back to germany.
Why? If the objective is to weaken a regime, and the sanctions strengthen it, why should you help your “enemy”?
The classic mistake here is to consider that dictatorships are like democracies—they aren't, and their power structure is different and more resilient to economic shocks. Even Bachar Al-Assad, who was much weaker, took 13 years to leave power.
At some point, one should question if wide sanctions targeted at increasing the suffering of the civilian population are really worth it.
Your assumption here is that, since sanctions strengthen the regime, not having sanctions weakens the regime, which is not logical.
Not having sanctions potentially strengthens a regime more than sanctions do, embeds them in the global geopolitical/cultural/economic stage, normalises their behaviour, and goes against a lot of people's deontology.
Look at Israel: no sanctions, strong Zio regime, majority of US/German pop supported the "self-defense" argument for decades, complete normalisation of Palestinian genocide until the horror reached an unbearable threshold. Etc., etc.
Yes, sanctions are far from perfect, but I strongly believe that a world with Israel santioned would have been a much better place for everyone, including the Israelis (from having to contend with their ideology).
Edit: I'm also aware that my argument is not perfect either. For example, I wouldn't qualify what Cuba has or what Iraq had as sanctions in the sense that I'm talking about: these are to my eyes an economic war of aggression by the US/West. What I'm defending is sanctions on fascist and ethonationalist global/regional superpowers that are engaging in large-scale horror. But I'm aware how leaky my definition is.
You can do sanctions on items that allow the regime wage wars (weapons and dual-use products), yes, that can work. Or wide sanctions on small countries such as Israel can be a credible deterrent, since it lacks economic depth to find substitutes.
However, wide sanctions on large countries such as Russia or Iran are now proven to be quite ineffective in the long run. Even worse, by preventing the creation of a middle-class, you won't have the conditions to start a democracy later, after a possible regime change.
I know it sounds counter-intuitive, but it's what data shows.
And sanctions don't prevent countries from committing atrocities either. What about the deaths and suffering induced by sanctions? 500k Iraqi children were estimated to have died due to the US sanctions. The architect of the policy told that it was "worth it". Was it?
Sanctions also affect population and create indirect deaths and suffering in the civilian population.
I guess that, just like Madeleine Albright, you believe that 500k Iraqi children death caused by US sanctions were "worth it"? (US still wanted to invade after, proof that sanctions worked!)
Hypothetically, imagine that you become president of US today, inheriting current situation. What would you do regarding Iran situation?
What is the correct action now in current situation?
Spoiler: I think there is no “correct” solution, somebody will be hurt in the end despite best wishes.
Note: Lower supply of oil and fertiliser affects poorer countries more than the rich ones (possibility of famine in Africa).
Current Iran government just killed their own civilians a month ago in thousands to end protests; and repressions will likely repeat as protests are likely to repeat. (Irans populace seem to be quite educated and want some reforms)
Ground invasion of Iran would cost a lot of lives - civilian casualties always exist.
Paper is definitely not the only thing Russia was importing. Check statistics of Russian aviation accidents (not sure if Germany was in supply chain for aviation, but this is visible thing that clearly was affected by sanctions)
Is there evidence sanctions strengthen a regime? With Russia at war right now, sanctions do indeed seem to be helping Ukraine with Russia having a budget crisis.
Sanction strengthen the political grip of a regime on society, which can use them as a justification for its repression. They also hollow-out the middle class, which prevents a democratic societal change, which requires it.
In the case of a war, it is of course useful, but it won't solve the long-term issue of the nature of the Russian regime, which has gotten only more entrenched since 2014.
Extensive domestic economic control by security forces is also a feature of Egypt and Pakistan. America does not complain about those examples of course, because those countries bend the knee.
Currently lot if people dislike/distrust america. Which is understandable and rational thing to do. Chanting “deato xyz” is very irrational and unproductive and just bad.
if I was disliked and distrusted by a lot of people I’d think long and hard about why that is vs. complaining about how that dislike/distrust is communicated
They should probably be closer to 0 or more in line with European countries but these numbers aren’t accurate and don’t tell the full story. They don’t, for example, include money paid to and missiles transferred to Houthis to launch from Yemen. Nevermind Hamas and Hezbollah, rebels in Iraq and so forth.
> European countries are protected by NATO and a nuclear umbrella.
Well, protected by the United States primarily. They've mostly divested from military spending and capabilities over time, which is the ideal thing, but it seems like maybe we can't live in that ideal world, anyway...
I'm not suggesting that Iran shouldn't have a military, but instead questioning the purposes for which it would have one. Today its military is used for sending missiles at Gulf States, funding Hezbollah, and oppressing its people. So for it to have little to no military practically speaking would be a good thing.
Second at 2.5% GDP (again these figures are highly questionable) that's plenty to have defensive capabilities versus neighbors. There's nobody there to really worry about because who outside of the United States is going to invade Iran? And even then the US is only doing it because they won't stop doing crazy shit and launching missiles at everyone.
Yes, Hezbollah is an Iranian proxy who has, in violation of UN actions and against Lebanese government wishes seized and held territory in Lebanon from which to launch rockets into Israel lol.
If you're going to use that as such a loose category than the list of countries that have been attacked expands quite a bit. Israel has attacked Iran, while Iran has attacked Israel, Turkey, Azerbaijan, Iraq, Oman, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, UAE, USA, and maybe one or two others that I'm not thinking of.
Do we now start listing American proxies and their terrorism? CONTRA alone should make the USA deserving of several nukes dropped on its lands by that measure.
It’s been ones of months since USA attacked Venzuela. We are openly musing about invading Greenland. We are actively embargoing and threatening to invade Cuba. We are the unhinged aggressor in all of this.
There is no civilization on the planet that would accept full disarmament under the logic that they should just trust that you won’t attack them if they weren’t armed.
Let's be fair, if someone bombed trump right now, most of the world would be happy, including a lot of americans.
Does that mean that someone should bomb US because of your regime? I mean... you have more homeless people living in tents than most cities post some natural disaster, your people can't afford education, healthcare nor (as above) homes, and you guys are spending money to bomb a place half a planet away that is in no way endangering you... and that after you've bombed it once before and "completely destroyed the nuclear program"... and before that and before that.
I mean... i understand americans are well... americans, but you guys can't even imprison pedos running your country, why should you decide who to bomb?
I mean.. what's next? Iranian special forces will eventually start destroying stuff in US, and you guys will claim "terrorism" or something again... well, it's not terrorism if you're in a war.
> Well, protected by the United States primarily. They've mostly divested from military spending and capabilities over time,
UK and France have nukes, european nato part isn't going to be invaded without nuclear exchanges.
Apart from that, each country is specialized on various things and combined military is quite capable.
Sure, it's not US level of spending... which is probably a good thing given the US basically cut education and healthcare for a few generations for that.
> UK and France have nukes, european nato part isn't going to be invaded without nuclear exchanges.
I like to think this is true, but how many French soldiers coming home in body bags defending Lithuania will it take before they say enough? Are they going to just resort to nuclear weapons against Russia immediately? I don't think the nuclear umbrella is the trump card that it you might be portraying it to be. It's really difficult to say who would use those and when. There are some obvious cases, but there are also some not so obvious ones.
But nukes aren't enough. You're not winning the Ukraine war with your nuclear umbrella for example - that's being won on the ground with Ukrainian blood.
> Apart from that, each country is specialized on various things and combined military is quite capable.
Combined command of a military like this is incredibly difficult, and while I'd certainly agree that some specific militaries are quite capable of [1], I think the political and organizational system in Europe really poses a challenge. But even so those militaries lack power projection capabilities and lack in some other key areas.
[1] In order probably Ukraine -> UK -> France -> Poland and then nobody else registers. Ignoring Russia because they're not really European IMO.
> Sure, it's not US level of spending... which is probably a good thing given the US basically cut education and healthcare for a few generations for that.
Nah, we actually have money to easily afford both we just have a bunch of morons in charge (Democrats and Republicans) who, particular to healthcare, have gotten us the worst of both worlds. Education we're #1 there's no question about that.
France trained the most efficient recon crews, and the most efficient Ukrainian sniper units (some of them led by ex french soldiers. At least with a french passport, or on the verge of getting one). Caesar MK1 are the most efficient howitzer by a large margin in Ukrainian conflict, and Ukraine have half the French number, and first MK1 units, when France is starting to get Caesar MK2. Our MBTs is so much better than Ukrainian tanks it isn't a comparison, and French rafales are not a joke, unlike su57s. When it come to boots on the ground and artillery support, nobody can beat Italy in Europe, though Finland probably can give it a run, and both countries would have defended Russia aggression easily. Special units are not even a consideration tbh, both French and Italian winter units are incredibly better trained than Spetnaz it appears (and they have the advantage of like, not being dead), and even they are less well trained and equipped than those in Finland/Sweden/Norway/Denmark or UK.
If you're talking about global capabilities, including power projection, then the ranking have to start with France, and have Italy very, very close to the UK if not ahead (if we don't take into account nukes), and then Spain should be slightly above Poland and Ukraine, maybe with Finland and Sweden in the mix (gripe3 and CV90?). German have the Gepard which seems to be the best response to drones, but their army is too new. The only thing Europe truly lacks is a strong IFV with reactive armor like the Bradley, maybe the Lynx would qualify but the quantity is clearly not enough.
And here I didn't talk about military doctrine and how well both French, Italian and German equipment fit their own, which to me is a huge advantage right after the early days of a conflict, because even when no one really know what to do and improvise, at least the whole army group improvise in the same direction.
True, Turkey is a bit harder to rank. Or was hard to rank before February. They showed during NATO joint exercise projection capability i didn't know they were capable of, and imho they should be ranked around UK/Italy on projection capacity (though special forces seems to be a weak point, so probably below them tbh). If the fight is local though (in first sphere of influence), yeah, they probably are the first fighting force in europe (including Russia), with their army size, drone, artillery and AA capacity.
> Education we're #1 there's no question about that.
I am wondering what you mean. Top-tier universities full of foreign nationals doing excellent research and funded by exorbitant fees? Sure.
But what about pre-college education?
Reading this thread, with people variously claiming things about Israel as if the country had sprung up from nothing with divine rights on the 7th october, or about Iran, as if the regime had suddenly appeared in 1979, without any US involvement in its suffering before (1953) or after (1984), makes me willing to question that education in the US is promoting critical thinking. Maybe the time spent singing the anthem would be better used actually reading history?
> Education we're #1 there's no question about that.
Education is about social mobility, a chance for anyone to participate depending on their intelligence/grit/motivation.
You guys only have education for the rich/elite.
If you have to pay for it, or be lucky to have parents next to good schools then you've failed.
> But nukes aren't enough.
Lookup french nuclear doctrine to see discouragement effect.
Also, european NATO is capable of bombing conventionally moscow/other russian cities in case of war with some losses.
Eliminating Putin/Leadership would probably stop any war.
That would probably be the first counter to any invasion with threat of using nukes as a threat to keep russia from going for nukes. (losing moscow/sankt petersburg might be too much for russia same as paris/berlin would be for other countries)
The other counter is some rapid deployment of troops to hold off any russian troops and make it very deadly for them until leadership decides to retreat.
> By that same logic that fact that we only lost 1 F-15 in, what, almost 3 weeks of bombing is actually a pretty good sign.
"Good sign" of what, though? Air superiority? I guess, sure. But we've constructed a strategic situation for ourselves where mere air superiority is losing.
The straight remains closed. Because let's be blunt: if we can't reliably fly a F-15E or A-10 in the region, there's no way an oil company is going to bet its crew and cargo.
Honestly the best situation here is that Iran merely decides to toll the straight. That's "losing" too, but at least one with a merely "large financial overhead" on international energy traffic instead of a disastrous 15% off the top cut in capacity.
Iran is winning. This is the difference between tactics and strategy.
In a practical sense, from the perspective of the world as a whole, sure. It's also true that it leaves Iran in a much more powerful position than they held before the war[1]. So it's a "loss", strategically.
It's uncomfortable to admit given the context, but the truth is that the Islamic Republic of Iran really is a terrible state, both to its own people and its neighbors, and a much wealthier Iran represents a genuine threat to world peace on its own.
[1] To wit: "This is Our Water now. Pay us what we want. Don't like it? Come bomb us again and see how your oil markets like that. We can take it. You soft infidels can't, and we proved that already. Now it's $4/barrel, btw." Imagine that delivered on Truth Social for more ironic impact. It's Trump bluster, but with actual teeth.
The US has lost mutiple KC-125 tankers and an E3 as well, although those were destroyed ont he ground rather than shot down.
building all of this military infrastructure at the expense of living conditions for its people
Just yesterday, Trump was talking about another $1.5 trillion for defense in the coming fiscal year, and saying the US can't afford things like daycare, medicare etc.
US welfare system seems to contain a lot of fraud, waste, abuse and grift across the board, so this will be a good chance to cleanse the system of fraud.
Taking money from social programs and piling into the military which contains "a lot of fraud, waste, abuse and grift across the board", certainly is a choice. Sort of the opposite of a smart choice, but definitely a choice for sure.
> The US has lost mutiple KC-125 tankers and an E3 as well, although those were destroyed ont he ground rather than shot down.
Which makes them irrelevant here in this discussion but sure yea. Russia (those sneaky guys who invaded Ukraine and are being supplied by Iran) provide targeting information to Iran, Iran has missiles, we can't shoot them all down, and here we are. It's unfortunate but that's what happens in a war. Frankly, these are very good lessons learned by the United States and they're going to come in handy if we end up in another war.
> Just yesterday, Trump was talking about another $1.5 trillion for defense in the coming fiscal year, and saying the US can't afford things like daycare, medicare etc.
We can easily afford both, but we choose not to because our political system is full of morons and corruption, but instead of Iran being more like the US and being dysfunctional in this regard, it should be more like Norway (excluding population differences) and pump and sell the oil and do so for the benefit of their citizens instead of this authoritarian rah rah death to America and death to Israel nonsense.
> Iran's military budget as a % of GDP has historically been inthe low single digits:
Figures provided here are inaccurate and don't account for spending on proxy groups, for example.
> Frankly, these are very good lessons learned by the United States and they're going to come in handy if we end up in another war.
This is an interesting take given that the US seems to have ignored many of the most important lessons from Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan, etc.
As for "end up in another war", the language you chose is very revealing. You don't just "end up in...war". Wars don't start themselves. Someone starts them and in the case of the US, it's almost always the US.
> we don't care what militarily irrelevant countries think about our activities because, well, we don't and they don't matter and we don't really care what they think.
America has its own oil. Europe is buying it, which increases the price.
To lower prices, America can help Europe get their oil back from the strait or it can ban sales to Europe both of which could make American oil cheap for Americans.
By not helping, Europe is screwing Americans. And, pretty soon, screwing Europeans too because Americans will be fed up with high prices. They will move to stop exports.
But the US already buys only 8% of it's oil from the Middle East. How long do you think they will care to help people that don't want to help themselves? It's more likely they will stop selling to Europe.
If I had to guess, I think American oil companies that operate in the strait selling oil to Europe are the only reason the US is still working so hard to control the strait. It's a lot of money on the table. But it's certainly not for Americans, just for a few rich American oil companies and their European customers.
1. Oil is a global market. Global supply and demand affects prices everywhere.
2. Oil isn't the only commodity that is at stake here. The closure of the Strait of Hormuz has disrupted the global helium supply, for instance, and helium is used in critical products Americans need.
3. Asia relies heavily on oil and other commodities that pass through the Strait of Hormuz. Asia is the factory of the world and manufactures tons of the goods that are exported to the US, from clothing to electronics. Obviously, an energy crisis in Asia has the potential to disrupt American supply chains.
4. The petrodollar system creates artificial demand for US dollars. This is a massive financial and soft power benefit to the US. If Atlas shrugs and the petrodollar system starts going away, the rebalancing/recalibration that takes place is not going to be very pleasant for Americans.
1. So the US is responsible for reclaiming a global market by itself? Or is the US required to be terrorized for 4 decades as a sacrifice for the global market?
2. And Europe doesn't need any?
3. But not European supply chains?
4. That's probably true. So the US is required to serve the EU with its military because the EU is their customer? I can think of several ways that the US can keep this position without the strait. But it's much more expensive for Europeans.
1. "Reclaiming" what? The president of the US, without Congressional approval, decided to launch a war against Iran. He broke it and now, like a petulant child, he wants everyone else to help him fix it. There was no credible evidence that Iran posed an imminent threat to the US. Virtually all of Iran's actions against the US in the past 40 years involved targets in the Mideast and once again, the history explains why Iran and the US aren't friends. In addition to the fact that the US was instrumental in the 1953 coup and supporting the Shah's brutal dictatorship that terrorized millions of Iranians, let's not forget that the US provided significant aid to Iraq in the Iran-Iraq War and it's pretty much accepted as fact in the Arab world that the Iran-Iraq War was a US design. Bottom line: the US needs to accept responsibility for creating the very environment that it says threatens it.
2. Europe didn't launch a war against Iran. They are obviously going to suffer (like everyone else in the world) but that doesn't mean they have an obligation to allow the president of the US to effectively commandeer their resources to clean up the mess he made.
3. Of course it affects European supply chains. It's going to affect everyone on the planet basically. But again, Europe didn't launch this war. Why do you seem to think they have a moral obligation to get involved in what virtually everyone in the world sees for what it is (a foolish war started by the US and Israel)?
4. The US isn't required to do anything. Your perspective seems to be that the US is God's gift to the world and everyone else is just freeloading. Another perspective is that alliances like NATO, the petrodollar system, etc. have been the sources of America's outsize economic, political and military power post-WW2. In my opinion, Americans have no idea what is coming as Pax Americana dies. It's not going to be pretty and I believe it is an existential threat to the way of life Americans have come to expect.
It's funny your link starts in 1979. Perhaps you should read about what the US did in Iran before that.
Here's a teaser: in 1953, the US and UK instigated a coup that overthrew the Prime Minister of Iran. The goal: keep Iran from nationalizing British oil interests.
The coup put the country in the hands of the Shah, who was basically a pro-Western dictator.
In 1957, the Shah set up SAVAK, which was basically secret police. Per Wikipedia:
> According to a declassified CIA memo citing a classified U.S. Senate Foreign Relations Committee report, the CIA played a significant role in establishing SAVAK, providing both funding and training. The organization became notorious for its extensive surveillance, repression, and torture of political dissidents. The Shah used SAVAK to arrest, imprison, exile, and torture his opponents, leading to widespread public resentment. This discontent was leveraged by Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, then in exile, to build popular support for his Islamic philosophy.
Also EU can be reached and bombed by Iran so we have more to loose than some army bases in the desert like you guys. I assure you that Europeans wouldn't support getting bombed because we had to help Trump make more money.
Also, let's not forget that most of the people responsible for murdering ten thousand protesters a few weeks ago are now dead. No matter what else happens in this war, that is an excellent precedent.
> Vietnam - actually has great relations with the US and we won the peace.
Ironically, I used to teach English in Vietnam and my wife is Vietnamese.
The US didn't win anything. What Americans call the "Vietnam War" was and is called the American War in Vietnam. The country was absolutely decimated and left with scars that are still healing today (see for instance Agent Orange). After the US fled the country, it continued to wage what amounted to an economic war against Vietnam, excluding it from the global economy. Into the 90s, Vietnam was one of the poorest countries in the world. My wife's parents had relatives who survived the war only to starve to death after the war.
Vietnam, largely because of its geography, is a very smart and pragmatic country. It's the only country in the world that has comprehensive strategic relationships with the US, China and Russia.
Relations between the US and Vietnam are good because Vietnam's "bamboo diplomacy" policy allows it to leverage its unique position to extract benefit from all of the superpowers. Relations are not good because of US exceptionalism.
> The US usually starts the war because the US is the only country in the world actually trying to do anything about nefarious actors.
The good old, "I had to beat my wife because she wasn't acting right!"
> Iraq - well they had Saddam and now they have a functioning parliament and things seem to be going a lot better for them.
An estimated 300,000 to 1 million Iraqis died as a result of the war. But yeah, they have a parliament and "things seem to be going a lot better for them."
> Afghanistan - We wanted to provide schooling for little girls and stuff like that and, well, the population didn't want it. So at some point you cut your losses.
Do you actually believe anything you write? The US went into Afghanistan to get bin Laden and attempt to eliminate Afghanistan's role as a safe haven for Al Qaeda. Ironically, through Operation Cyclone, the US directly supported militant Islamic groups during the Soviet war, and where do you think the Taliban came from?
> Iran - We're not going to like invade and occupy Iran, though we could. We're just going to have to keep blowing up their military capabilities until they have a more reasonable government.
Iran has about 4 times the land area and double the population of Iraq. Given the amount of debt the US has and Trump's ecstatic destruction of Pax Americana by defecating on all of America's most important alliances, I think the most optimistic scenario is that the cost of making the Persian Empire again would be the collapse the American Empire.
> Vietnam - actually has great relations with the US and we won the peace.
They won the peace (and the war). You didn't win shit. You lost, badly. The wound in the American psyche by this defeat will never heal, to the point we have to witness claims such as yours.
> Afghanistan - We wanted to provide schooling for little girls and stuff like that and, well, the population didn't want it. So at some point you cut your losses.
So you lost. Mainly because you went on a military adventure, with unclear goals, with a population you didn't understand. Much like in Vietnam!
And here you are, in Iran.
I think the one lesson you did learn is to heavily control the media and the narrative. Body bags and mission failures are bad press. Lesson learned.
US is providing targeting information, weapons and money for ukraine... it seems totally fair that russia is providing the same info for iranians, hopefully they (and china) will send them some weapons too.
> instead of this authoritarian rah rah death to America and death to Israel nonsense.
After US and israel bombing them.... again... what do you think, will there be more or less "death to US" chants? Also, considering the number of dead people in iran, lebanon, palestine and other countries, the next step is probably special force work in US... the ones you guys call "terrorists".
Good lessons. Like ignoring previous military plans that showed how tough a nut Iran would be to crack.
Lessons like the value of AWACs. Now we're down to 15 and the availability rate is like 50%. So 8 or so WORLDWIDE. Yeah, that's a good lesson. And we've cancelled its replacement after someone (probably Elon) whispered BS into Trump's ear about space based sensors.
I'm sure China is watching with a notepad out about all these lessons. Thucydides is rolling in his grave.
I’m reading one of those Blackhawks was shot down. An A-10, F-16, and a refueling plane, in addition to the F-15 so far today. Which, if true, is not a good sign.
We must be using different definitions for ‘complete’. I think Iran is using loitering anti-air missiles with IR seeking which seems to be effective. Maybe this sudden spike is reflective of receiving new equipment from China.
> Yes the US probably is still using precision weapons because, well, unlike the Iranian government we don't want to use so-called dumb munitions and indiscriminately bomb civilians or civilian targets.
Are you referring to the "precision" weapons that hit the girls' school?
The us has air dominance but not air supremacy, which is why missiles are mostly used rather than bombs with gps kits, requiring to get much closer.
And the US has been very keen to bomb civilians and civilian infrastructure, along with Israelis, since the start of the war [0]. The US-Israelis are guilty of war crimes.
The recent bombing of an unfinished bridge is another example of the US-Israeli actions, especially since they did a double-tap to kill rescuers. [1]
One could argue that the IRGC, much like Hamas, purposely builds military headquarters and other facilities near hospitals, schools, and civilian infrastructure precisely to use civilians as human shields.
Not sure why you're getting downvoted. It is completely expected to lose aircraft in an operation of this scale, against an opponent with this level of sophistication. People put way too much stock in all of these modern stealth systems and whatnot. Stealth, for example, is a buzzword. It will give a slight edge, but it's not going to make your aircraft completely invisible and unshootable.
We got through it in 2022. We can get through it again.
Though unfortunately Americans will learn the wrong lesson from this which should be to reduce dependency on oil for every day life. We should be aiming to have fewer cars and abandon car-only transportation as policy, and more sidewalks, trams, bike lanes, and better medium density mixed-use development. But if folks want to have Ford F-250s and drive 15 miles for a loaf of bread, you have to care about the Straight of Hormuz which Iran could threaten to shut down anytime and as they continued to strengthen their military capabilities increasingly likely to shut down in the future.
-edit-
Also to be clear EVs aren't the answer either. Can't be dependent on China for rare earth mineral processing, still doesn't solve c02 emissions, still have traffic and all the negative externalities.
The rare earth dependency on China is very much overblown. The U.S. has very significant natural reserves of rare earth minerals. The problem is the same with all mining - it's uneconomic to mine minerals in the U.S. because the job of "miner" is unattractive to Americans (both the laborers and the governments that sign environmental permits) when there are cleaner, safer, and more highly paid jobs available.
They're also just as much of a CO2 solution as electric trains are, i.e. it depends on the fuel source for the local electric grid (which today is overwhelmingly solar in most of the places where EVs are popular).
We're dependent on processing and refining, not the minerals themselves. Takes, from what I understand, 10-15 years to stand up that capability.
Overall EVs are great and all and that's what I have, but they're not addressing the underlying concerns and sticking with car-only or car-based infrastructure whether that's ICE or EV is a losing proposition.
> They're also just as much of a CO2 solution as electric trains are,
No, you need fewer electric trains to move much more people plus you don't replace the trains as often, &c, and then add in all the miles and miles of paved roads you need, parking lots, you name it. There's no way around this, if you care about the environment or care about human wellbeing you have to move away from car-only infrastructure like the US has and move toward more European models. And no, the geography isn't a challenge, most people live in urban areas in the United States, China is big too, and so forth.
10-15 years to stand up legacy refining capability, which is heavy in pollution.
China invested decades into research and has made significant progress in extra refined, four nines purity rare earth minerals, required for advanced industries.
They may be two decades+ ahead of US at least, plus the talent pipeline
Sure no disagreement there - I think that just strengthens my point. Though I don’t think they are really 2 decades ahead because we can just start stealing their research and reverse engineering products as we see fit.
Another good lesson could potentially be that going to war as a sideshow to distract from a news cycle that threatened people in power is not the best choice for the world at large.
The people who are benefiting from that distraction are not the same who are being harmed by the distraction. The leaders seem to be quite okay with these turn of events.
I agree that we should abandon car-only transportation and instead move cars much further down the transit hierarchy. Ideally we would be relying on trains, bikes, and buses for most daily movement, using cars as needed instead of by default. But,
> still doesn't solve c02 [sic] emissions
This is incorrect. It doesn't magically make the entire grid carbon neutral but it does let us use much more efficient forms of power generation to make the electricity, and electric cars themselves do not emit CO2 (Carbon with 2 Oxygen). Effectively, switching to electric cars would remove cars themselves as a source of CO2 and make decarbonization much much easier.
> aiming to have fewer cars and abandon car-only transportation as policy,
impossible in the US due to (sub)urban sprawl. The only way to get rid of car-only mode is to get rid of suburban sprawl and put people back into dense Eastern European style commieblocks.
Also it is impossible in the US due to market economy. People will inevitable have to commute long distance to reach job sites or customers. Eastern commieblocks could solve that because people worked in large industrial factories, and there were only a handful of factories per town, and one downtown, and all routes were predetermined and planned.
car-only mode is the expression of the American Dream (tm), that you can live in your SFH in a burb, and hop into your personal car any second and go anywhere you want. It is the Ultimate Freedom (tm) and anything else is a significant downgrade in a lifestyle
We certainly face headwinds and challenges and we will never be totally free of suburbs or anything - even Europe has those, but we can make great progress in specific areas and to your point leverage market efficiency to drive the progress we need to make as a country. When I think about my hometown of Columbus I think about the hundreds of acres of surface parking lots, those can be converted to economically useful land with shops, small-scale workshops, housing of various types, offices, and more. And by doing so we can build up appropriate density without too much of a challenge. Younger folks than me are clamoring for better living conditions - we should make it happen. That doesn’t mean we abandon cars or anything - I like mine, but with better building patterns we can reduce the burden on everyone to have to buy all this stuff just to get a loaf of bread, go to school, or any other normal daily activities. Then we can make more use of our existing infrastructure instead of building more and then not being able to afford to maintain it (state DOTs are big jobs programs and they build even if they don’t need to so that they don’t have to lay people off - biggest scam in the USA and maybe the world).
There’s a really well known photo of Amsterdam before and after their car-first infrastructure. I can try to find it later but if you search for it, you could find it pretty easily I think. You’ll know it when you see it and it’ll blow your mind.
> Oil is still underpriced wrt to its environmental cost.
This may well be true, but we still haven't found a better fuel. Sure, we have electric cars, but they are still too expensive for the masses, or impractical, e.g. for apartment dwellers. Besides, oil has countless other uses besides as fuel for vehicles.
Yes, and, the world would be better off if the price of oil were higher. We would produce less plastic crap and take fewer frivolous airplane trips and take more public transit. Our petroleum consumption is based on underpriced oil.
This could be an argument for investing in more reliable/higher capacity public transit systems though. Which would also likely result in a fair increase in public health from moving a bit more and possibly less polluted air going in an out of the lungs of the populace.
> This could be an argument for investing in more reliable/higher capacity public transit systems though.
Public transit is impractical outside of big urban centers. And even there, it's nearly always a nasty experience. This is why people who can afford it still drive or use taxis in cities.
You can't compare time, you need to compare sorties. There were only 5900 F15 sorties during the gulf war. It's not clear how many of the 8000 combat sorties sorties flown so far in the Iran war are with F15s, but it's almost certainly several thousand. Overall during the gulf war coalition forces suffered 52 fixed wing aircraft lost in combat over approximately 116,000 combat sorties.
Given Iran ought to have far better SAM systems than Iraq 35 years ago, this comparison doesn't seem in any way alarming.
For a more direct comparison, in the first 5 weeks of the invasion of Ukraine, Russia flew approximately 7000 combat sorties and 22 fixed wing aircraft were shot down.
Look at the super-precise strike on the E-3 sentry that we have pictures of. We know at least one other was hit.
If Iran can do this with AWACS, they can do even more with the hundreds of fighter jets in Israeli and US bases (it's much easier to cover up the destruction of an F-15 or F-35). Once this war ends, I think we'll see that most of the aircraft kills are going to be on the ground.
It seems like the Iraqis were relatively poor operators of their systems. A few days ago I was reading about the Nato bombing of yugoslavia on wikipedia and it had the following entry:
"Yugoslav air defences were much fewer than what Iraq had deployed during the Gulf War – an estimated 16 SA-3 and 25 SA-6 surface-to-air missile systems, plus numerous anti-aircraft artillery (AAA) and man-portable air defence systems (MANPADS) – but unlike the Iraqis they took steps to preserve their assets. Prior to the conflict's start Yugoslav SAMs were preemptively dispersed away from their garrisons and practiced emission control to decrease NATO's ability to locate them."
So their SAMs likely just got stealth bombed / bombed from a distance.
> An F-15 being shot down in Iran after weeks of strategic bombing of their anti-air defense systems is not a good sign.
Why? We don't know exactly what happened but its easy to imagine that Iran held some anti-air systems in reserve for this phase of the war. They aren't trying to defend a target, their goal was likely to stay hidden and wait for an opportunity. They could keep the radar off and use a passive sensor network to notify them when it was in range, then turn the radar on to get a lock for the shot. Or even just IR. Recall, the Houthis gave stealth F35s some near misses over Yemen, no doubt supplied and trained by the Iranians.
It was pretty much a given that over time some of these airplanes would be shot down. There's no way to get every single MANPAD or even some of the larger anti-aircraft setups. A jet can even be brought down by a canon or a bullet given enough luck. We've had quite a few near misses, there's a video of an Israeli F-16 evading a surface to air missile, there have been the F-35 that was hit but managed to continue and land, there were countless drones shot down.
This was inevitable and just a question of time. Out of >10k sorties something is going to get hit. I've no idea what range the military planners expected and how we're doing vs. that.
Why would that not be a bad sign? The US declared victory several times, but clearly Iran still has plenty of firepower to shoot down planes, and probably also ships in the Strait. If the US is incapable of preventing Iran from shooting ships and planes, how do they intend to win this?
OP left a little to interpretation, but, I think, top of the list starts with 'mission accomplished 2.0' meme followed by increased US casualties ( though I suppose the exact order likely depends on your current disposition ).
> During the entire gulf war (Iraq, 1990-91), only two F-15s were shot down via surface-to-air engagement.
was it because F-15 was used as superiority fighter at that time and now they use it as heavy bomber? I assume plenty of bombers likely was shot down in Iraq.
per wiki, f-15e was first produced in 1987, so there were very few in service at that time, and most of ground strikes were carried by other aircrafts.
Yes, most ground strikes were by other aircraft types, but the F-15E did have a lot of sorties, almost as many as the F-111 or F-4G (although the F-16 had many, many more sorties, but not all of them were air-to-ground)
Have you considered not providing intel to Irak to allow them to use sarin gas against the Iranians? Or overthrowing their democratic regime that wanted an audit to understand how much of its oil was stolen by US companies? Or designating it as the "Axis of Evil" and sanctioning it after that it helped you invade Afghanistan? Or assassinating their religious leader during negociations?
Iran didn't become skeptic about the US overnight. I would advise to do some reading on wikipedia on the topic to make up your mind.
Iran sent missiles to countries hosting US military assets. I think that it's quite clear why they do it, unlike the US. They had also warned before hand that it would happen in the case of a US unprovoked aggression.
The Iranian government can suck and it can still be a net negative for the Iranian people to bomb the shit out of their civilian infrastructure and kill and bunch of schoolgirls.
The Iranian government sucks. There is zero chance that Trump is capable of leaving this conflict with a stable liberal democracy that protects the rights of the Iranian people in place.
That’s not what Iranians expect or are asking for. Every Iranian I’ve spoken to is thankful that Khamenei is now dead and there is at least a chance of change. They don’t expect Trump to fix their country for them. They want someone to help so their own government isn’t shooting them dead by the thousands in the streets.
They certainly have, but the general idea is to first use stealth jets to bomb defensive systems (including radar observability) to conquer the skies, and then you can fly around somewhat freely. While SAM technology has improved, so have America's observability and stealth bombing capabilities. It will be interesting to learn the context and sequence of events which led to an F-15 being shot down by enemy fire.
(In 1991, the United States relied on the F-117 Nighthawk to penetrate Baghdad and launch salvos against radar and SAM sites. Simultaneously, Tomahawk cruise missiles were fired against similar communication and defense sites. In this war with Iran, the F-35 and B-2 have been used for stealth missions).
Recall that the Serbs shot down a Nighthawk when they were in a similar situation to Iran. They kept some good AA missiles in reserve and used a system of spotters and just waited for an opportunity. Its likely that similar tactics were used by Iran.
Also recall that the Houthis, armed and trained by Iran, gave F35s some close calls over Yemen.
The story is actually quite interesting. The Serbs observed that a nighthawk would routinely fly the same route but their radar couldn’t lock on it unless the missile hatch were open, which they managed to elicit.
In short, it took 2 rare events to occur for it to happen.
This isn’t unexpected for anyone in the actual military: they’ve planned for this for decades. A couple of friends served in the previous war and they mentioned that this is what their training exercises were like: same enemy, same difficulty.
Most of the F15 upgrades have been against other aircraft. The F15 is primarily an air superiority fighter, it isn’t designed for attacks or defence against ground forces. The F15E is modified to attack ground targets, but ideally they would be targets without any air defences.
The F-15E Strike Eagle variant is definitely designed for attacks and defense against ground forces, but overall air defense is a probability game so it's not too surprising that it eventually happened
Yes, although it’s designed for interdiction, rather than primarily a ground attack aircraft, the difference being that it’s intended to be used against defenceless ground targets (like supply lines), not on the front lines.
We have attacked their “legacy” air defense systems. We cannot really degrade their ability to use their anti-aircraft loitering missiles which don’t rely on radar.
What we can tell though is that Iran is still firing missiles (including cluster munitions) at Israel's civilians and at gulf states. So the ground facts are that it can still do that.
We also have to remember that Iran has a large number of different missile systems for different ranges. It's mostly not the same missiles they are firing at the nearby gulf states as they are firing into Israel. Some of the longer range missile systems they have need to be fired from western Iran to make it to Israel. There's a lot of other nuance, solid fuel vs. liquid fuel, mobile vs. fixed launchers etc.
I don't think we'll see anything close to reliable reporting any time soon.
The story of whether Iran had a nuclear program has been reported every which way but loose for the past 6 months.
By the time Trump started pushing that they were close to a nuke again, those that claimed he was wrong 6 months ago and the nuclear program was intact. Had started claiming it was in fact destroyed.
Gosh that sentence is hard enough to write, but the story is so contolvuted I don't think I can improve it.
That Iran had a nuclear program was not in dispute. It was regulated under international supervision based on the terms of Obama's agreement with Iran, which Trump promptly tore up because he has the mental capacity of a fourth-grader.
That Iran was on the verge of building bombs was far from clear. Khameini had previously issued a fatwa against doing so, on the grounds that it would be haram, or un-Islamic. All signs suggest that the IRGC was operating in full compliance with that fatwa.
I'm sure the remnants of his administration regret that now.
But the JCPOA had some big issues with it. It was time bound- that is it only delayed Iran's program ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran_nuclear_deal ) and Iran got sanctions relief in return that allowed it to fund its proxies and pursue other activities not constrained by the agreement (such as its ballistic missile program, drones etc.).
Iran also restricted IAEA access to military sites while the agreement was in effect.
That's a fascinating insight into what friends of Bibi can do with photoshopped text on long range photos.
Doesn't include any 256 channel multi spectral radiometric data from ground level crystal packs though ... I guess they didn't show much of interest in the gamma spectrum.
We have two competing theories. One is that Israel is making everything up. The other is that Iran is pursuing nuclear weapons. At least the second one seems to have some evidence backing it up like secret underground facilities with centrifuges, enriched material, and yes, that warehouse in Tehran. The theory that Israel is making everything up doesn't seem that well supported.
A confidential report, seen by the BBC, did not say exactly where the site was. But inspectors are believed to have taken samples from a location in Tehran's Turquzabad district.
That is the area where Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has alleged Iran had a "secret atomic warehouse". "
"VIENNA (Reuters) - Samples taken by the U.N. nuclear watchdog at what Israel's prime minister called a "secret atomic warehouse" in Tehran showed traces of uranium that Iran has yet to explain, two diplomats who follow the agency's inspections work closely say."
...
"Those traces were, however, of uranium, the diplomats said - the same element Iran is enriching and one of only two fissile elements with which one can make the core of a nuclear bomb. One diplomat said the uranium was not highly enriched, meaning it was not purified to a level anywhere close to that needed for weapons.
"There are lots of possible explanations," that diplomat said. But since Iran has not yet given any to the IAEA it is hard to verify the particles' origin, and it is also not clear whether the traces are remnants of material or activities that predate the landmark 2015 deal or more recent, diplomats say."
Iran has been pursuing nuclear deterrence by enriching for decades, the entire time I've been in and out of the country. That's a given.
Bibi and his tales that Iran is just a week away from an actual working bomb has been going on almost as long. Bibi - the guy with a secret / not secret collection of bombs.
The question of whether or not Iran was playing along sufficiently with inspectors when there was an inspection deal in place is what we are talking about here.
IMHO they weren't getting away with much, at that time Israel was making up claims that they were and media blasting.
That is all times past, of course.
It's also clear that once Trump tore up the deal they went (sensibly in light of everything it seems) back to unchecked enrichment, and now that they've been attacked during negotiations there's zero trust and it would seem certain that there is a real risk that reinvigorated hard core fanatics will set a bomb off in either Israel and / or the US.
Isn’t this just weapons of mass destruction again circa Iraq 25 years ago? We had evidence back then also, it turned out to be fabricated. Are you sure Netanyahu didn't just need a big distraction to prevent from being impeached and sent to jail? And Trump didn't need a huge distraction from the whole Epstein thing? Because this war come out of nowhere and was way too convenient for them.
"By the early 2000s, two key clandestine facilities were nearing completion: a uranium enrichment center at Natanz (in central Iran), built to house thousands of centrifuges, and a heavy water production plant alongside a 40 MW heavy-water reactor (IR-40) near Arak. These facilities, which had been kept secret from the IAEA, were intended for ostensibly civilian purposes but had clear weapons potential. Enrichment at Natanz could yield high-enriched uranium for bombs, while the Arak reactor (once operational) could produce plutonium in its spent fuel, and the heavy water plant would supply the reactor's coolant.[41] In August 2002, an exiled Iranian opposition group, the National Council of Resistance of Iran (NCRI), exposed the existence of Natanz and Arak.[41] Satellite imagery soon confirmed construction at these sites. The revelation that Iran had built major nuclear facilities in secret, without required disclosure to the IAEA, ignited an international crisis and raised questions about the program's true aim.[41]"
People who are pro the Iranian regime claim that there was a religious order against building nuclear weapons. But at the same time there is no other explanation as to why Iran would enrich Uranium to 60% as that has virtually no other use. It also seems they were working on other components related to weaponiztion (though admittedly we have less confirmation/visibility into that). Ofcourse the precise timing of when they would chose to build those weapons and their intent is not that easy to guess but it's also not unreasonable to assume they would do so when they felt it would be to their advantage.
But everyone agrees that they have enriched >400kg of Uranium to a level that has no other purpose than nuclear weapons and that the remaining steps of enrichment are measured in days/weeks.
So something doesn't add up in what your references are saying. What is your explanation of the discrepancy?
Oh shucks! military intelligence and 19 different intelligence gathering agencies are such nincompoops that they completely missed what an expert HN commenter of sparkling genius pointed out.
I don't have the expertise to know what use its for, but I suspect the agencies assesment was informed bybthe knowledge of 60% enriched uranium.
It's used for subs btw and maybe they felt they needed a nuclear one to secure Hormuz.
I get it. So according to you Iran is building nuclear subs. JFYI it takes 4-5Kg of material for a nuclear sub reactor. So according to you they're building 100 nuclear submarines.
Got it genius. But hey, by the trust you put in Joe Kent and Tulsi Gabbard we already knew you were a genius. Didn't need the additional observation about Iran building 100 nuclear submarines to secure Hormuz.
I have no F'ing clue what Iran wants to do. But I know that the intelligence agencies are well equipped and experienced to guess that, especially more than 'that guy on the internet '.
Why in the world would Iran be expected to remain in compliance with the JCPOA after 2018, when Trump tore it up?
As I recall, they did remain in compliance for another year after that, given that it was originally supposed to be a multilateral agreement. But IMHO they should have put everything they had into refinement and weapons production as soon as Trump unilaterally ripped up the agreement. Instead they held back, and they are now seeing the result of that mistake.
None of this would be happening if Iran had actually done what Israel assured us they were doing.
You're asking why wouldn't they pursue nuclear weapons and ballistic missiles to deliver them? Why should they? Don't you think as a country they should have some other priorities? Like ensuring Tehran has water? So because Trump tore up the agreement (and the US was sanctioning them anyways for their ballistic missile program and other reasons) that's somehow justification? Trump tore up the agreement because it would enable them to get there anyways and Iran refused to sign an agreement that would prevent them from getting there.
The JCPOA would have expired in 2025 anyways assuming that they even meant to observe it in the first place.
Your last statement isn't as solid as you think it is. Iran hasn't gotten to a point where they have nuclear weapons mounted on ballistic missiles not because they didn't want to but because they were unable to get to that or were concerned that getting closer would invite the same attack we're seeing today.
Maybe Israel and the US wouldn't be attacking a country where stepping on US and Israeli flags, chants of death to America and death to Israel, calling Israel little Satan and the US big Satan. Building an arsenal of ballistic missiles and trying to get to a nuclear bomb? (and I mean the list goes on and on).
They need nuclear bombs and ballistic missiles so they can murder with impunity without risk of retribution. A regime that conducts public executions in stadiums, or mows down 10's of thousand of their own citizens who dare to protest, or give people plastic keys to heaven to walk into minefields: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plastic_key_to_paradise or beat up woman on the streets to death for not wearing a hijab: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_of_Mahsa_Amini (and this list also goes on and on) can't be allowed to act with impunity.
Maybe had the US not upended their parliamentary democracy with a coup to grab their oil, they would have continued to maintain their earlier friendly relations with Israel.
Burning US flags and calling for death to blacks has been a KKK thing. We did not bomb them collectively, or break their infra, when they got their guns because their expressions were considered free speech. Individual transgressions of law were pursued (once in a while).
I do a mild bit of environmental geophysical radiometrics, that took me to Iran decades ago - it's not a new thing, they've been edging having nuclear deterrance for a good while.
Trump ripped up the monitoring agreement - that was unquestionably stupid.
He attacked Iran during talks to get that back on track .. that was unbelievably stupid (see: current world state).
Had he agreed to have in country monitoring again and had the USofA simply waited it was probable the old hard line core would have withered in time.
That's certainly not on the table now, the fanatics are dug in and feel fully justified. On both sides.
Seems to me their strategy is to shut down the Strait as cheaply as possible, force ground operations on known strategic points of interest, then just missile and drone strike Americans in Iranian territory where they have ~no air defense.
There are 4 players in this war and they all have very different goals and "victory" conditions.
1. Israel wants to ruin Iran permanently, to turn it into Somalia 2.0, meaning a quasi-state with no organized, central government. Were they to succeed in this it would be a humantarian disaster the likes of which we haven't seen since probably WW2. Tens of millions of refugees that will probably collapse surrounding countries;
2. The US (IMHO) wanted to placate Israel with a cheap decapitation strike that would force regime change and bring in a US-friendly regime, similar to Venezuela. This was completely unrealistic and they completely underestimated Iran's ability to maintain an offensive capability. We don't even know how much Iran's missile and drone capability has been degraded (to the GP's point). I don't even believe it's been degraded 50% (as GP claimed) abut we have no way of knowing. The entire Iranian military is built to resist a strategic bombing campaign;
3. Iran no longer trusts the US as a good faith actor and negotiator after multiple incidents of acting in bad faith, killing their negotiators and bombing an embassy so their goal is to make the price of this war so high economically that the US never thinks about doing this ever again. And that's a cheap thing to do, as you note. Drones can close the Strait and ne devastating to the economies of the Gulf states; and
4. The Gulf States just want to maintain the pre-war status quo. Saudi Arabia in particular just wanted to contain Iran. They're less vulnerable to the Strait being closed but it's still a problem politically as the US and Israel are bombing other Muslims. The Gulf states are learning the the US security guarantee ain't worth shit but they can't break away from being US client states with their own unpopular regimes probably collapsing without US arms. But in a prolonged conflict some of them may collapse anyway, particularly Bahrain and even Iraq.
So Iran just fires a dozen ballistic missiles a day to remind Israel of the war Israel started. An estimated ~50% of missiles get through missile defences now. Otherwise threats and the occasional drone are sufficient to close the Strait and massively disrupt the ME3 airlines. Militarily, Iran can probably keep that up forever. Mobile missile launchers are cheap and drones can be launched from basically any truck. They're also produced and stored in underground basis that are essentially impervious to bombing short of nuclear weapons.
Many believed prior to Trump's speech this week that he would either escalate or pull out. Instead he found a secret third, worse option, which is to tell Europe and Asia "you're on your own" (with the Strait closure) after the US launched a war nobody but Israel wanted or supported. That's an interesting strategy because it's going to cause some serious soul-searching in all of these countries about the wisdom of US allegiance.
You forgot the 5th actor - Russia - which is benefiting hugely from the collapse of NATO, the loosening of oil sanctions, the huge hike in oil prices, and the way the US was persuaded to expend a ridiculous percentage of its conventional missile stockpiles on a pointless project.
Ukraine is doing its best to minimise Russian oil exports, and that's certainly having an effect.
But strategically, Russia is a huge beneficiary of this mess.
It depends where you draw the line. The extended players include:
1. Russia (as you say): I think this war of choice virtually guarantees a settlement of the Ukraine war along the current borders. At some point Europe will need to ease their energy crisis with Russian oil and gas. Well done, everybody, the system works;
2. Europe: like the GCC they are finding US security guarantees and the NATO protection racket aren't what they were sold. Pax Americana was an illusion. I've elsewhere predicted this is going to lead to arms and tech nationalism within Europe. It's actually a race between fascism taking over Europe and Europe divorcing itself from the US and I suspect fascism is currently winning; and
3. China: the biggest wineer of all this. China is still receiving Iranian oil exports. In fact, the US "punished" Iran by lifting oil sanctions, allowing Iran to sell oil to China at market rates instead of below market (because of the sanctions). Again, well done, everybody; and
4. Asia: this has exposed their weakness of imported oil, particularly Thailand, Vietnam and the Phillipines. I would not be surprised if this war of choice is the turning point that leads to a China-cenetered Asian security compact.
In one year, the US has essentially torn up the entire post-1945 rules-based international order, which it designed for its own benefit.
China's bigger win is the future demand for solar, batteries, EVs, induction stoves (replace LPG/LNG), all things electric and energy storage. There were plans to shut down the oversupply of solar, but now there must be a huge demand.
I think this war is actually pushing many away from fascism. Trump was the reference for a lot of the European right and this is showing people he was terrible and, by extension, embarrassing them all.
Heck, Orbán is currently running an electoral campaign as "the candidate of peace".
My impression is that the fascists in Europe are trying to break up with the US too. So it's not "either or".
But I know one thing: we re going to see a rush into implementing renewables after this that will look like a post-war policy. What is also bad news for he GCC.
The post-1945 rules-based order was already a slow motion train crash that most of the West remained in denial about until Putin wiped his behind with it in the 2014 invasion of Crimea. To pretend that Trump is somehow breaking an otherwise intact system at this point is fanciful.
The post-1945 order was dead after the NATO's war in Yugoslavia in 1999, and the subsequent recognition of Kosovo. At the very latest.
One coulld argue that it happened earlier, for example after the collapse of the Soviet Union, or the collapse of the Warsaw Pact, or after the annexation of East Germany.
Really, any rival state-level actor benefits from seeing America squander its currently limited supply of high-end munitions and put months of stress on its airframes, warships, and people.
Russia needs its energy sources for its own war, too. Energy getting more expensive globally, while UA reducing the supply by targeting RU production, is a double edged sword. RU is now putting bans on export of some fuels, etc. Whether EU turning into a defense alliance with sole focus on RU, while taking in all lessons from UA war (without having to deal with US pressure to buy its expensive state of the art military HW which may not be all that effective in the potential drone war) is great for russia is also questionable.
> The Gulf States just want to maintain the pre-war status quo. Saudi Arabia in particular just wanted to contain Iran. They're less vulnerable to the Strait being closed but it's still a problem politically as the US and Israel are bombing other Muslims. The Gulf states are learning the the US security guarantee ain't worth shit but they can't break away from being US client states with their own unpopular regimes probably collapsing without US arms. But in a prolonged conflict some of them may collapse anyway, particularly Bahrain and even Iraq.
Saudi and the UAE don't want the pre-war status quo, they want America to bomb Iran back to the stone age so it can't continue missile or launcher production.
UAE wants that because their leaders are highly Israel aligned. Saudi Arabia is a lot more pragmatic, they take their role as the "leader" of the Islamic world pretty seriously.
Pre-war views were very much the status-quo was better than starting a war.
Now that a war is started it has to be finished or the GCC is left far worse off with Iran in a much stronger strategic position in the region despite a decimated military.
> Iran no longer trusts the US as a good faith actor and negotiator
Iran ("the regime") was never a good faith actor or negotiator. Their position was something like "we won't develop nuclear weapons as long as we have free reign to torture our own citizens and fund violent groups that destabilize regional governments". And still marched on enriching uranium anyway.
There's nothing to trust on either side. This war was eventually going to happen, I'm just disappointed that it happened under such incompetent leadership in the US.
> Their position was something like "we won't develop nuclear weapons as long as we have free reign to torture our own citizens and fund violent groups that destabilize regional governments"
This is unfortunately the best possible outcome. Nuclear weapons have been around for 80 years now. They are quite achievable by modern states, and they are obviously the only path to sovereignty. Ukraine, North Korea, and Iran have affirmed it.
Bombing a country in pursuit only reaffirms this logic, especially after agreements have already been made or negotiations are under way.
The only path forward, for Iran and everyone else, has been established and stable since ~1945: give people major concessions in exchange for the major concession that they will not try to achieve true sovereignty via nuclear weapons.
Every attempt to bomb or coerce someone off of the nuclear trajectory just increases the motivation (globally) to pursue it with more vigor and more secrecy.
We're on this tightrope until we fall off it, no other options.
The war absolutely did not need to happen. Iran was not pursuing a nuclear weapon and was fully complying with the jcpoa. It's mostly the US and Israel that have acted I'm bad faith.
Most countries in the region torture their citizens, even Israel except it's Palestinians, because it's a racist apartheid state.
Let's not pretend we care about funding terrorists when it's the US that has the biggest supporter of terrorism in the last 70 years.
Iran doesn't torture its citizens. At least, no more, than, let's say, Arabia Saudi. You don't say it explicitly, but the implication is clear that the US is doing this because 'human rights'. A week ago was to save the poor Iranians, and now is to bring the country to the stone age. The fact is that US is 7000 miles from Iran and have not business being there.
The one country 'destabilizing the region' is not Iran.
Wow, I can't believe someone would say this. In January, they basically killed tens of thousands of us with machine guns. After the war, the first thing they did was cut off the internet to prevent an internal uprising. They deployed many Basij checkpoints with machine guns just to warn Iranians.
This is a sample scene, don't you consider it torture?
I don't care why the incompetent leaders of the US are doing what they're doing. A bunch of unelected murderers just got dead. I consider that a positive improvement in the world, and I wish it happened more often.
The world is pretty small these days. Mass murderers are everyone's business. It's morally offensive to just say "well that's a long ways away, not my problem".
But at the same time, this war may have allowed IRGC to dig in. They've replaced a few people but the system may be stronger. Never mind that it doesn't even seem to be the administration's communicated goal to destroy IRGC in the first place.
On top of all that, they've threatened to reduce the entire country to the "stone age", and have started to target civilian industries.[0] If this campaign continues, how is this anything less than mass murder?
They're not doing this war for the reason you seem to want. They're not doing this to save Iranians.
How many civilian deaths as the direct result of US/Israel action do you consider acceptable to achieve killing the unelected murderers? 150 school children? Wikipedia cites hundreds more civilian deaths, but I don't know what sources to believe. How many layers of the regime's onion do we have to peel before we know we got all the murderers? How many children are we going to radicalize into future unelected murderers by murdering their family members and plunging their region into worse chaos? Should we kill 'em all and let God sort 'em out? Hegseth has crusader tattoos. Is he just another unelected theocratic murderer of a different stripe? Are we the baddies?
We had a deal and we tore it up. More than once, if you include the inciting incident of undermining a democratically-elected leader who was bringing the central player in the Middle East into the mainstream economic and political global order that America had set for everyone. "Not like that!"
Frankly, it's hubris all the way down. Kalief Browder.
A deal that allows the regime to murder thousands of their own citizens and export violence to the whole region really isn't worth it. Yeah not having overt conflict in that region makes our gas cheaper. But it doesn't make me sleep better.
Maybe I agree with you that the US, in 1953, planted the seeds for this situation. If I could punish the people responsible I would, but they're all dead now. Also, doesn't our historic involvement give us some moral obligation to fix it?
In this context good faith means not saying you're here to negotiate only to stall for time while you're secretly planning to invade the other country in the background, which is exactly what the US did. So Iran has no reason to take US "negotiations" seriously ever again.
I don't think we do. I think this is our Teutoburg Forest moment [1].
Part of the issue is there's no real opposition in the US to what's going on. The Democrats being the controlled opposition party aren't in opposition to the war (eg [2][3][4]). They just oppose the way it was initiated. In other words, they have a process objection not a policy objection.
I've seen lamenting over Harris losing the elction (as well as more than a few doing "stolen election") about how the world could be different. But US foreign policy is uniparty
Your “sources” are just mindless whataboutism that do not in any way provide evidence Harris/Democrats would have started this same idiotic war with Iran.
Democrats in Congress are currently almost universally opposed to the War in Iran. As the minority party they are unable to stop it unilaterally. Budget obstructions are the single lever available to them and given other issues like ICE, healthcare cuts, federal layoffs, can’t be used for every issue, every time without diffusing that very limited power into irrelevance.
Talk about “controlled opposition” given the blatantly obvious differences between the last two administrations is a signal of either being uninformed or a deliberate demotivational strategy.
Here are recent quotes from Schumer/Jefferies/Harris that for some reason you selectively chose not to include:
"Trump’s actions in Iran will be considered one of the greatest policy blunders in the history of our country," - Chuck Schumer
“The American people are sick and tired of the chaos, high costs and extreme Republican agenda. Donald Trump must end his reckless war of choice in the Middle East. Now.” - Hakeem Jefferies
“In the last 48 hours Donald Trump has dragged America into a war that we don’t want” - Kamala Harris
[1] https://www.yahoo.com/news/articles/chuck-schumer-hakeem-jeffries-more-024256513.html?guccounter=1
> Part of the issue is there's no real opposition in the US to what's going on. The Democrats being the controlled opposition party aren't in opposition to the war
Most emphatically yes. We've seen occasional bursts of spirited dissent but that's about it. As far as sustained opposition, it still seems that they're hoping to just wait out the clock for things to go back to "normal".
> But US foreign policy is uniparty
No, I'd say even with this senseless "war" the "uniparty" model has still become invalid with Trump. While the US fear industry ("news media") has been beating the drums against Iran for quite some time, the US military/intelligence community has resisted attacking. If we had a President Harris, I would bet that we would not be attacking Iran, especially in this manner - not because of Harris herself, but rather because she wouldn't have gutted the domain experts who come up with reality-based plans, and who have presumably been saying "If we overtly attack Iran they close the Strait and actually end up stronger".
I like to refer to that system as bureaucratic authoritarianism - no meaningful checks on government power itself, but there are checks on how it's exercised. The critical difference is that Trumpism is autocratic authoritarianism (especially the second round after he broke so many laws the first time without consequence) - the experts and other group-project stakeholders (eg Inspectors General) were all fired (or at the very least sidelined), and replaced with glaringly incompetent yes-men who execute any simplistic "plan" regardless how bad it is.
It'll partly depend on what internal housecleaning—or perhaps fumigation—and reform happens in the US.
While it is unlikely to occur, imagine the international effect if the US resoundingly impeached and removed of a lawless president, and Congress formalized a lot of international agreements into statute rather than delegating too much to the executive branch.
Nah, this problem is systemic, and much older than the current administration. Or has everyone forgotten the "anthrax" in a test tube? The invisible WMDs? The fake news about soldiers tossing babies out of incubators? Setting up a web of lies and attacking is a foundational value of the United States.
I think this was the nail in the coffin. Not only has the US exsanguinated their military capability at the behest of Israel, everyone with half a brain watched closely as they took AD out of the gulf states and moved them into Israel. Taiwan, Japan and South Korea are not morons, they will see the writing on the wall and they will move to make diplomatic peace with their neighbours (China) now that the US has keeled over with self-inflicted wounds.
It doesn't really matter what happens internally in the US now, everyone realizes that every four years the world will roll the dice.
That is not going to happen. Even if MAGA doesn't rig the midterms and the Democrats actually win something, they will just "reach across the aisle" and "work on healing our divided nation". Nobody will see any consequences for the suffering they caused.
A Constitutional Convention, by definition, would almost certainly not cause or require dissolution of the US. You could only effectively call a convention of people who explicitly do not want dissolution.
You forgot one huge players: popular revolutions. All muslims nations that are currently managed by western puppets dictors, every single one. The puppets know their population don't like what Israels and globally most western nations are doing in the middle east and thus tried hard to pretend they support the muslim world. But this war show clearly to their population who these puppets really serve. I bet few revolutions will shake the middle east soon, and those will be powerfull (I don't believe they will create mature democraties, as those things require centuries of progress but, they won't as easy to control). And those revolution won't be easely stolen like the previous one, also because Israel don't seem to realize it lost its support from western nations, it's just a matter a time it ends up on its own.
>> Doesn't break out anti-air, but Iran absolutely has a lot of teeth left.
With the price of oil having skyrocketed, and the new revenue that will be coming from the Hormuz tolls, they will also be rebuilding their previous capacity in no time.
It's difficult to compare; but Iran today is not Iraq then. F-15s are now based on a design that's 30 years older. Shoulder launched SAMs have moved on.
I'm not sure what happened here, but in the Gulf War, there was a move to medium altitudes after a dodgy first night and I've seen some footage that, if accurate and if I'm not getting it wrong, suggests there are different tactics going on here.
1) The US has run 13,000 missions over Iran in the last month. Thats a lot of targets.
2) The initial US degradation of Iraqi capabilities was much much greater in gulf war 1.
3) F15s are not stealth fighters.
4) This is 35 years later.
5) "strategic bombing" of air defenses is mostly accomplished with our cruise missiles. We'll take out any air defenses we find, but you don't fly non-stealth planes over SAM batteries intentionally.
We haven't even started a ground campaign. If one plane is downed per 13000 missions, I think we're doing ok.
It’s very likely their initial shock now wore off, and they got resupplied by putin and xi. We might start seeing much more damage going forward. US hasn’t fought a proxy war of this kind in many decades.
Iraq is pretty flat on the routes between the US-allied countries and the major strongholds (Basra, Baghdad). You can't easily conceal rocket launchers there.
Tehran is protected by mountain ranges that can provide plenty of cover. And Russia is probably feeding it the real-time radar data from its military bases in Armenia.
46 airplanes were shot down during the second Iraqi war, and there has been over 150 total aviation losses (mechanical failure).
So far we have lost seven airplanes. There's no deep meaning behind one F-15e being shot down (if that's what happened): it's not a stealth aircraft and it's not heavily armored.
My concern is that other countries can aid Iran with weapons in a direct and indirect way. There is no guarantee to block the railroads from East and the shipments from North.
That's not a concern it's a reality. Iran is not shut-off or blockaded to any meaningful degree. It has tons of unmolested border crossings and Caspian sea access, and maintains full control within it's own borders (minus the parts that have been blown up).
Also ships are still transiting the Strait of Hormuz to and from Iranian ports taking goods in from China, with who knows what on board. They are also exporting more oil now than they were before the war.
I mean special military operation, not war. Only congress can declare war.
Even the Philippines, a US ally, has struck a deal with Iran for safe passage. Meanwhile, Oman is working with Iran on a toll scheme. There's an emerging chance that no US-flagged vessel crosses the Straight of Hormuz again in our lifetimes (except maybe for a retreating 5th fleet).
The Philippines may be a US client state since MacArthur liberated them from Japan, but they need to deal with Iran to keep the lights on. The rationing situation is quite bad in a lot of east Asian countries.
> a US client state since MacArthur liberated them from Japan a US client state since MacArthur liberated them from Japan
And a US colony/territory for the 43 years before Japan invaded. They were ruled by a US puppet state in a supposed "transition to independence" at the time Japan invaded, however it's unclear how much actual independence they would have had in practice.
I mention this because:
1. The way you state it makes it sound like they were somehow independent before the war.
2. It explains why MacArthur was there with the US army to resist the Japanese invasion from the first day it happened (Dec 7, 1941)
3. Its history worth looking into to contextualize just how bad the US has always been at taking over places. Acting as if this is post WW2 (as the media does) is counter-productive to truly understanding the number of really botched invasions the US has done.
It’s done some pretty decent ones as well. Western Europe including West Germany, Japan, arguably South Korea although they went through a period of dictatorship, but all are staunch US allies. There have been failures too for sure. Over all of I was going to be invaded by somebody, with America at least there’s a chance it might be a least worst option.
You can't really take out "the whole" air defense system because there will always be folks out with MANPAD-type things, those will score hits on occasion. That's probably what we saw here. I doubt MANPADs were nearly as common in the early 90s as they are today.
The videos we've seen match up with what we've seen on the ground. They are all running a custom software we haven't seen elsewhere and don't seem to be traditional MANPADS in any way.
We know Iran is driving around bongo trucks with small SAM systems on the back that use passive IRST rather than radar. The missiles themselves have the capability to cruise in the air for some period of time searching for a target before kicking in the engine for a last, fast sprint to the target. Because they are electro-optical (and piloted by a human), even early-warning and flare deployments won't do very much against a skilled operator.
True but without radar they have a relatively difficult task of being out there setup and waiting for a fast moving jet to pass within range.
Compare that to Ukraine defending it's skies with NATO (well mostly French IIRC) AWACS feeding early data which is what made MANPADS in Ukraine so effective against Russian attacks.
Yeah my guess was they were coming in along predictable routes at this point and that's what got them? I saw that the search and rescue mission was in an area close to water. I believe many Stinger hits in Ukraine can be attributed to predictability.
> An F-15 being shot down in Iran after weeks of strategic bombing of their anti-air defense systems is not a good sign.
Not to dispute that but what about the comparison makes it not a good sign? Iran has much more capable radar and missiles now than Iraq did 35 years ago, doesn't it?
The success of the war depends on the approval ratings of the US president which will almost certainly take hits when US military takes hits so the US citizens seeing the US military taking hits at a higher rate than relatively recent wars in the area is a bad sign for "winning" whatever "winning" means here.
They've been flying straight into sites that would normally be heavily defended with 4th gen airframes, it's not that surprising that Iran finally managed to get one
Iran's semi-official news agency (Tasnim) made the claim. Then a bit later they posted photos of the wreckage. OSINT community pieced together that it was actually wreckage of the F-15E that is the topic of this post.
A few minutes ago Tasnim posted photos of a separate wreckage that seems to be of an F-16 that was also downed today.
These events should not be confused with the F-35 that CNN reported was hit a few days ago.
CENTCOM claimed the F-35 made it made it back to base, but right after the hit happened, they sent out a Chinook to run search patterns in the area. Additionally, the pilot was treated for shrapnel wounds. As he's at the front of the plane, it wasn't some "near miss" like that really cool F-18 evasion (where it timed the break exactly and the shrapnel all blew past it).
CENTCOM has turned out to be about as honest as the Russian or Ukrainian MoD. They flat-out lied about this shootdown all while sending out search teams. There is some circumstantial evidence that two Blackhawks were damaged trying to run search and rescue operations. There are also stories coming out that they are using bureaucracy to hide massive numbers of casualties.
US also has A-10s doing gun runs in Iraq too. It makes sense the US is more willing to take risks 1-month into the war given how effective they've been and for Iran to also adapt their manpad teams after they probably failed a ton of times previously.
You saw the same pattern where Ukraine and Russia both constantly adapted on the battlefield and the war changed rapidly over the first year.
MANPADS have a range of around 4 miles. Most soldiers aren't carrying around armed MANPADS. They have to fetch the MANPADS, arm it, aim, and fire all before the jet dumps its load and flares before bailing out. Because of this, MANPADS are a much greater threat to helicopters or CAS like the Warthog than they are to jets dumping ordinance. This has been proven pretty decisively in Ukraine.
Radar is line-of-sight. A non-stealth fighter flying just above the treetops can only be detected if it gets within a few miles of a SAM radar. This is true to the point that the radar lock range for something like an F-35 is about the same as a non-stealth jet flying super-low (though the hit probability is lower for the F-35 if it's flying at high altitude as it has more room to detect the launch and maneuver).
The problem is that CENTCOM is actively lying to us. After this shootdown, they denied it happened while launching search and rescue operations only admitting to the facts after Iran released the evidence. The same thing happened with the F-35. CENTCOM said it landed safely, but were simultaneously sending an Chinook to run search patterns in the area. This could also mean that the alleged Kuwaiti pilot that supposedly took out 3 of our F-15 was also a lie.
Finally, with so many non-stealth planes getting shot down and stealth allegedly working great, why are we using so many stand-off munitions still and why aren't we using F-35 more?
All the shootdowns have been shown with a custom software showing an IR view and the successful missiles seem to be using electro-optical tracking. The IRST is passive and doesn't trigger sensors plus isn't stopped by our radar stealth. At the same time, a human operator means stuff like flares don't work anywhere near as well. Even more scary, these human-guided runs are premium training material for China to train AI-guided missiles.
My conclusion is that stealth is no longer the game-changer it was once though to be (if it ever was).
After the bombardment by Israel last year Russia sent a ton of Manpads, so they are certainly available. We've seen a very close call by an fa18 from a manpads. It's likely that Iran has passive sensor networks that they can use to spot patterns and provide forewarning to manpads teams.
I think you're right about stealth not being quite the game changer that it was. The Houthis were able to give f35s some close calls over Yemen last year. They're of course armed and trained by Iran, so we would expect to see some hits.
Yeah I have seen the clip with Iran polices firing at the UH-60s, which is very concerning. Sure SIGINT makes sure there is no serious AD but there is no way to guarantee that there is no MANPADs somewhere close.
Which is why any "adventures" that involve boots on the ground will come with a significant rise in US casualties. Few Americans have likely seen the videos from the Russian Invasion, of what modern war with $1000 quadcopters dropping grenades on terrified soldiers looks like.
Not sure, but I'd wager it was shot down using their 358 missile (aka SA-67). The missile can be fired from a rail on a truck and will patrol an airspace for a time until finding a target using an infrared seeker. Since it uses an infrared seeker (combined with it being fairly small), makes it incredibly difficult be detected by radar, while stealth tech is a fairly useless counter measure.
That's because they primarily sent stealth aircraft and Tomahawks over Baghdad. They also used decoys to draw out SAM missiles, and then F-4s would strike the SAM sites directly, which over time meant that the surviving SAM launchers did not fire when targets made themselves known. However, they did do some non-stealth missions. The most well know was Package Q, which involved dozens of aircraft, and two F-16s were shot down.
The thing about the First Gulf War was that it was four months of buildup, 45 days achieving air superiority, and about 100 hours of a ground war. It was well planned, and involved a collation of of forces that shared a common purpose and common goal. The allied coalition made sure to get their intelligence correct and worked hard to disassemble the Iraqi defenses before sending the armed forces into real danger.
The current conflict involved Donald Trump thinking that Iran, a nation of 93 million people with a relatively healthy economy (at least at the national and regime level, which can sell a lot of petroleum), was going to put up the same kind of fight that Iraq did, then a nation of 18 million with old tech, or like Venezuela did, a nation of perhaps 30 million today, that has faced extended total economic collapse, hyper inflation, and a mass exodus of something like a quarter of the population over the past 6-10 years. There was virtually no planning, with initial action going off of intelligence of where Khomeini would be and just jumping at that.
We've got an administration run by a narcissist that has surrounded himself with sycophants and bottom feeders. He's pissed off every ally we have, acted prematurely as the aggressor with an assassination strike, and now doesn't have the resources to protect the strategic assets in the region let alone convince Iran that the conflict needs to end in our favor. Just a ridiculous number of unforced errors. A complete embarrassment.
75000+ palestinians killed, arguably one of the defining crimes of our age are not worth HN discussion (“politics”) but one F15E shot down in a war of choice is (apparently, “tech”)?
>You can tell because they're all like "Russian gets shot in the ass by a drone LOL" with Metallica playing in the background, like they're not even trying.
Literally every war has combat footage coming out of it that has music overlayed into it. See /r/combatfootage.
Being the most technologically advanced aircraft in history, one could argue that's a tech novelty they got shut down by some obliterated, imprecise weaponry.
Military aviators train for this, being alone behind enemy lines (look up SERE school if you’re curious, one of the craziest training courses outside of special forces) and there is a special force just for aviator recovery behind enemy lines, US AirForce Pararescue. Hopefully they’ll get the aviators back quickly, the last thing our country needs is American hostages making this ridiculous war harder to stop.
TBH I went through SERE school (aircrew) and I questioned its value, since the training is in eastern Washington/northern Idaho area mountainous woodland environment and all the evasion they showed us relied on that kind of cover and "bushcraft"
And you know, Iraq, Afghanistan, and Iran are definitely not eastern Washington lol
Iran isn't just central Tehran. Look up the Zagros Mountains and the Alborz Mountains. Or just look at a picture of the northern Tehran skyline, it is at the foot of the Alborz, a huge mountain range. There's plenty of woodlands and forest too. Some parts of the Hyrcanian forests get over 50 inches of annual rainfall, which isn't Forks, WA, but it is substantial.
Not really, if you're entering Iranian airspace from the Mediterranean, the Persian Gulf, or Europe, you're flying over either the Zagros Mountains or the Alborz Mountains. Unless you crash/eject in a city, you're almost certainly going to be in the mountains. Look at a map.
You'd get additional specific training for deployments and the skills are transferrable. But obviously they can't train everyone in every biome that we have, otherwise you'd spend a whole year just flying around to different areas of the country to train and on a 4-year contract it's just not going to work time-wise.
This is the view outside of Fairchild AFB, which runs the training course in question.
Wikipedia reports that Spokane has a Mediterranean climate, as does Kohgiluyeh and Boyer-Ahmad province where this F-15 is reported to have been shot down.
WA has a crazy collection of microclimates. Ho oh rainforest, alpine at the various mountains, Yakima desert, mild and wet near Seattle, dry plains in the east of Cascades, etc.
far from pc but i grew up hunting along the snake and the old guys always called those hills "Bin Ladens" bc it looked like the pictures of where news reported he was hiding
Sounds like typical one-sized-fits-all, checkbox military nonsense. Perhaps there are better and/or climate-specific SERE courses in one or more services? Because if it's ineffective, it's a waste of time and money more so than usual and puts expensive-to-replace personnel at risk.
Seems like it's all about vacating the area and busting out the CSEL (or NGSR when materialized) personal SAR comms is the best way out, or it may well turn into a weeks(s) long, nonstop spy-shit ordeal getting out. Perhaps some forethought and packing with knowledge and specific local-appropriate items (and chunk of cash) would help more than MIL-STD Walmart camping aisle prepper bullshit.
Military personnel captured as prisoners of war are not hostages. Unlike embassy personnel held hostage during the 1979 revolution, it's unclear if military POWs have any value to leverage against the US, considering how its leader feels about about "people who get captured" and "they knew what they signed up for". We're only hearing about this so the administration can get ahead of the narrative instead of Iran. Otherwise, it's doing everything it can to hide information about the cost of war in terms of monetary cost and casualties.
The hostages here are the so-called "allies" in the Arab world who received no notice of the invasion and were sitting ducks for wide-scale regional retaliation from Iran due to them hosting US bases.
to have POW, you first need to have a W, but to have a W you need to go through appropriate legal channels which trump has specifically avoided to be able to launch this collection of war crimes assaulting foreign countries along israel and causing havoc on a global scale.
No, we actually train to be tortured and held if caught, but everyone knows the risks before you take off. Captured marines or soldiers have been killed in Iraq and Afghanistan, we’re clear eyed about it.
I've found that most of our population has almost no connection to the people that actually fight wars, and therefore have no idea what they think. With the exception of a few criminals, none of us desire to commit war crimes. None of us want to send rounds into civilian infrastructure, seeing regular people struggle to get food, fuel, and water in Iraq did not make me feel powerful and it was obvious it did not advance our goals on the ground.
The jingoistic commentary people hear from politicians and former military podcasters that don't fight anymore is repugnant, and this backsliding in the (at least attempt at) honorable execution of war is not going to bode well for our country. It's probably trite when we're double tapping girl's schools, but I want to think that purposely striking civilian infrastructure, universities, hospitals, water resources... this was all something "we" didn't do.
This is actively devaluing the meaning of being a Marine. Maybe this already happened in Mai Lai, maybe this was further chipped away by Abu Ghraib, maybe letting Eddie Gallagher off... etc etc. But this feels different in a way I've never felt before.
Why do it, then? I'm not trying to be inflammatory or ask loaded questions here, I'm genuinely curious (as someone who, as you note, has almost no connection to the Americans who fight in wars; I have friends who are vets, but have been out of the military for years), and I just don't understand.
I absolutely believe you when you say that none of y'all want to commit war crimes, fire on civilian infra, bomb schools, etc. And yet that's happening right now, in Iran, and the soldiers continue to follow orders and carry out this travesty. I get that refusing an order is not something any soldier will do lightly, but when a school gets hit in Iran, do the soldiers conducting that strike not know what they're attacking beforehand?
Even if they don't, do they never find out? Do they not see that some large N% of targets that have been hit have ended up being civilian targets? When they're ordered to fire on a new target, do they not question whether or not it's a civilian target, given past history?
I ask these questions from near-complete ignorance; I really do not know how this works, or what kind of information any officer or soldier has when they're about to follow the orders they've been given. But it just seems insane to me that people continue to follow these orders, assuming they know how many civilians have been killed through previous actions. I just cannot imagine being in their position, and actually trusting that my superior officers were ordering me to do things that will later turn out to be morally defensible. (If any of this war is morally defensible, which I don't think it is.)
I don't have a good answer for you. I expected the upper and middle officer corps to conduct themselves with honor and they aren't.
I'm going to bet that pilots aren't briefed to hit a school, they get a target package that says this is a legit target, an IRGC command post or something. There are multiple layers of detachment between the person picking coordinates, entering them into a JDAM, and the pilot releasing that weapon so who is ultimately responsible (and this is by design, everyone can tell themselves a story right now to sleep at night.)
But you do know what you hit, in the version of the military that I was in there would have been a detailed investigation into the chain of failures that led to striking a school with children in it. I'm sure it weighs heavily on the every person involved in that decision. Cold comfort for the parents of those kids, but something like that leaves a life long scar on the people responsible.
I guess it makes some amount of sense that information isn't always distributed in huge amounts of detail, outside of the specifics on what they need to do.
I hope that those detailed investigations are still happening.
And they have DOD lawyers (with backup from the DOJ) saying the whole thing, and specific targets, are legal. Along with that, much of the most Sr leadership (of both combat forces, and legal) have been fired and replaced with MAGA loyalists.
There have been so many crimes and zero accountability. I frankly wouldn't know where to start, but maybe a good example is "collateral murder", which Assange has been persecuted for revealing for the better part of the past two decades.
We want them to. At the same time that we sit at our keyboards and philosophize about how soldiers should refuse to carry out unlawful orders, we [collectively] do not really want them spending all that much time pondering it. The most obvious cases, sure, but in general we want them to do what they are told, and do it quickly. That is why there are lawyers in the field to make fast judgements.
The better solution is to try and not routinely find ourselves in the position of the country being led by criminals.
"No stupid rules of engagement, no nation-building quagmire, no democracy-building exercise, no politically-correct wars. We fight to win,” Hegseth said."
It's a self-soothing performance of self-importance, like everything else this administration does.
This is not an administration run by adults who model consequences.
Everything happens to reassure the Commander in Chief - and the people behind him, like Miller and Vought - that they're exceptionally special and gifted people who can have anything they want and do anything they want, to anyone, without limits.
There's pretty clearly negative value in having civilian leader whose most notable accomplishments are being a TV opinion host, and quitting the Army because they decided he was too dangerous to be allowed to serve as a guard for a presidential inauguration.
To understand this rhetoric, you have to understand how important American Football is to the majority of the voting American public. We love a team that hits hard and wins the trophy! The good guys winning! What’s better? Have you seen any of the Marvel movies? The objective good guys always win! Win win win
I live in a deeply rural area. Nobody is like this in regards to war. I wish I could put on blast the deep worry I see everyday. Perhaps there is a cultural difference between the rural and red cities? It's hard not to take note of drafting the entirety of your young family to go shoot guns and die even if it was 100 years ago.
It’s not not woke, it’s wokeness of a different kind. They exclude those who disagree with their brand of orthodoxy, it seems like to me they’re firing anyone who says no to the ground invasion.
We should be clear that Hegseth is not an officer in the US military, and this is clearly an illegal order. The fact that he has fired the JAGs who would tell him that is unsurprising, but does not change the facts. Any such killings would expose the individuals to a USMCJ Article 118 charge.
"In 2024’s The War on Warriors, Hegseth argues at length that US forces should ignore the Geneva conventions and other elements of international law governing the conduct of war."
“'What if we treated the enemy the way they treated us?” he asks. “Would that not be an incentive for the other side to reconsider their barbarism? Hey, Al Qaeda: if you surrender, we might spare your life. If you do not, we will rip your arms off and feed them to hogs.'”
He wrote a book in which he openly advocates for war crimes. Maybe, just maybe, it pays to believe him.
He probably said "no quarter" because it sounds cool and doesn't really know what it means. The most ironic part is how he is an avowed Christian warrior and says "no mercy" when mercy figures pretty prominently in Christianity.
It’s the one constant about this administration: you’re always wondering ”is this incompetence by not knowing what they’re saying or incompetence where they know what they’re saying”
Right but the reason we have rules against people declaring no quarter is to prevent a race to the bottom. It is absolutely reasonable to respond to a no quarter declaration in kind, which is... again... the entire reason we have prohibitions on it.
They won't face any US law. AIUI, they have been getting letters from the DOJ office of legal counsel that say it's legal. This effectively immunizes them (the DOJ can't turn around and charge you with a crime, if they advised you beforehand it was not a crime).
The best shot would be to turn them over to the ICC
> they have been getting letters from the DOJ office of legal counsel that say it's legal. This effectively immunizes them (the DOJ can't turn around and charge you with a crime, if they advised you beforehand it was not a crime).
This is not true.
OLC opinions are just that: opinions. They are non-binding and non-promissory. They are an important factor in any assessments as a norm, but definitely not dispositive and not legally binding.
The only real barrier is the pardon power, but I'm personally fine at this point with totally breaking the seal, trying and jailing every criminal in the administration(++), and consider the pardon power gone for good. Small price to pay.
Yep. And war crime seems to have lost all meaning in the US.
But, even if you dismiss the idea of international standards, this is clearly very bad for US soldiers (and sailors, airmen, etc). I wonder if they see that.
> But, even if you dismiss the idea of international standards, this is clearly very bad for US soldiers (and sailors, airmen, etc). I wonder if they see that.
Poor choice of words. Hostage taking is illegal, but any captured US aviators would be prisoners of war, whose detention is entirely legal as long as they're treated humanely.
edit: I'm baffled by the amount of downvotes pointing out the objectively correct terminology can get. Its not a matter of opinion, military personnel captured by the enemy are pow no matter their treatment. A hostage, by definition, has been abducted.
As a matter of fact, if Iran comes out of the war having not committed war crimes they’ll have a huge worldwide moral and public image victory over the United States and Israel.
Iran already has won on this matter, which is a major concern considering it is an islamist dictatorship that recently killed thousands if not ten of thousands of its own population.
yet israel and the US both come out are infinitely worse in comparison, committing massive war crimes, lead by incompetent far-right extremists blinded by ideology and motivated by greed, personal gain and attempting to evade legal issues.
They already targetted civilian infrastructure, so they already commited war crime. They also threatened to attack universities wh8ch is war crime on itself (after attack on their universities).
How am I reading this? Wasn't the regime mowing down tens of thousands of its own citizens prior to this war? I mean, not a "war" crime, I guess, but it seems ludicrous to give them any "moral victories".
You forget that there's different moral codes in the world. There is yours, which is effectively Judeo-Christian and you judge Iran's islamist regime as reprehensible because of the amount of lives they destroyed. Brutally destroyed.
There is also "pride" as a moral code, where appearances of military superiority are what matters. At the start of the conflict the US and Israel appeared 100% invincible, and now they appear ... 99.9% invincible. So ... "victory for Iran" ... I guess.
In reality, of course, in response to "Israeli agression", Iran has severely damaged literally everyone who might have been on their side, with near-zero damage to Israel and US, while their own forces are dying in large numbers, while boasting of it. What an achievement! But that's where appearances matter. If they boast of it enough, maybe they can convince enough people ...
I’m not convinced that Iran has damaged their relationship to the gulf states any more than the US and Israel have damaged theirs. The US has clearly demonstrated that they are willing to use their bases in an allied state to start a war of at least questionable legality that has the entirety predicted outcome of massively damaging the allies economy, possibly for decades to come. All the gulf states will soon re-evaluate their security relationship with the US. On the side, the US has also severely damaged NATO, to the point that NATO states have closed their air space to US planes involved in the war. On top of that, some European states have blocked flights transporting weapons for Israel. Not to mention the fact that Iran and the rest of the world has been demonstrated again that negotiations or agreements with the US do not mean anything. China will look appealing as a guarantor or peace soon to a lot of people.
I believe the long term damage this has caused in immeasurable and the only way to remedy this would be that both Israel and the US find some way to investigate who and why started this war - and possibly prosecuting any war crime that may have occurred.
Also, the EU needs to grow a spine, fast.
But alas, I have no hope of that happening. We’re all worse off for that.
Iran has for nearly fifty years pursued unilateral hostilities against the US and Israel, including funding numerous terrorist groups and militias to wage war on them. It can’t negotiate its way out of this quagmire because the IRGC’s core ideology and mission is hatred (and hostage-taking).
In addition to waging continuous offensive militia operations, it’s been cultivating a conventional and nuclear offensive option which it most definitely would use if it had it, because again, the IRGC’s reason for existence is to “resist” Israel and the US, by which they mean obliterate those nations. What Trump recently has been saying about Iran is exactly what Iran has been saying for decades about the US and Israel.
One of those militias went all Leroy Jenkins in 2023 and prematurely initiated the current hot war, which Iran is losing. In frustration, Iran has embarked on a terror campaign of bombing neutral neighbors to punish them for … friendly diplomacy with the US I guess, and bombing civilians in Israel. And annexing an international waterway.
What Trump and folks on this board don’t seem to realize is that war with Iran is more like fighting a bunch of lawyers. You hurt them kinetically and they make you feel like you hurt yourself, get all confused. They slaughter 35k of their own people and shut off the Internet; the US mixes up the boundaries of an IRGC naval base in a much more constrained horror and the UN starts strutting around.
Narratives do matter for winning wars and between Trump derangement syndrome and the IRGC’s natural cleverness at permanent victimhood, it’s the narrative that’s at risk in a war between great nations that, unfortunately, sadly has been perfectly inevitable for decades.
I doubt anyone actually thinks the Iranian regime is good in anyway. But I thought the whole points of MAGA was "No new wars".
And now there's a new war, without any real reason (other than something something Netanyahu and they don't like the US) against a country that is a much more sophisticated adversary than Afghanistan or Iraq.
"sadly has been perfectly inevitable for decades"
Surely by now we know nothing is inevitable? Especially over the range of decades.
It's not unilateral, the US have been deeply involved in Iran since the 50´s and the overthrow of the democratic government in order to allow the US companies to continue to steal Iran's oil.
Then of course they had to deal with Irak who invaded them using US weapons and intel. Including use of sarin gas, thanks to US intel.
The argument about democracy in Iran is hypocritical given that neither Trump or Israelis care about it at all. They just want weak client States.
The Iranians didn't wake up hating the USA one day and a little techouva would be healthy if we want this conflict to end.
So you're saying, as soon as a party does something serious against you, say taking your embassy staff hostage (just to select a random thing one might do), then ANY future and continued hostilities, no matter how immoral the means used, are justified, even 50+ years later? I mean, you're singing the praises of long-term revenge. Oh and the 1979 revolution was a socialist revolution that even had support from the KGB.
So that's great. Then, of course, anything the US does against Iran's islamist regime is justified according to you! Excellent news, that. Strange, I got a different impression from your tone.
P.S. you are now supposed to say that it merely means "you understand why" they act like this, not if it's justified. Even though you absolutely won't understand the US killing a few hundred Iranians in revenge.
I'm saying that violence between the two countries wasn't unilateral and that the US have a long history of aggression against Iran, culminating now. My post is quite clear.
Ending a cycle of violence also requires to accept where you did wrong (i.e "techouva"). The US have been bombing the world since 1943, with for the most part, little effect aside on the suffering of the civilians under fire.
The only intelligent move to stop the cycle of violence with Iran was the nuclear deal framework made by Obama. It was of course was terminated by Trump, which worked very well as the current war shows.
Bombing Iran during negociations, killing their supreme leader and negociators, commiting war crimes, won't clearly solve anything.
When I read such post, I feel that many people supporting the war in the US just have a sadistic instinct that needs to be expressed, whatever the consequences. Hurting (or, as the Trump aides say "fucking") other people won't fix the emptiness of your lives.
Trump’s bargaining position has been: stop raising foreign armies to attack Israel; stop trying to sneak into the nuclear club, because we know what you’re going to do.
Translated to human terms: stop threatening the US and its allies.
The US position is not sadism, it’s how every nation except Iran tolerates one another, live and let live.
Russia and the US— they competed strongly with one another during the Cold War but generally respected red lines. Russia withdrew its kinetic threat from Cuba, the US knew circa 1998 that expanding NATO through the old Warsaw Pact would make no friends in Moscow. Strong, rules-based brinksmanship all the way around.
Iran is just about ideological extremism. Sometimes there are rules, or used to be, but the IRGC signed up a bunch of unprofessional clowns to wage total war on its behalf and, at core, talks like “mutually assured destruction” would be a total “win”, provided Israel was on the other side. If either superpower exposed that kind of philosophy in the Cold War can you imagine the calamity? It’s inherently destabilizing.
Trump's position is to do what the Israelis ask him. Nothing else. Iran doesn't threaten the US. On the other hand, the US has multiple times helped Iran's enemies (Irak) commit atrocities[0] or enforced a coup to continue stealing its oil. As stated by Tulsi Gabbard, there was no imminent threat to the US before the war.
Few things:
- Please don't talk about “rules-based brinksmanship” when the US commits bombing and decapitation strikes during negotiations. Or when they send real estate developers to discuss nuclear programs[1].
- Iran had agreed to limit its enrichment and allow inspectors in to verify it. Of course, it was too much for Israelis who didn't want another competing power in the region. The end of the agreement led Iran to restart enriching its uranium at higher rates, having the (expected) complete opposite effect than what was wanted. Who's the clown here? Trump.
- The US' “ally”, Israel, currently has a far-right religious Zionist government that ticks all the boxes for ideological extremism. It also has a MAD doctrine regarding its illegal nukes. [2]
- Hezbollah was born after the Israeli occupation of Lebanon. While it was structured by Iran, its ranks are made of Lebanese citizens. Many non-Shia Lebanese will agree that it's the main defense against the invasion of their country, which is desired by the Zionist right to achieve their “greater Israel” project[3]. While Hezbollah is problematic now, its removal should be accompanied by a commitment by Israel not to invade its neighbors and to stop the illegal colonization of the West Bank.
In general, it's a recurrent strategy by Israel: favor frictions, violence, and fuel the most extremist of your opponents, to justify retaliation, and then allow you to extend your position. For instance, Israel was helping Gulf States to fund Hamas before the recent war started.[4] The US is an accomplice, as Israeli money heavily funds its politicians. It's not an ally.
The United States is perfectly capable of performing atrocities without Israeli permission, and Israel is completely dependent on US funding and weaponry, not the other way around. And who's actually ever managed to put a leash on Trump?
I really think this sort of "Israel is in control" thing leans into conspiracy lala land at best, and certain very dangerous and bad territory at worst.
The last two operations in Iran were done on the instigation of Israel. The bunker bombing and the current war. The administration gladly admitted it.
And Israel is, through AIPAC, one of the largest donors in congress. Myriam Adelson, an Israeli billionaire and outspoken zionist, gave Trump $100 million for his campaign. Of course she is outright buying Trump, asking him to support the illegal colonization of the West Bank.
On top of that, evangelical christians, who tend to be radical zionists, are Trump's core voter base and fund directly Tsahal and Israel through donations. You can learn directly from the actors in this excellent israeli documentary:
So yeah, not really a conspiration, it's all out in the open. It's also not just a foreign policy, Trump threatened to end universities' funding if they didn't forbid criticism of Israel and allowed the administration to monitor them. A large part of his aides and government members are also Jewish and zionist advocates, which of course steers the policy.
Jared Kushner even does real estate promotion in the illegal colonies, when he's not sent to fail negociations regarding nuclear enrichment
If you start with the view that Israel has a right to exist, like Kuwait has a right to exist, what common ground then is possible with the IRGC? Did Saddam Hussein think it was a winning strategy to lecture the world about Kuwaitis pulling the strings in the original Desert Storm?
The IRGC and Iranian leadership assume that since Israel is just one nation, and not a big one, that they really really want to annihilate, it should be no big deal for everyone else to accept. But that is a dangerous, even existential proposal on both sides, as the IRGC knows, partly because the US position worldwide is about projecting security for partners.
Iran actually occupies a mirror position regarding the Palestinians, who have fought and suffered greatly. So Iran strives to reverse the positions of the Israelis and Palestinians— not to raise all ships, but swap them— which isn’t a moral cause from an impartial perspective, it’s just picking a different winner.
The US and Israel sought peace through negotiations for decades regarding the Palestinians, while Iran has continually plotted and waged war, which it now has on its home soil. The US and Israel have genuinely sought to peacefully resolve the situation, while Iran has not, not in my lifetime.
Israelis didn't "sought peace through negotiations for decades regarding the Palestinians". They have a long history if violence and apartheid policies, since the beginning. Negociation attempt have been done under the pressure of the US, and Israelis commonly break ceasefires, and favor the most extremist of their opponents to keep the tension going.
The problem with Israel is that the initial colonization was mostly illegal and problematic. Now, time has passed and countries should recognize its existence, while Israel should also stop its plans of a "greater Israel", including invading and bombing all of its neighbors. And stop the illegal colonization of the West Bank, along with their policies and ideology treating Palestinians like animals.
Israel is a rogue state, with illegal nuclear weapons, that protects criminals from all over the world and refuses to extrade them and commits war crimes in the open. Your way of thinking, which it is a pure white dove in a sea of evil muslims won't solve anything : Israelis have to do techouva if they want peace.
Unfortunately, the current far-right government pursues a religious messianic plan, including the destruction of muslim holy sites to rebuild the temple, so they won't accept a lasting peace.
Iran is however not an existential threat to Israel, as long as it doesn't have a nuke. So the efforts should concentrate on this aspect, to which the Iranians were open to discuss...until the Israelis assassinated the negotiation team and the supreme leader that could have imposed a desescalation deal.
Prisoner exchanges are a pretty strong motivator for any group, even hardline ones. If the Taliban was up for exchanges I think the IRGC is pretty likely to want to keep prisoners for that too.
I would note ISIS put out some high res, professionally edited video of burning a (Jordanian?) pilot to death while inside a cage. Quite savage, but the propaganda effect is more profound than about anything else I've seen.
Yes, after that video it was clear that Daesh and everyone in their little caliphate would be hunted down. And it was, they were. They were attacked everywhere they tried to return to. From minor girls returning to the Netherlands to 45 year old men (trying to) return to South Africa, all were persecuted, and that one video had a lot to do with that happening. After that video, even muslim nations started hunting these people.
And yet, they are still around, made famous and split into separate groups, still actively fighting on multiple fronts all over Africa. And if the Iranian government falls for sure they will be coming back with a vengeance in the area.
That's a lovely thing to say, but if your existence is being threatened by an aggressor, I wouldn't blame you for throwing out the rulebook.
In my view, if someone invades your territory and starts attacking you, you have no obligation to follow any sort of "principles" or "rules" when it comes to how you fight back. Anything you need to do to the attackers in order to defend yourself and your people is, by definition, morally defensible.
(Do note that I said "need". Doing arbitrary messed-up things that don't actually further the goal of driving back the attackers is not ok.)
They tried restraint and proportionality for decades and where did that get them? 47 years of non-stop aggression, espionage, sanctions and the mass deaths of Iranian civilians.
There is no if. We've already done that. So yes, we are no better than them. So answer the question. Why would Iran follow conventions it's enemy that started a war of aggression is not following?
When they struck desalination plants in Bahrain would be an easy example. You can say that they are retaliatory strikes, but they are certainly against the Geneva Conventions.
Iran's use of cluster munitions to attack swaths of Israeli cities is also against the Geneva Convention (though I'd again point out that we started hitting civilian targets in Iran first).
Both sides have violated the conventions, but the US and Israel have violated them to a much greater degree (especially Israel and all their attacks on Lebanese civilians not to mention razing Gaza).
Especially after the double-tap on civilians and first responders the US just did on that bridge. Or the threat for no quarters from the secretary of defense. Or the threats to destroy critical civilian infrastructure for water or power.
First: count the responses to my thread of people suggesting Iran cannot/should not be held to the Geneva convention: 4,5 (I'm counting the Hegseth comment as 0.5)
The point is there are a great deal of people, even in the US, who advocate that it is unreasonable to hold people fighting the west in general and US in particular to the Geneva conventions. I don't know where this idea comes from, because morally it is of course indefensible, but there you go.
I would expect the number to be bigger in Iran. I would expect the number among IRGC extremists to be even higher than in Iran in general.
Second: war crimes have 2 interpretations. First as violations of the Rome treaty which require that the state where the warcrimes happen has signed the Rome treaty. Iran hasn't.
The second interpretation of warcrimes is that they are violations of the Geneva conventions, and the reaction would be that the UN security council intervenes. Well, the UNSC has preemptively declared they will not hold Iran to account for warcrimes (to be exact: France, Russia and China have declared they will veto). So at minimum you can say that Iranian warcrimes will not have any "official" consequences.
The world and the UN have decided that warcrimes "don't count". As in there will not be any consequences unless the government of the country where they happened implements those consequences.
Third: Iran has already kidnapped a US civilian (a reporter, Shelly Kittleson) and are holding her hostage. This is already a violation of the Geneva convention. They have also kidnapped hundreds of foreign nationals of other nations and are also holding them for ransom, which is also a violation of human rights, ie. a warcrime.
So those are my three reasons Iran won't hold itself to human rights standards.
France vetoed proposal about opening the straight by force. France and Europe in general dont want to dragged into this war.
Also, I dont see UN punishing Israel or American war crimes either ... so it makes sense to not apply "whatever goes" standard to aggressors and different one to the defender.
> Iran has already kidnapped a US civilian (a reporter, Shelly Kittleson) and are holding her hostage.
Expect there to be a lot of operatives of the US in Iran. Not to sound like a conspiracy theorist, but it wouldn't be the first time a CIA or something operative is caught and this is the cover.
You mean the army shooting 40.000 protestors just 2 months ago including 1000+ children, then executed a child that won an international wrestling competition, now accusing everyone else of warcrimes?
I think I'll need some reeducation on this concept of "dignity" you speak. Could you explain further?
None of those numbers are verifiable. The opposition has every incentive to lie. And let's not forget there was a lot of armed agitators amongst those protesters. Mike Huckabee let the cat out of the bag with a tweet boasting of how a mossad agent walks beside every protester.
You're confidently replying to a point that I did not make. Protesters were certainly killed, both peaceful ones and agitators. In addition, government claims hundreds of police officers died and places of worship were attacked and burned.
My point is there is simply no verifiable numbers because both the opposition, particularly diaspora groups backed by the regimes enemies, and the government have incentives to be inaccurate. So trying to use the death toll as a talking point is not a good idea.
It's completely naive to underestimate the role of Mossad and the United States in the unrest. The former through actual Iranian nationals in their employ, and the latter in engineering the dollar shortage that led to the unrest in the first place (Scott Besant bragged about this).
I didn’t downvote you, but a terse “well actually it’s prisoner of war” doesn’t really add to the conversation. Imagine doing that in person, you’d annoy everyone around you.
If you explained why it’s distinct and what that might mean for downed crew I think it wouldn’t have been down voted
No, they wouldn't annoy everyone around them, that's just your subjective projection. I, for one, found it an important distinction that highlights how easy it is to skew a narrative towards a more sympathetic one. It saw it as having similar value to those Instagram posts juxtaposing headlines reporting on "dead Palestinians" vs "killed Israeli victims".
If the US military would like this war to stop they could not fight it, that would be pretty easy I think. Probably not without consequences, but that would show actual courage. Whereas dropping bombs on civilian from afar shows zero.
If they landed anywhere near a town they are probably captured. The kuwait video from the f15 that was hit with friendly fire was crazy. Like 6 suvs worth of locals immediately surrounded this guy and they were threatening to beat him with a galvanized pipe.
Wouldn’t it be wiser and more considerate to your fellow soldiers to pull your side arm and go out like a man. Unless you’re able to nose dive into the ground to minimize the chances of useful parts/intel being recovered by the enemy?
The SA-67 is essentially a hybrid surface-to-air missile and loitering drone that operates like an airborne mine. It’s a pretty innovative weapon: instead of relying on a fast, highly detectable rocket motor, it uses a small gas turbine and passive infrared seeker to silently loiter in a combat zone and then ambush aircraft without ever triggering their traditional radar warning receivers.
But it seems they are pretty pissed off with the Chinese, since they spent a few hundred million on their defense systems, that turned to be a complete failure. This was also after the HQ-9B failed to adequately protect high-value targets in Pakistan during India Operation Sindoor,
Early 2000s RTS games (Starcraft 1, Warcraft 3, CnC franchise) continue to amaze me in how well their seemingly comical "game physics" model the intrinsic dynamics of real world conflicts, almost prophetically.
I don't believe the SA-67 is the most-likely weapon used, here. Given that it's turbojet powered, that missile is almost certainly subsonic and better suited for taking out prop-driven drones like the Predator. Even at sea level, the F-15E would probably outrun it at low cruise speed.
You're definitely right that passive seekers are playing a huge role here, though. Many people online (and on HN) bought into the air dominance shtick just because major radar sites were taken offline. It was always the road mobile and TELAR vehicles that would be a threat.
To unpoison y'alls priors, I want to remind HN that in the Kosovo air campaign, the Yugoslavs took out a nighthawk (F117) and an F16. They claimed more nighthawks that limped home.
The F117 is a very stealthy plane, given its geometry (flat panels). Yet a 1960s radar with essentially no digital equipment took it out, largely using human intelligence and guerrilla tactics.
Iran has modern digital electronics (to improve the signal to noise ratio, merge different data sources, etc) and modern electronics. They are also master guerrilla fighters and have, great, native missile technology.
Iranian airspace is contested at best. We certainly do not have air superiority over it.
Thank you! I find it generally distasteful how often the media seems to memory hole the Yugoslav Wars. We've already seen this in 2022 with many pundits claiming that the war in Ukraine is the 'first armed military conflict in Europe since WW2' - which is just blatantly false in this context.
I don't believe the U.S military was involved with that school massacre. Reports have it that it was some Israeli missile. The U.S would sell weapons knowing full well it could happen but would never (knowingly) do such a thing.
All that said, not sure there should be any sympathy for soldiers bombing any country on the pretext of some "preventive" war.
It was extremely likely a tomahawk missile which Israel do not use. It was almost certainly the US. There are many many journalists who have written about it
You’re generalising from some criminals to an entire civilian population. The parent generalized from military to military. There’s a slight difference in the two.
Also, remember that it was the US who declared “no quarter”, not the Iranians.
The crew of the IRIS Dena were warned twice by the US to abandon ship according to a report from one of the sailor’s father. They refused.
Not sure if it’s possible to treat enemies better than that. And I doubt the Iranians will treat a US pilot well. Look at how they treat their own citizens.
The ship was an unarmed vessel on its way to a goodwill visit to Sri Lanka and coming from an international maritime exercise hosted by India, which the United States also attended and participated in. The US torpedoed it, and when it sank, the US did not apparently attempt to rescue any of the Dena's crew. Fortunately, Sri Lanka showed up and saved 30 people.
Mind you, the details of war are not always clear. The US says that the ship was armed, and it also says that they did make an effort to rescue the crew. The US does not explain why it failed to actually rescue anybody, of course.
I thought the people claiming they might be fishing boats with no fishing gear, 55gallon drums, in specially designed hulls with 6 engines, hauling ass out of known drug ports were just joking.
>Oh, it doesn’t exist because you haven’t seen it? Hmm, good analytical skills.
This is about what is legal, and about what the law says. It is about establishing a protocol for lawful conduct. Can you explain why you think you have the moral high ground? Or keep with the poorly researched attacks, those are fun too
ship used for naval exercise uses different software and payload (non-explosive). additionally, that ship also bring navy band performing in host parade days prior.
If the source below is correct, the commander of the Dena ordered his troops to stay on the ship despite the warnings, there was a bit of a mutiny and the survivors are those who rejected those orders and jumped off.
OK if I come to your car, declare you’re my enemy, and tell you to get out before I toss a Molotov at you, does that mean I can’t be tried for murder later if you refuse?
This was a sneak attack outside of an established war zone, for an illegal war, so don’t try to conflate this as an attack on America’s enemies. The USA made them their enemies themselves.
They were in international waters. This was literally a war crime according to international law. Even the killing of the Supreme leader was against international law.
His daughter, son-in-law, and grandchildren were civilians.
Intentionally targeting civilians is a war crime.
Even if they were not targeted directly, an attack is illegal if:
it fails to minimize civilian harm, or
the civilian casualties are disproportionate to the military advantage
I don't believe you can minimize civilian damage more than that, if a target is always among civilians.
You can only push so much, like the pager attack was probably the most minimizing one, but obviously and unfortunately civilians still got caught.
For the international law part, interesting debate i think, where the state acts in self-defense if it has sustained an “armed attack” by its adversary;. Obviously this is very broad, but i think you can easily argue the last 40 year of fire exchanges as a continued armed attack.
That doesn't seem like the most trustworthy source.
>Established in May 2017 and funded by Saudi Arabia,[1][2][3][4][5][6] it actively promotes former Crown Prince Reza Pahlavi as the next ruler of Iran.
Not sure how anyone can believe this while, as another commenter points out, the US is proudly and unilaterally murdering speedboat users in the Caribbean without any due process.
If you are stabbing someone on the ground and I am standing next to you, pointing a gun at anyone who comes close and tries to help, and when your current knife breaks I hand you another one to use, I am an active participant in your crime. If it weren't for me, someone would have got you, or you wouldn't have done it in the first place due to caution since no one is there to protect you.
US took that role with Israel, and was an activate participant in Israel's genocide of the indigenous people of Palestine.
"They killed unarmed civilians so that means we can kill unarmed soldiers!"
Are you seriously trying to say this war of aggression on Iran is about democracy for their people? That's not what the US does. What the US does is lip service to democracy while destroying it around the world for capitalist interests.
Are they still counting now? Because they may be mistaking them for the victims of the US and Israel, which are killing civilians by the thousands too.
not sure what you find funny about children being massively killed at an unprecedented rate by an army that deems itself the most ethical or why you conflate children killed with total estimated death.
in september 2025 the number was at least ~20000, for the obvious reason that we do not the actual toll and that it is without a doubt much more. and let's forget the injured and permanently disabled, the consequences of disease, lack of food and clean water, living in permanent fear, being traumatized and so on.
If you have independent numbers feel free to share them, otherwise it's straight up propaganda from either Israel or the US and I trust none of these two given the context
The "50,000 murdered protesters" is blatant atrocity propaganda to launder the actual mass murder of civilians and failed illegal regime change war by the United States and Israel. Nothing more. It is a lie told with the blackest of intentions.
"Who cares if we murdered 170 schools girls? The evil regime murdered 50 gorillian civilians so it's okay when we do it!"
this just says that you believe the Iranian regime and don’t believe the western democracies, nothing else.
there are names of people killed, and videos of hangings, and videos of basij forces shooting at people on the streets, easy to find. there are videos of Iranians celebrating the bombing of regime symbols – saying all of its "atrocity propaganda" doesn’t make it not be true.
It is certain that armed gangs were activated and many people (up to a couple thousand) were killed in chaotic riots. There's video evidence of armed gangs in the streets.
The idea that tens of thousands of peaceful protestors were killed solely by the government, the same government that was decapitated just weeks later by a foreign war of aggression, and yet not a hint of mass uprising afterwards? Utterly preposterous, and I would be embarrassed to even entertain that narrative.
It's so obviously part of a cynical propaganda campaign to justify the actual unilateral mass murder of civilians by the Trump and Netanyahu regimes.
Google "human rights in Iran" if you think killing of protesters is a lie. Clearly you are here to spread agenda.
For any non-bigots that want to see truth, even if it doesn’t align with hating on Americans, Jews and the West. Iran based account exposing human rights abuses by the Islamic regime in Teheran https://www.instagram.com/hengaw_english/
Why would an organization allegedly dedicated to uncovering "human rights" abuses have an empty contact page? Where are people supposed to report? Oh right, because they get all their "reports" from the US/Israeli government.
Your blind trust of random blogs by anonymous organizations is part of the problem, not the solution.
respected people from german kurdish and iranian community share these reports, i do not trust random blogs. you can easily see yourself security forces shooting at protesters - it’s you who seems to be blind
anyone with a brain can google “hengaw credibility” and see what organizations rely on its reports. I will not give you, an iranian agent, any more attention
Again, you can answer your own question by reading the tiny thread, instead of responding with even more gish-gallop. Or is "read primary thread for context" not part of your AI tool set, Mr. New Single-Purpose Account That Only Posts Pro-Israel Propaganda On HackerNews In Violation of its TOU?
If you're suggesting that the US submarine should have rescued the survivors - with respect I think you don't understand how submarines work. They have no capability to perform rescue operations. They have no way to handle mass numbers of injuries, there's normally just one corpsman (basically a medic) on board. Even if they want to do a rescue operation they have no place to put them. Subs barely have room for their own crew; typically 2 or even 3 sailors share the same bed.
There was zero threat to that American submarine, they fired on an unarmed ship that the US Navy had just held ceremonial activities with literally days prior. Absolutely disgusting behaviour but we can't expect anything less from the Americans unfortunately.
Modern subs don't run on the surface routinely like WWII subs did. Practically all they could do would be float some life boats up, but they were probably >10 nm away, so it wouldn't have been in position to deliver them promptly.
Of course I'm serious, why would my age affect how I feel about a soldier dying invading another country? But you are right that probably in the big context of things a POW is better for negotiating an ealier cease fire, which would ultimately be the better outcome.
If they are invading your country when you haven't invaded theirs, absolutely. An illegal war of aggression makes all the participants on the attacking side morally bad, yes.
Those pilots are dealing death and destruction to people and the infrastructure of the attacked country on a daily basis, which they sneak-attacked in the middle of what the victim country thought were diplomatic negotiations, for the second time. Do those pilots not deserve a lot of bad things happening to them in return?
A teenager? Have you heard the way American politicians have been talking about this war. They've been liberally using the word "evil" and talking about bombing nations "into the Stone Age"
who do you call "the west", please leave us out of the nonsense from israel and the usa, we have nothing to do with this madness and refuse to be a part of it.
You mean raising the price of oil and gas for the worlds largest producer of both oil and gas?
> attacked like terrorists
Attacked the country who took 'protection money' and used it to build up enough conventional munitions to make stopping their program prohibitively costly.
The two(2) H450s are in that unit cost range. The others and the Heron variants range to $40 million. A not insignificant number of Iranian aircraft(such as the US-produced F-5s and C-130s acquired before 1979's Revolution) are low unit costs comparably to the UAVs("drones") lost here.
Attrition compared to US materiel(not material - although that too greatly burdens cost to the US) depletion such as the aforementioned Patriot does not favor the US for sustained operations in theater(let alone should a second theater contingency operation occur).
The US military is in the middle of a top-level political purge; both honesty and competence as an institution will be below normal levels for the forseeable future, and honesty about sensitive operations during wartime is never much even as a baseline.
What’s the buzz like amongst military right now? Is moral low? High?
It’s been fascinating to see my Father (Marine and Army veteran) and my brother (soon be a commissioned Air Force officer) who usually are very aligned politically start develop the first rift I’ve ever seen regarding this war.
> Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth has asked Army Chief of Staff Gen. Randy George to step down and take immediate retirement, sources familiar with the decision told CBS News...
> Two other Army officers were removed from their roles, according to three sources familiar with the matter: Gen. David Hodne, who led the Army's Transformation and Training Command, and Maj. Gen. William Green, who headed the Army's Chaplain Corps...
> Hegseth has fired more than a dozen senior military officers, including Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Gen. C.Q. Brown, Chief of Naval Operations Adm. Lisa Franchetti, the Air Force Vice Chief of Staff Gen. James Slife and the head of the Defense Intelligence Agency Lt. Gen. Jeffrey Kruse.
Why this guy? Makes me speculate that it is entirely a political purge where they are trying to groom the military leadership to be entirely filled with loyalists rather than professional soldiers. As a veteran I find this very disheartening.
And of course the first thing the next administration will be obliged to do is fire this cadre and build another, which will fuel the grievances and set up the following cycle. Sigh.
I am not from the US, so I don't really care about how it does its things.
I definitely don't expect political purges on bureaucracy in my country of residence after elections, and I would consider it an extremely bad sign.
Typically the new party replaces the top levels; this is expected. Director of something, secretary of this and that, minister of something else, etc.
The actual bureacrats doing day to day work typically are not political agents. Getting rid of them for political reasons indicate loss of know-how, tacit knowledge, and competence, in the name of blind loyalty.
This was also true of the US. It’s expected to replace the Secretary of Defense and a variety of subordinate secretaries and undersecretaries like the Secretary of the Army with political leaders affiliated with the President’s party. Military officers at the highest level, such as the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs or the Chiefs of Staff of the respective branches, are somewhat political, but they are expected to be professionals chosen for merit. And below that level, it has historically been very frowned upon for political leadership to directly involve itself in the selection and promotion of flag officers beyond setting criteria and expectations.
Because almost all of the people inside Iran have been disconnected for the past 35 days [1]. And believe it or not, they are texting these news live to all mobile phones on a daily basis as well. Some regime supporters believe it, because the want to believe it, they need to believe it. Just in the past 24 hours I have received 5 different messages from different organizations claiming victory and damage to US / Israel assets.
Just for a quick laugh, look at the official (Iranian) president's letter to the American people published yesterday [2]. The font changes between the paragraphs!
> Iran tweets about taking down an American jet basically daily.
Sure. We have two sets of demonstrable liars here. See, for example, the E-3 Sentry that got blown up; it took leaked photos for that to be admitted.
And don't get me started on the several times in the last few months we've "obliterated" Iran's nuclear capacity and missiles and whatnot only to be told it's time to do it again.
The claim being addressed is a shootdown over Qeshm island, which is the biggest island just west of the strait of Hormuz. The current CSAR operations are happening somewhere in the Khuzestan province. Probably somewhere within the 150 km radius of [1] based on online footage of the C-130 flying over.
Hate to say it and sound so "conspiracy-like", but I no longer can trust what the current US administration is saying. Ever since the path of a hurricane was redrawn with a sharpie, it's been... unusual.
I think the problem is that in previous administrations at least they had some skill in lying in ways that were not so constantly contradicting one another.
Regardless of whether it's a "perfect setup" or not, the facts speak for themselves.
Most competent governments don't say things that are outright wrong. They may use double speak, or not comment on a topic. But this government (and unfortunately it's this specific adminstration/president) has acted time and again in a way that both of us know very well.
Not really. Just that trust ain't binary and the govt is made of people. I don't like this admin but this too shall pass. Cultivate your garden. Electing bad people has consequences.
None of what's happening today could have happened without everything that came before it.
The blue team carries plenty of blame for not fielding better candidates. If nobody is buying your bullshit, it's a little weak to blame the customer.
And all of the us electorate carries plenty of blame for letting our government get so massive and out of control over time. We've let this beast metastasize and grow, and now were stuck with it.
The American people are ultimately to blame for it, they've got the government they deserve, which is actively dismantling the US empire day by day. The American people voted for Trump instead of Kamala, and that is rather damning of the state of the American people, far more so than however damning it may also be for the Democratic party.
As we all know, in this day and age, you need to REALLY sell your story, and have the media behind you. Competence is tertiary.
> Approval of Trump among Republicans has slipped to a second-term low of 84%, down from 92% last March. At the same time, an all-time high 16% of Republicans disapprove. This shift can be attributed, at least in part, to declining support among non-MAGA Republicans, as approval dropped 11 points in the last year among this group (70% in March 2025 to 59% today). Virtually all MAGA Republicans continue to approve of Trump, with 98% approving a year ago and 97% now.
Or the bootlicker olympics for those who want everyone else to ignore the constant lies because they think bigger, more powerful government is utopian.
I wouldn't be so pleased with myself over such "You will get wet in a rainstorm." style predictions.
truths from different angles that are at odds with one another produce mistrust and thoughts of conspiracy. We have more of that now than we have ever had, ever. It doesn't take Nostradamus to point to the trend.
tl;dr : Gee, where did this mistrust in the current government come from? I'd point but I don't have that many hands.
Same as what happened to that Ford aircraft carrier, some fire incident in the kitchen that was. I doubt aircrafts have a kitchen yet, but toilets could catch fire, right ?
The military propaganda in the US is so strong that it doesn't matter how many innocent lives US soldiers take, even the staunchest US liberals will thank the troops because "just following orders" or "poverty draft".
The key difference (which I am sure you are aware of) is that the victims in your second scenario are foreign brown people. The comments would be very much like your first scenario if this was about Russians attacking even military targets in Ukraine for example.
The article says this is the first jet that was shot down by enemy fire this war, but this confuses me. Was the F35 that was downed a while back friendly fire or something? Are F35s not fighter jets?
Assuming you're both referring to the events of 19 March, they did not eject from the F-35. I know of no event during this war where an F-35 crew ejected.
It can, that's part of why these newer planes cost billions of dollars per unit. Assuming the plane is still controllable though. Usually in that case you wouldn't eject, but its technically possible. There was a case where a US pilot ejected on accident and their plane landed itself.
As an aviator, that right there counts as an emergency landing. A hard one.
They limped it back home, they didn’t ditch a very sensitive airframe over enemy territory, I’d call that a win and the pilot deserves a medal for that.
The missiles have what’s effectively a flak shotgun shell at the tip, when they’re pointed at an object and close by it shoots flak in a tight cone towards the front.
Flak spreads the damage better and does more kinetic damage than trying to ram a plane with a missile and hoping the concussion from a the resulting explosion damages something.
You're talking about a single "dash" on the frame before it goes all white. First question, if it were a laser, would be what exactly are you seeing there? A laser from the side is invisible, there'd need to be dust there, or the air would need to have turned into plasma. I don't think either makes that much sense. Second question/problem would be… it would have failed/be malfunctioning because —
— pretty much all AA munition works by exploding in close proximity to the target and showering it in shrapnel. So this might even have "helped" the missle/shell against malfunction in its fuse. And considering that this is designed to work like that, and it's likely not the greatest quality work on the Iranian side, it's also possible that the thing is already exploding and just ejected some piece of intentional shrapnel (or unintentionally itself) early, ahead of the actual detonation.
Or the Iranians edited that "dash" into that one frame, it's not exactly like it's a reputable source and it's in their interest to confuse things. Maybe they want the US to believe that the countermeasures are malfunctioning and helping their attacks, so they turn it off…
I think an A-10 is also down (pilot ejected and safe). I'm surprised that they decided to fly an A-10 into Iran. I mean it's a solid plane that can sustain some AD fire, but at the same time it usually operates within the height that MANPADs can reach.
Iran doesn't have to shoot down a single jet to win this war. Just move military hardware into caves. Sacrifice civilian infrastructure as the only viable bombing target. Wait it out until American domestic pressure from perceived war crimes ends the war. They can't afford to fight a land war or garrison over the entire country.
The fact that Israel has leveled much of the 140 square miles of gaza over the past 3 years and still fails to remove Hamas from power. No chance against 636,372 square miles and 93 million people. Worse odds than Vietnam. There isn't even a defined victory condition.
It's even worse if you consider what rational options the mullahs have. Yes, they are a murderous dictatorship and enemies of US - no question about that. But they did nothing to provoke this particular attack and they still got bombed.
Backing off without first inflicting severe pain is just not an option in this situation. It would be an invitation to get bombed at will.
North Korea, famous for attacking with nukes. Once again the only nation that has ever used nukes on another nation is the United States. If anything it is the United States that should be disarmed because there is already precedent that they will use them. Everyone else developed the bomb because of the United States having it and having a monopoly on destroying any city with a single bomb.
This is weak logic - you know darn well how difficult and costly the battle of the pacific would have been on both sides without the Nukes.
Iran is disliked by all their Arab neighbors besides Qatar.
Is NK really a success? Are they doing well? You plan to hedge long run the world needs another poorly developed pariah state with 90 million people doing suboptimal?
Iranian leadership was fine btw dying for Martyrdom. So let’s give a strongly theological government happy with Martyrdom a nuke. Because they won’t care about the consequences.
You might know technology but you are clueless about the world. Every Iranian not in Iran hates Iran.
> Sacrifice civilian infrastructure as the only viable bombing target.
I'm imagining the air crew going "Huh, there are no clear actual targets to bomb. Hey, Cleetus, command won't be happy about us not bombing anything at all, retarget on that school over there, let's get this over with and go home."
They are thinking on a longer timeline than a month. They kept some anti-air missiles in reserve for this phase of the war, where they aren't trying to defend Iran's airspace. They just need to hide and wait for opportunities to occasionally hurt the US, Israel and the other Gulf states.
Maybe they've been taking down jets the entire time and you've simply been lied to and the situation on the ground is different than what you believe.
CENTCOM tweeted that no shootdown occurred only for Iran to show the wreckage and one of the ejection seats. CENTCOM said Iran didn't shoot down the F-35, but it apparently crashed in Saudi Arabia and we sent out a Chinook to run search patterns to find it.
CENTCOM claimed a single Kuwait (ghost of Kuwait?) shot down three different F-15s by accident, but those planes were close enough to Iran that they could have been targeted by Iran (which seems more likely than the massive chain of mistakes required for the Kuwaiti shootdown to happen).
CENTCOM also only talks about US planes shot down and excludes Israeli F-15 that have been hit. CENTCOM also doesn't count all the very expensive drones that have been shot down, but their total value is at least a half-billion dollars.
Finally, CENTCOM is straight-up lying about air superiority. They claimed they'd switched to gravity bombs, but people instantly noticed that all the planes going up were using long-range JASSM stand-off missiles so they don't have to actually go very far inside Iran and can keep their planes in a safer section of the country. CENTCOM loaded up a B-52 with JDAMs and took a couple pictures, but all the pictures after that photo-op still show super-expensive JASSM (costing as much as $1.6M each).
If our planes never enter their airspace, there's nothing for them to shoot down. I'd note they've also shot down a couple of JASSM missiles which is interesting itself as the radar cross-section of a JASSM is believed to be pretty close to an F-35.
Iran is currently using bongo trucks with an IRST and a couple missiles that can even loiter in the air if there's no target. Being electro-optically guided means they are passive and the human element makes them a lot less likely to miss due to chaff.
These little trucks can hide ANYWHERE and because they aren't a massive multi-vehicle setup like a Patriot or S-300, they should be able to relocate often and quickly (they might even be able to stay mobile while in operation). This mobility combined, ability to hide as a normal truck, and completely passive sensors make them almost impossible to find and destroy.
If you want a real explanation, this is how defensive wars against an overwhelming opponent are fought. Iran knows that they can't build an iron-clad air defense perimeter, there still isn't a reliable answer against stealth aircraft and cruise missiles. They never had a chance of shooting down every plane that enters their airspace, and that isn't their goal.
Instead, they will fight this war by absorbing blow after blow, hiding their capabilities and striking back when it is advantageous.
All Iran needs to do to win is:
1) Outlast the US air campaign - note this only requires protecting enough of their defensive capabilities to remain difficult. It does not require shooting down every US aircraft that enters their borders. It does not require shooting down most aircraft that enter their borders.
2) Prevent free shipping in the Strait of Hormuz.
That's it. They just need to apply economic pain as domestic and international opposition to the unprovoked attack grows.
I'd argue there is a 3) show other gulf nations that the US can't defend them. They are doing a pretty reasonable job of that right now too considering the infra that is being destroyed daily. The real question is what are their goals and what do they stand to gain? A new list may be:
1) Stay in power. They really were pretty destabilized before this. This war may actually be propping up their government because hitting a bully, despite what the movies say, just gives them more power. Reporting from inside the country is sparse, but it seems like the few stories coming out aren't showing the same level of internal unrest that was there a month ago. This objective seems on track.
2) Increase their influence in the region. This is likely happening by the minute mainly by the fact that the US is losing influence in the region the longer this goes on. The US's loss is Iran's gain. I suspect that actual negotiations are happening in secret between Iran and gulf nations that will have long term consequences. I don't know that this objective is on track, it will take years to see, but if I were betting long term I would bet that Iran in 5-10 years will have much more influence in the region than they had a month ago.
3) Harm the US and Israel. Spain is getting almost hostile and we have a lot of US assets there. Pretty much every country on the planet is turning their back on the US openly. The most 'help' the US has gotten is basing from the UK and, of course, gulf nations supporting strikes. Israel is going to loose military aid for decades and potentially more after this administration leaves. This objective seems on track too.
I honestly don't know how Iran could get a better outcome than what is happening right now. By the end of this they will look rational compared to the US, the rhetoric of the last 50 years will look vindicated giving them increased influence and access in the region and a new generation of extremists will have been created. This has the makings of becoming one of the worst blunders in military history.
I guess it's possible that Russia and/or China delivered some hardware to the Iranians. Doesn't seem far fetched given the low international support for this "excursion". Both countries benefit from a US quagmire.
Air defense is not static. Even fixed launchers can be moved, and reacting to how your enemy is operating is an important part of air defense tactics. The famous F-117 shootdown happened because the air defense operators carefully planned around how the US was using its aircraft. If most Iranian air defenses were destroyed in the first few days, it'd make more sense for them to hold whatever was still available for the sort of situation where they had much higher chances of scoring a kill than just throwing it out there to get destroyed immediately and accomplish nothing.
I just looked it up. Those are turboprop (slower) but have a high ceiling of 50k feet. So Iran did have something better than stingers left. Maybe they just got lucky this time.
I didn't downvote, but your post sounds like you're implying some kind of tomfoolery, deception, or other hidden reasons. There are very likely none, it just takes time to adapt to a specific enemy, probability slowly increases while you get more attempts, and then after some time (t) the first shootdown is "properly" successful. And note how this was preceded by that half-successful shootdown where the plane made an emergency landing. And they shot down drones.
You sound like they roll an antiaircraft cannon out of the hangar and immediately successfully down a plane. That's not how that works. The AA was probably there from the beginning, just not successful.
We don't know what downed it yet, so it's hard to say. Iran is hiding and rationing their offensive munitions, we know that, so it's not surprising when the number of drone and missile attacks spikes after weeks of bombing. That's part of the plan. But the ability to take down a US fighter jet is not something they are rationing- it's likely at the edge of their capabilities and they got lucky. If they could be knocking down more, they would be.
It's not entirely impossible that someone smuggled in some Chinese or Russian kit in the last month. It would certainly be an interesting development. I wouldn't be too surprised if there are some sympathetic people in the Pakistani military prone to misplacing things.
Iran aims to make this a drawn out and expensive adventure for the US in hopes that it will deter a next time. They are playing the long game and they know Trump is not.
1. Iran was retarded and didn't preemptively strike US staging who had local overmatch and first mover advantage. Nothing to do but weather hits, chip away at regional basing and wait until US+Israel operation tempo goes down. Can't sustain surge sorties forever, especially with regional logistics wrecked. US pilots tired now, on stims, making mistakes.
2. Iran not remain retarded, was hide and bide, waited for US to get complement, gathering data / building tactics to squeeze out surface-air without getting glassed. Regardless, Iranian capability seems much less degraded than claimed. Who knows how many of the 20k+ targets hit was basically just drawing down highend munition inventory, which now forces flying closer on lower end munitions.
At the end of the day, Iranian mosaic forces are chilling in underground bunkers waiting for US+co to make mistakes. Consider Iraq, a much smaller country by every metric ate 5x more sorties from more carriers and sustained regional air campaign and fell because they hedged on centralized IADs. Granted most Iranian hits are precision munitions (more efficient per sortie), but we simply should not expect Iran doctrine built on distributed survivability to be remotely defeated relative to effort expended.
Also the US has been mostly using cruise missiles, which don't require to get close to the targets. Now that those ammunitions are gone, they have to take more risks and use gliding bombs with GPS kits, which have a much shorter range.
Probably because their air defenses were too busy getting shot to shit.
There was a lot of Iranian AA losses in the opening phase of this war. US went town on anything that looked remotely like AA to secure the sky for themselves, and operated with ever-increasing impunity since.
Between advanced ISR, stealth, ECM and stand-off munitions, US has a lot of tools to make the lives of AA crews into a living hell.
It's unclear what happened here exactly. It might be a "straggler" SAM that wasn't destroyed in the strikes, might be US going too aggressively and putting reduced survivability airframes within an area that wasn't sufficiently cleared, might be an Iranian adaptation not unlike the "SAMbushes" seen in Ukraine.
I don't see it as a sign that Iran is somehow reconstituting its AA capabilities though.
Military strategists long warned that air campaigns flying over South Iran would have to contend with passively-guided SAMs and MANPADS on their way to Tehran. There are hundreds of road-accessible caves in the Zagros range that cannot be inspected via satellite. They inherently present a risk to overflights unless they are occupied on the ground first; it's common knowledge why Kohgiluyeh and Fars are so dangerous.
Not the first jet hit, and definitely not the first aircraft downed. The F-35 incident was widely suspected to be a Qaem 118 missile, which fits the bill for road mobile multispectral SAM perfectly. More than a dozen drones were downed too, and even the rescue helicopters are evading air defenses according to CENTCOM.
> They had high mobility SAMs for the entire war, with nothing to show for it.
This is certainly something to show for it. Iran's air defenses are not like Israel's or Qatar's, they don't have the money or security to build expensive anti-ballistic layers for air defense. These smaller, road-mobile systems are intended to exploit an overextending enemy, and for that purpose they're apparently working quite well.
I don't think a single USAF officer is seeing the silver lining while the Iran conflict continues to escalate.
These people are professionals, they go to school to study REDFOR tactics and get court-martialed when their missions go sideways. They are not looking at the SEAD situation of southern Iran with uncertainty as to how this happened. You are the only one that has voiced that confusion.
I see a ton of bickering, however, I simply have to ask the question: how can anyone justify the United States of America and Israel attacking ANY country? It isn't our job, nor is it Israel's, to try and be the world police. People are dying, and because of a certain corpse-to-be controlling MY country, the world is beginning to suffer and it is going to get so much worse. Some economists are saying gas rationing will begin happening within the next 9-15 months. Iran has NO incentive to be diplomatic. On top of that, invisible damage that nobody is reporting about is being done...damage that could last years or possibly decades to very small, yet super important parts of the world supply chain that powers everything from fertilizer to pharmaceuticals. There is not a single person in the world that should be supporting this war. I don't care what your beliefs are. The results WILL affect you, and you won't get a bailout.
If you're asking in good faith, Israel isn't attacking Iran to play world police. Israel has been under constant attack from Iran-backed proxies. As for why Iran backs these proxies, the answer boils down to pure fanaticism. For a fanatic-led state to possess nukes is a dangerous situation and it's worth it for Israel to try and prevent it.
As for why America is involved in a conflict between Israel and Iran, it's because we have a Republican administration and a big segment of Republicans (Christian Evangelicals) want the US to ensure Israel as a state survives (also for purely fanatical reasons).
Israel has been under attacks by Iran backed proxies which all happen to have been attacked by Israel first.
1982, Israel invades Lebanon. Iran backs Hezbollah, which triggers its first killing of Israelis in 1983.
There would have been reasons to back the creation of Hamas long before 1982 but the revolution in Iran only took place in 1979, so through the decades of Palestinian oppression, massacres and occupation, Iran was aligned, so it started with a support for Lebanese resistance. Then much later the backing of Palestinian resistance, then Yemen via the Houthis.
It is true there has been constant funding, and of an increasing number of proxy groups, but Israel's invasion was the trigger. Backing nations, and paramilitary groups is pretty common: see U.S backing Ukraine regular army, and private mercenaries.
This is the flag of the Houthis [1], they are sponsored by Iran, as are the likes of Hezbollah, and Hamas. They have similar language in their charters.
That slogan has been around since 2002. The U.S. carried out a targeted strike against a leader of Al-Qaeda in Yemen, an enemy of the Houthi movement. Using U.S. foreign policy to somehow excuse a flag calling for "death to America, death to Israel, curse on the Jews" is a moral failure.
Article 51 recognizes states' rights to individual or collective self-defense. Israel has a plausible self-defense claim based on the Iranian regime's proxy attacks against it, and its explicit mission of destroying it. If we accept that premise, then by extension Israel's allies also have a right to act in its defense.
There could also be separate arguments that the Iranian plot to assassinate Trump gives the US casus belli.
The 1979 Islamic Revolution was staged by Iranians, in response to the despotism of the Pahlavi dynasty, founded in 1925 by Iranians.
It is a disease of the Western mind - and particularly Western academia - to deny agency to others, especially people in the Middle East, as you're doing here with your painfully unsubtle attempt to link US support for the Pahlavis in 1956 to the 1979 Islamic Revolution 23 years later. Worth noting that the Pahlavi dynasty started out as autocratic as it ended, well before the US ever showed up.
This is a lazy reverse Orientalism, where people in the Middle East are othered and cast as a perennial victim incapable of taking any role in, or responsibility for, what happens in their own countries. It's disempowering racism in academic garb.
Iranians caused the Islamic Revolution and only the Iranians can undo it. I wish them the best of luck in doing so.
“Support”. Hah. The word you’re ham-fistedly avoiding there is “coup”. You got the year wrong as well. The US and UK self-admittedly engineered it to support their national interests.
If you believe not one but two superpowers can’t engineer a coup in a financially poor but resource rich nation then I’ve got a bridge to sell you.
Except we're not talking about the Pahlavi dynasty, we're talking about the Islamic Republic. You're trying to draw some direct causal link from the '56 coup to the '79 revolution, just because that's the conclusion your preconceptions demand, facts be damned.
Why stop there? France engineered and supported an anti-British coup in the underdeveloped but resource rich American colonies in the late 18th century, setting in motion the train of events that led to the Islamic Revolution!
And the Polish General Kosciusko fought valiantly for the Americans, on account of the partitions of Poland. Were it not for those partitions, he'd have been at home! So it is the Austrian, Prussian, and Russian Empires - the partitioning powers of 18th century Poland-Lithuania - to blame for the Islamic Revolution!
But why did Austria desire to get involved in the partitions of Poland, and what long game was it playing vis-a-vis the Shiite scholars of then-Persia...
Hold up, we need a corkboard and some pins. Where's Pepe Silvia in all of this? Who has the Jack Ruby?
You can draw the bowstring all the way to Mars if you want to, but the only people to blame for the monstrous regime of Iran are the people who put that regime in place, and that certainly wasn't the Americans. No amount of "well this encouraged that, which caused blowback to this, leading to that" Substack-level motivated reasoning is going to change that fact.
The gay kids being executed by Iran are not cursing the name of America, or Empress Maria Theresa of Austria, they're cursing the ghouls who are hanging them, who are their countrymen.
> but the only people to blame for the monstrous regime of Iran are the people who put that regime in place, and that certainly wasn't the Americans
Let’s put it this way: if we where to stack rank all the countries that where directly involved in the creation of the modern Iranian regime, Iran would be first and America would be second.
This isn’t some theory, it’s a pretty clear/succinct cause and effect.
It’s not clever, patriotic or even a good take to ignore that and hide behind “well it’s their fault for having a regime change orchestrated by us that installed an unpopular authoritarian monarch who curtained freedoms because he would oppose Russian interests and support western ones, ultimately leading to someone worse taking power after decades of human rights abuse supported by the west in return for continued alignment”.
Yes, ultimately the person who pulls the trigger is responsible, but the person who gave them the gun and told them where to shoot is also responsible.
That's quite a shift from your earlier post that US conduct "led to" the Islamic Republic, and a more measured and reasonable take. But in as far as the US had a secondary role in recent Iranian affairs, it was a very distant second to the Iranians themselves. It does the Iranians no favours to edit them out of their own history.
The thing is, it's very easy to get caught up in this kind of rhetoric and lose a lot of perspective. This is the kind of logical chain that leads people to end up deciding that Germany had "legitimate grievances" about the Treaty of Versailles and end up in some pretty dark places. Not saying that's you in the slightest, just noting the problems with that rhetorical style. It's fast, somewhat lazy, and greatly lacking in perspective.
If there's something I think we can agree on, the US role in '53 (corrected date) is nothing to be proud of, any more than *points generally towards the Strait of Hormuz* whatever the hell this is.
Iran has actually never directly killed any US citizens. This misconception arises because its allies in Lebanon have done so. But the US and Israel were occupying the bottom third of Lebanon so I would hardly call that an attack.
There was also the hostage crisis but that was done by student protestors rather than the Iranian government.
The 1953 coup was ugly realpolitik, but the Islamic Republic's hostility began in 1979 (hostage crisis, embassy takeover, fatwas against the West). Iran has been the initiator of most modern conflict.
It contributed, but downright accusing the US for 1979 ignores Iranian agency, the Shah's own policy failures, economic/social pressures, and the ideological revolutionaries.
I think you need to learn more about the history of U.S./Iran relations over the past 75 years. There was a pretty good episode of NPR Throughline a couple weeks back that gets into the CIA bullshit and then 1979 onwards. Iran has not been a good actor, but we aren’t exactly saints either. It’s an ugly situation all around.
Ok, the Shah didn’t just randomly happen. The U.S. and U.K. helped put him back in power, so American interference is part of the chain that led to 1979... apparently largely due to geopolitical and crude oil reasons.... huh. Enlightened.
you seem to have all the data but failing to sort them out to see the direct causal link between the point of origin and the current situation.
also I would argue that we should not confuse Iran and the islamists ruling the country. as a reminder the Iranian people suffered thousands if not tens of thousands death recently during violent repression of social unrest. so it seems the Iranian people may disagree with the choices of the people in power. at least until the US joined the israel led war crimes against Iran.
The hostility began in 1953 - too many Iranians hated shah and seen monarchy as oppressors put in by CIA. Even anti islamist Iranians were writing about it. And yes, monarchy was a vialent dictatorship.
Like yes, goverment put in by america wont be hostile to america. But its opponents will blame america for that goverment, because well, they are to blamr. And also, once it fails, all the suppressed anger goes out. And some more, because now america is well positioned to be generic scapegoat even for stuff it had not done.
It is pretty obvious that the current war was started by Israel and USA.
I somewhat understand Israel's agenda and objective, even if evil and selfish depending on the point of view (or selfish, for Netanyahu to avoid legal scrutiny while acting as prime minister).
I don't understand the USA attacking here at all. With rising prices I think Trump should pay compensation to the rest of the world for his decision here. This is now similar to the build-up to Vietnam though - I don't see Trump being able to withdraw, without looking incompetent, so he is now committed to the war, similar to why Putin can not stop his invasion of Ukraine. Two criminals, one thought.
60% enriched uranium for radical Islamists who supply terrorists throughout the world and want to eradicate the US? A terrorist regime that wants to nuke one of the closest US allies...
The white house staff have been pretty clear and consistent in the reasons.
1. Iran is clearly not suicidal
2. what do you think would be the best way to motivate them to get a bomb? maybe attack them?
3. they don't support terrorism "all over the world." they support shia militant groups in their region, for very good reason. WE ARE THE TERRORISTS
With how many countries Iran started direct war with, even with this religious rulers in power?
With how many countries Israel started direct war with?
With how many countries USA started direct war with? (thousand of miles away and contents apart)
We didn't do it for regime change, but then we did, oh wait we want to negotiate, but Israel keeps killing the new people in charge.
We did it to keep Iran from getting nukes, oh wait, there's no clear plan to get the material out and they've never said they're going to go get it.
We now are saying we'll negotiate for the exact same restrictions the JCPOA had, which we could have done without the war in the first place.
We totally don't need the strait opened up, we're super independent, but also really want them to open the strait.
Other countries should open the strait, not the US or Israel that started the war without the buy-in of other countries.
And finally, this is an illegal war for the US. Let's not play word games with the War Powers Act - this is a full-scale war, against a "worthy adversary" that 100% will not end in 60 days and one in which we don't control the terms of its end. Iran posed no imminent threat to the United States. Other than the most crazed warmongers like Lindsey Graham, it seems to me that the members of Congress who have been briefed in classified settings are in bipartisan agreement that this was a Bad Idea and that further involvement is a Worse Idea.
This is a colossal strategic screw-up, to use the most polite understated terms possible.
Trump thinks he did a huge favour to the entire world. He even expressed disappointment no country accepted to give him a little hand when he asked for help.
It is not obvious at all unless you don't understand Iran's objectives and its attacks on Israel (a country over 1,000 miles away) for the past several decades.
All reporting I’ve seen on Israel mention destruction of Iran as long time dream of Bibi and it distracts from his legal and political troubles and unites country behind him - war has 90 plus percent approval among Jews and about 25 percent among Arabs who don’t vote for his coalition anyways, so political win for him. For modern GOP, “the cruelty is the point” can be used to explain most of his policy decisions, the book and original essay make the argument that making “others” suffer is uniting factor for GOP since Trump took the reins (in spite of many conflicting reasons Rubio, Trump and Hegseth have given to justify this war including setting stage for apocalypse foretold in Revelations to please fundamentalist Christian voter bloc) Many GOP voters have backed Trump in interviews even after being hurt by his tariff regime, immigration crackdowns, DOGE cutbacks, threats to annex territory, the only thing that appears to move the needle a little in GOP approval has been the recent run up in gasoline prices. One case in point - Farmers got hurt in first term by Trump tariffs, overwhelming supported Trump three elections in a row, and after second term tariffs hurt them, still support Trump, one would think if one farmer said I’m off the Trump train that reporters would be all over it. There is no rational thought process going on here beyond first order effects.
> how can anyone justify the United States of America and Israel attacking ANY country?
Every military action will have an on-paper "justification". It's kind of irrelevant frankly.
But to cut bullshit, it really isn't that complicated.
Venezuela is an extremely oil rich country. Countries in the middle-east region, including Iran are very oil rich.
And that's in large part why US (by this point firmly decaying petrostate propped by petrodollar) is constantly there "meddling" and ensuring all the oil is continuously bought using US dollars.
That is wholly sufficient to explain things.
Every other cartoonish-evil justification "Iran wants to build nukes to bomb US, etc" is largely bullshit (why, for example, Iran doesn't want to nuke.... say Germany or France? hmmm.....)
Saying "Death to America" doesn't give us the right to bomb them. They've been saying that for a long time now and yet haven't posed serious threat to the US mainland. Trump says a lot of crazy shit as well, would that give other countries the right to bomb the US?
I've gone over this before; but they do not even chant "death to america". It's a deliberate mis-translation to stoke tensions between Iran and the US.
Don't be intentionally obtuse. They've been saying this for over four decades and have spent at least tens of billions of dollars in their quest to make it happen. Besides attacking Israel.
So when you ask the IRGC and the ayatollahs why they hate the US, Israel, and the West, they say it's because of history from 1957? I'm thinking it has more to do with their interpretation of their religion.
You remember Qasim Solemani? The guy Trump bragged on national television about how he blew up?
That guy collaborated with US forces, led a 2001 uprising against the Taliban in Herat, effectively liberating the town before US army had to make contact with the enemy. Do you understand what leading a local uprising against the Taliban in 2001 meant?
Iran was the first ME country to sympathize and hold candle vigils after the fucking Saudi’s (the guys Trump rolls out the red carpet for, btw) blew up the towers, things were ready to normalize - and then Bush says they are part of the axis of evil with Iraq (which Iranians had a war shortly before that) and North Korea.
Iraquís started chanting “death to America” after we murdered 1 million of their fellow citizens.
They hate us not only because they are religious freaks, but also because we fuck with their country non-stop. We just go around blowing shit up, or enforcing regime change (Iran-Contra?). It’s unsurprising lots of them hate our guts - I would too.
Ps. LATAM is the same, btw - we fucked with their governments non-stop, the only ones that like us are the rich fucks that want to use the military to further amass fortunes.
If they were serious they could have you know actually done something to the US all this time. Like closing this straight. Or at the very least extorting it.
Saying things and even spending to try to make it happen doesn't mean they were even close to being able to actually do it. Under Obama we had an agreement which had rigorous inspection details to prevent them developing nuclear weapons. Trump tore that all up in his first term.
They were violating the agreement. That is why it was torn up.
Why is the burden on us to disprove what they tell us they want to do and are taking actions to accomplish? When someone says they're trying to kill you and is actively working to make that happen, it is prudent to believe them.
As an aside: Iran is one of the youngest nations on earth. The government threatening is one thing. Most of the younger Iranians were sympathetic to the West. It was only a matter of time before the regime would be gone or at least soften. But when you bomb a country that generally tends to cause a rally-round-the flag effect (see Britain in WWII, for example). So we've probably blown our chance at rapprochement for quite a while. The regime can tell it's citizens "see, we warned you about America, the Great Satan! "
This talk of the "rally-round-the-flag" effect is uninformed speculation since very little is exiting the country. Would they also have rallied around the flag if these same actions were taken when the initial protests occurred? It's not at all clear that the Iranians would ever be able to throw off their tyrannical government without outside help.
There is no rapprochement with people whose goal is to kill you and who don't mind so much if they die while trying.
Well, there certainly isn't any chance if you assume that everyone in Iran wants to kill you. But when you realize that it's only a small minority of people who were saying this then you start to ask: what about the majority of the people who were either sympathetic to the West or even just apathetic? Their government saying "Death to America" is like Trump saying "We're going to bomb them back to the stone age!" - most of us don't agree with Trump and we don't want any part of "bombing them back to the stone age". Same in Iran: most Iranians didn't agree with "death to America". But when you give them reason to agree with that sentiment it makes it harder for anything to actually change.
> Their government saying "Death to America" is like Trump saying "We're going to bomb them back to the stone age!"
The only way these things are alike is not useful. It's true that they both said things. But everyone understands that, even though Trump is a reckless idiot, he is saying bellicose things during a military offensive; not that he plans to annihilate Iran with nuclear weapons.
The people in charge of Iran who are acquiring nuclear weapons actually intend to use them. Besides the nuclear weapons, the quantity of conventional weapons they are stockpiling is an existential threat to Israel.
I'm going to give the Iranians credit for understanding that the intention of the US is to mitigate the threat that its autocracy poses to other countries. But it doesn't really matter. They can't be allowed to develop nuclear weapons or pose an existential threat to Israel. Neither of those aims was going to be accomplished waiting for some sort of sea change effected by an unarmed citizenry oppressed by a ruthless regime.
Pakistan has nukes already. They hate Israel. They harbored bin laden. Somehow we don't care about any of that. They just got a slap on the wrist I guess. Iran gets the beating stick though.
Yes, puzzling. What might the difference be? Oh, Pakistan isn't devoted to "Death to America" and they're not actually firing rockets at Israel and killing Israelis.
Yes. So weird that the prime minister of a country would prefer to see the attacks against the country stopped. And that that aspiration would be shared by the country's ally.
I don’t trust that we landed on the moon because Neil Armstrong says we did, but because it is confirmed by innumerable other informed people and verifiable factors.
If there is anyone worth approaching with a double dose of skepticism is this Israeli Prime Minister in bed with religious extremists, who failed his primary mandate and is self-dealing with a consummated conman like Trump
Right someone saying they want to kill you and building an arsenal is not sufficient, the missiles have to be flying towards you, you have to let them pull the trigger before you can respond.
I don’t know why you’re being voted down for stating plain facts.
If you know someone in town that regularly threatens you and your friends with death[1] and you see them buying a gun, you do something about it before they also get the bullets.
Iran has been steadily decreasing their “breakout time” to levels that Israel and the US considered unacceptable. Timelines too short to police with diplomacy.
They forced the hand of the Western world, they and their supporters are crying crocodile tears.
“We were just innocently enriching near weapons grade Uranium in underground facilities hardened against attack and inspection! Calm down bro!”
[1] To stretch the analogy further: they regularly hand out knives to their cousins, all of whom have stabbed your friend in a dark alley once or twice, to the point that your friend has to wear body armor at all times.
The JCPOA kept Iran from developing nuclear weapons. It was only the abrogation of this agreement by Trump which led Iran to resume enrichment of uranium.
This is the dumbest, most pointless military conflict in American history. There is nothing plausible to win, but we can conceivably lose everything. A pyric victory is among the most favorable outcomes. We are led by corrupt imbeciles. I can only hope the outcome includes regime change for the U.S.
If the pilots are recovered we probably won't hear about it from either side for hours. Iran will want to get them a mile underground before they send out the B-rolls. If recovered by the US, they will want them out of theater before anyone knows better so they can't be targeted.
Let's hope Iran doesn't follow the "no quarter, no mercy" policy laid out by US Secretary of War Pete Hegseth. For the unfamiliar, it means executing survivors and surrendering combatants. Aka war crimes.
It's not just a character attack to point out that a glorified blog post pulled that number out of thin air.
It would be silly to ask someone to prove that a made up number is made up. How can I provide evidence for lack of evidence. A more reasonable starting point would be to bring up what evidence does exist for the 40k number and then evaluate that.
If you want to continue believing it, that's your prerogative. I don't have a dog in this fight. I'm just doing my part to counter misinformation from biased sources.
FWIW, the Human Rights Activists in Iran (Virginia-based NGO) puts the figure at 6,488
It is a character attack to call into question the validity of the source in general.
You did not provide evidence for your claim. You offered something else entirely. In the future it would be better to provide what is being requested instead of a distraction.
I don't have strong beliefs on this, I just wanted a conclusive source. You did not provide one.
You made the claim it's misinformation, support your claim (as you hold the burden of proof for your own claim given it's contrary to the status quo). You haven't tried that hard, you might as well give it a real shot.
>I doubt you even took the time to read the investigation done by The Guardian.
It did not address your claim at all.
>The onus of evidence is on the person that initially claimed the 40k number.
No, that is not how the burden of proof works. It is not in the context of all things said in all time. You said it was false in this conversation, you support that assertion.
>You have made zero attempt to support yours.
I don't have a claim.
You don't seem to understand the terms I'm using here so this is probably not productive to continue.
If someone makes a claim like "Mongolia just killed 562 students", we shouldn't be asking the person who points out that number is baseless to prove that it's baseless. We should ask the initial person to back up their claim.
You don't have to forget anything, just contextualize it. The United States already tried installing a puppet government in Iran and it went terribly. They were so unpopular that the CIA set up state-sponsored torture rings to quell dissent: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SAVAK
Going back to the old way foments instability that jeopardizes the Gulf States, with precisely zero upsides to anyone that isn't a net oil exporter (namely, the US and Russia). If this was about protecting against genocide then the US would be invading Sudan and Gaza, not Iran. The death toll has nothing to do with how American leadership sees this conflict, and it has been like that for over half of a century.
C-130s and helicopters flying low over Iran right after they shot down an F-15 in the same spot is wild. Whatever I think of the war idiocy, that's brave.
It's breaking news...meaning it may be inaccurate. CENTCOM certainly is saying it's false [0]. But there are enough signs of it being genuine, to be concerning at this stage.
Flying low over Iran at this point is planned, expensive "standoff" munitions were planned to give way to more accurate and less expensive munitions once air superiority was reached - which U.S. has been claiming has happened for a while now.
> An F-15 fighter jet pilot has been rescued alive by the U.S. military after their aircraft went down over Iran, a U.S. official said Friday.
> White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt said President Donald Trump had been briefed on the incident — the latest dramatic development in the war, now more than a month old.
The use of "a" instead of "the" pilot suggests more than 1 personnel on the plane, considering F15's carry 2 people (unless it's some magical F15 I haven't heard of), it means there's still 1 guy missing out there.
Or he (I assume) could also have been found dead, and is not being mentioned before his family is notified of the sacrifice Donald Trump made of his life.
I feel that the current war is by far the most closest to showing to people that this war is waged by the rich. Because they are the primary ones to benefit right now (if we ignore Netanyahu, but Netanyahu's war goals "make sense", e. g. this is done for expansion and/or control; Trump's involvement makes no real sense, except for benefitting some with insider trading and making other cronies rich).
Good. Americans need to pay a very severe price for the evil they have unleased on the world. Anything less, and this lunacy will happen again in the future.
If true I can’t imagine it will play well even among Trumps base. When was the last time a US fighter jet was shot down? 1999 during the intervention in the balkans?
Let’s see. Most people underestimate how strong Trump’s approval is with his base. Before you read further, ask yourself what Trump’s approval rating is with his base.
> Approval of Trump among Republicans has slipped to a second-term low of 84%, down from 92% last March. At the same time, an all-time high 16% of Republicans disapprove. This shift can be attributed, at least in part, to declining support among non-MAGA Republicans, as approval dropped 11 points in the last year among this group (70% in March 2025 to 59% today). Virtually all MAGA Republicans continue to approve of Trump, with 98% approving a year ago and 97% now.
Their poll is, and this is not the only poll I picked. CNN has multiple polls listed on its site, and this is the first I found which gives the party breakdown.
Honestly it seems like the only thing Trump's base cares about is the price of gasoline. They don't give a shit about what's actually happening in the war.
From the MAGA folks I know, they don't even care about the price of gasoline. That was when Biden was president. Now they have excuses. All they really seem to care about is whatever they're currently told to care about by the administration.
Trump has a loyal hardcore, but he is absolutely bleeding supporters around the edges. If you follow the US right many of them are pledging to vote democrat in the midterms as a protest.
I noticed a wave of that right as trump declared war (declared conflict, whatever), people going "I voted for no new wars," but I noticed on /r/conservative that the takes quickly gave way to sudden concern about Iran's nuclear capability as the propaganda mills got their fodder in order.
r/Conservative is, IMO, almost 100% guaranteed to be majority bots and the most hardcore admin apologists. They're a permanent safe space and often will delete even their own members' posts if they directly criticize the Leader.
Its only value is to see the desired responses from Fox News and the far-right media.
r/flairedusersonly needs mod permission to even post threads and they revoke that permission happily too. They are the party of free speech remember. Everything is "outside users" to them, everybody is a liberal in disguise.
Who moderates /r/conservative? Whenever I drop into old subreddits these days the whole place feels very astro-turfed. High chance that it's modded by zionists, they have a lot of money and a lot of different organisations that hire full time people to "fight disinformation".
There is only one reason for us to give a damn about Israel other than religious fervor, and it's their technology and intelligence apparatus. They only care about us because we give them a lot of money and weapons, and apparently will follow them into their Leeroy Jenkins war and do the heavy lifting.
They're committing a genocide and now are ethnically cleansing Lebanon of Muslims under the cover of the Iran War. Their government is not worthy of support.
That subreddit literally requires asking mods for permission to post threads and the flair that permits posting can and does often get revoked too. Its a "whitelist" subreddit so its astroturfed or filtered by definition.
Trump leads a personality cult not a traditional political base. There are some who have stopped supporting him because they thought he aligned with their political views but 35% or so of the US population still support him despite his 180 degree turn on two of his foundational election promises: to keep the US out of foreign wars and to bust open an international pedophile ring run for elites.
Via the NYT:
Mohammad Ghalibaf, the speaker of Iran’s Parliament and a key government figure overseeing the war, took to social media to mock the Trump administration as U.S. forces searched for a missing American airman from a downed fighter plane. “This brilliant no-strategy war they started has now been downgraded from ‘regime change’ to ‘Hey! Can anyone find our pilots? Please?’”he said in a post on X. “Wow. What incredible progress. Absolute geniuses.”
> A particular concern, they said, was threats made by the US to Iran’s energy infrastructure. “International law protects from attack objects indispensable to the survival of civilians, and the attacks threatened by Trump, if implemented, could entail war crimes.”
I am not going to lie, I am beyond disgusted at the United States.
And the "it's Trump" card doesn't work, Americans defend this travesty of an old non functioning constitution.
It was a pretty solid setup when everyone wanted it to succeed. We will get a few more safeties put in place via statute after this experience, of course, but what really needs to happen is meaningful improvements to the Constitution. We know enough now to spot plenty of weak points which could be addressed. When I'm feeling particularly spicy I think a Constitutional Convention would be seriously awesome. But then I think of the possible outcomes and I'm not so sure. Were the majority of the population acting in good faith, I'd feel better about it.
I thought I made it clear that I don't generally think that would be a good idea. I think it would be interesting, which I sometimes think might be worth the risk. Certainly discontent with the status quo is a broadly held sentiment not at all unique to the current right wing.
There is no easy way out of this mess. There has to be some faith in the overall good will of the people, but if Russia and other societies are any indicator in a modern world, it will take the US getting a lot shittier, with more people dying in protests, more people losing their careers and their homes, and the middle class in breadlines.
We need a different voting system, we need the structure of Congress gutted, and we need a far less powerful presidency.
The scale of American air dominance is best demonstrated by how much of a news this event is. In 1999 the scandal was that Serbs managed to shoot down a stealthy plane with then-30 year old Soviet SAM. Now being able to shoot down a nonstealthy one having most modern Russian SAMs in existence is news worthy of being on every screen for 24 hours and collecting 1000+ comments on HN.
Warplanes are disposable. They are built to be shot down. If they aren't, they are not being used intensely enough or are just wrong tools for the job - a warplane that flies a mission and always comes back is like a test that never fails.
If you believe, like I do, that there are a lot of parallels between the US of today and the Rome of yesteryear, you might find the answer by reading Tacitus.
It turns out, long after Rome had become an Empire and was only a Republic in name only, most Senators still thought of it as a Republic and that this extraordinary state of affairs with the Senate just being a glorified rubber stamp body would soon come to an end and that, they will very soon restore the Senate to its former rightful place, just as soon as this current very limited crises was over.
As it turns out, they were never able to do that again.
It’s so interesting to me that nearly all of the Founding Fathers had read Tacitus and were keenly aware of this and explicitly tried to design a system to prevent that from happening. To their credit, their system lasted a good while.
> To their credit, their system lasted a good while.
If we accept your thesis that the US republic is over, it only lasted around half as long as the Roman republic you are saying the "Founding Fathers" were trying to improve upon.
Plot twist: The Dem leadership (Schumer, Jeffries, et al) also supports this.
That's why their main complaints have been procedural: "Why didn't you come to us first with your plans?". And why they slow-walked the vote on a war powers act.
The dems have no power against a unified GOP front, and they already look pretty weak on issues like this. They are trying to figure out how they can mollify their base while attracting enough centrist voters to retake Congress later this year. I don't care for the dem leadership but I feel a little sympathy for them. Catering to their loudest supporters is a pretty big reason they are the minority party right now.
Where trumps Republican Party have spent the last 10 years not catering from their loudest supporters?
Either the majority of Americans want this war, in which case the Dems have to be quiet, or they don’t, in which case the dems should be making it the number one issue.
Sadly I suspect the answer is not in the side of the Hollywood version of post ww2 America.
Now is the time to insert the “are we the bad guys” meme.
> Catering to their loudest supporters is a pretty big reason they are the minority party right now.
By "loudest supporters" - are you referring to the donor class? Money is speech, after all.
The Democratic party has an identity crisis: it's failing to balance special interests and their traditional constituents - post-Goldwater/ southern-strategy. Instead of activating their base, they seem to be courting the political center that has been hollowed out by Maga and polarization, incidentally matching the desires of their donors who abhor any kind of populist leftist politics, including anything in instituted by FDR.
> By "loudest supporters" - are you referring to the donor class?
No, I don't believe so. I'm talking about the people who convinced them that culture wars were the right way to do battle with a conservative opponent despite that being automatically an uphill battle. The dem leadership focused on issues that polled well with a small group of loud people on a crusade, and largely ignored bread & butter issues that resonate with people less politically inclined. But centrist votes are counted just the same as partisan ones, and more plentiful.
> The dem leadership focused on issues that polled well with a small group of loud people on a crusade
Which dem leadership? The only crusade I remember was Kamala Harris going on a national tour with Liz Cheney and brightly signaling her rightward shift. Somehow, "Republicans for Kamala" failed to save her campaign in the swing-states.
The donor class are the ones who want culture wars, because their continued donations are contingent on the party ignoring the economic woes of the working class. What can the Democratic party stand for if it doesn't protect workers and unions? Identity politics.
> people who convinced them that culture wars were the right way to do battle
Who are they exactly?
> The dem leadership focused on issues that polled well with a small group of loud people on a crusade, and largely ignored bread & butter issues that resonate with people less politically inclined
Which issues, specifically?
> centrist votes
You think there’s some huge swath people who’d vote Dem if it wasn’t for their pesky (and incredibly mild) protective stance towards trans people, for example?
Honestly curious which sources do you get your political news from mainly?
> The dems have no power against a unified GOP front
They absolutely do. The war powers act is “bi partisan” And they can protest the war strongly on moral and budgetary grounds for starters. The war is incredibly unpopular with the Dem base and even independents. Opposing it is a layup. (But, like I said, the truth is Dem leadership wants the war)
> and they already look pretty weak on issues like this.
Fighting (whether winning or losing) shows strength not weakness and is what voters react to. Standing down is exactly NOT what they should do. C’mon, man!
> They are trying to figure out how they can mollify their base while attracting enough centrist voters to retake Congress later this year
Like I said the war is UNPOPULAR so OPPOSE it. Winning stat.
> year. I don't care for the dem leadership but I feel a little sympathy for them
NO! They’re “blundering” when they don’t have to. (But see points about Schumer wanting the war)
> Catering to their loudest supporters is a pretty big reason they are the minority party right now.
Also a backwards take. They’re a minority party because they’d rather lose and maintain power than oppose the capitalists who own them.
I'm pretty sure that before they made it a central topic, most Americans didn't care about transgenderism, which after all affects a very tiny population. Especially compared to other issues, such as paid maternal leave, for instance.
I assume you are aware that "they" are the Republicans? The Harris campaign avoided talking about it whenever possible, while Republican groups spent $200 million on anti-trans ads.
Why restrict it to the Harris' campaign? Democrats made it an important issue during Biden's administration, and even nominated a transgender secretary of health.
Yes and they celebrated him as the "first female four-star officer of the USPHSCC" despite the fact that he is male. As if this is somehow an achievement for women.
On this subject, they won't, because they mostly want this war too. Most members of both parties have taken AIPAC money. Most of them are also glad somebody is finally attacking Iran, especially without them having to sign their name on a use of force authorization or declaration of war.
Approximately never. We are in a situation where Congress is unusually beholden to their constituents for once, because those people care deeply about Donald Trump. So this is what they want; not just the war, but everything -- they want all the power to rest with Trump.
> The war has record low approval ratings, even among Trump's base.
The war does, Trump does not. He maintains very strong support among the base, and that is the part keeping the GOP politicians in line. It is why some of them just resign instead of enduring the threats from his supporters.
If everyone is somewhat implicated in Epstein files, then everyone is afraid of Putin / Netanyahu who might pull up the files. It's funny how they are so scared to face justice, but also interesting how American law enforcement became so corrupt.
There's a very strange problem with this whole thing where, of course, whatever these powerful people have done behind closed doors that is illegal and exploitative and harmful is terrible and they should be put to justice.
However, if the direction of the country is being seriously altered via blackmail, IMO that is many orders of magnitude worse than anything they could have done. Like we are currently bombing yet another middle eastern country for no clear reason.
I would personally be open to some kind of Epstein jubilee where we absolve everyone involved in order to nullify the blackmail.
Like it's not great, it's terrible for the victims and for justice, but at the moment we are getting terrible from both ends, could we at least reduce it to one end?
If their actions have made this level of blackmail possible, then said actions are the worse thing because that's what made this scale of blackmail possible.
Their actions are the foundation for everything that came after.
We always talk about what these powerful people "have done", as if it's all over. Surely Epstein's death did not bring about the end of billionaire sex trafficking? Someone stepped in. These guys are still raping people on private planes and private islands
But why are we focusing on the raping, and not on what the American government is doing that has no clear rational motive without “Israel has captured the government” and a very clear rational motive with “Israel has captured the government”?
If the American government continues to perform actions that are blatantly against the interests of America and Americans, the impact of that on Americans is going to be (and may be already) massively massively worse than the person to person level crimes we are focusing on.
Does it just feel so bad thinking about it that a lot of people have a hard time even going there mentally? I really don’t get it.
I can't shake the feeling that Trump's continual needling of Europe is intended the destroy NATO. And this is a desire of Putin's.
I know it's conspiratorial, and I hate that, but it's one of the only things that makes any of the actions of the US in the last year make any semblance of sense.
I don't like to think that, but it remains, for me, a valid scenario.
I'm an American and a patriot and the way I want to see this end is with Pete Hegseth and others from this nightmare administration delivered to the Hague, in chains.
I'll probably get downvoted for this but whatever. I was in 9th grade and the 2003 invasion of Iraq was just getting underway. We had a substitute teacher in my chemistry class and he was telling stories about being a pilot during the first war. This other kid in the class kept asking questions and pretending like he was really interested in this guy's stories. This dude is bragging like he was a big shot pilot and whatever. And then my classmate asked the teacher how many people he murdered and how many of them were kids our age. This dude got pissed and started arguing and justifying the shit, but then just shut up about it for the rest of the time he was subbing. It was great. It's always good to remember that war crimes don't happen if the people choose not to carry them out. The people in charge are responsible too, but the ordinary military members who follow those orders are disgusting.
So anyway, I hope this pilot is having a bad time. He made a poor series of decisions and now is dealing with the consequences.
As a matter of facts there are frequent massive gatherings in the streets of Iran's, against the U.S. and the U.S military has been bombing those protests. It doesn't make the news of course, as it would be admitting the exact opposite of a regime change is taking place in Iran.
The current US administration would up the choppers-ante, and warthog the anti-current no king [trump] protesters.
The Iranians would probably provide tea, biscuits and free medical.
It's pretty normal for planes to go down in a war. They've flown 5000+ sorties, it's a pretty huge accomplishment this is the first one lost over Iran. Especially considering all of the last decade's speculation about how tough attacking Iran would be.
You'll never be able to fully suppress all of their manpads. Even if you destroy the bulk of their air defence network.
2-3 a week is not great for the greatest military, more than half attributable to Iran.
With 300+ US casualties, that's ~10/day, a fatality every ~2 days. No boots on the ground (that we know of, sure there are some elite ops in the country)
You must not have read about all the hype Iran had before the war and before 2024 especially. The US airforce/navy has performed extremely well. In Desert Storm they lost far, far more aircraft and that only lasted 1.5 months (Iran is 1 month in). Even the ballistic missile strikes against Israel haven't been exceptionally notable, considering Iran is going full-bore and has thousands of ballistic/cruise missiles and drones. They should be able to do much more to regional military bases.
The main issues with this war are strategic questions and people mocking the presidents inconsistent communication. But otherwise for an air campaign this has been about as good as one could expect - within the limits of what an air-only campaign can do.
Iran's regime is an radical Islamic theocracy that has "Death to America" as a matter of policy, supports every other radical Islamist militia in the entire Middle East region, and tried to build nukes after being told, repeatedly, not to build nukes.
I don't know about you, but the idea of a radical Islamic theocracy and a well known source of Middle East instability having nukes doesn't sit well with me. As far as reasons to invade countries go, this alone would make for a damn good one.
If a button existed that magically turned Iran into a secular-ish democracy(-ish) like Turkey then, yes, I would expect the President of the United States to press it.
No such button exists, and it's increasingly clear that this war will leave the entire world far worse off while further entrenching the current Iranian regime.
"Far worse off" how exactly? "Entrenching" how exactly?
Iranian regime wasn't doing that well even when it wasn't actively bombed. And "rally around the flag" only goes so far in a country that has been killing protestors by the thousands.
I don't see this war ruining Iran's regime overnight as is. But if it comes up with a sustained effort to pressure Iran, or a ground operation to topple the regime directly, it well might.
> "Far worse off" how exactly? "Entrenching" how exactly?
Hardliners and the IRGC have significantly more power than before, and however few moderates that remain have much less political capital and are at much greater risk of being purged.
If Iran doesn't win significant concessions tayt the sucker-punch attacks will never be repeated again[1], they are guaranteed to sprint towards the minimum viable nuke.
1. Bibi will refuse, obviously, and Americas capacity to leash him is questionable.
"Moderates" in Iran were consecutively dismantled and purged for decades. A country that has moderates providing a meaningful counterbalance to hardliners doesn't kill protestors by thousands.
Pre-war, the situation was bad enough that dropping bombs on Iran's key decision-makers might have actually made the government more moderate on average. Not that it matters much. "More moderate" in context of Iran's government isn't anywhere near "moderate" either way.
Here's an idea I heard put forth because Iran is asking for a great power guarantee against future incidents like this.
Have China the guarantor, build military bases, and put them under their nuclear deterrence umbrella. Iran can be assured they won't be bombed, the West can be assured they won't have nukes. (in theory, I largely assume the CCP will not aid in their construction or let them have nukes under such an arrangement).
Thing is, all the little countries are looking at what happened to Ukraine (who gave up their nukes), Iran (who has not gotten them yet), and North Korea (who has them). Their looking and thinking, if I had nukes, I probably wouldn't be the target of regime change.
Why would China agree to that? It's an insane proposition for them. "You have to put bases in a country where you have no strategic reason to do so, and in addition, you agree that if that country is attacked then you have to nuke the US, guaranteeing your own destruction."
So Iran would sell its main natural resource at half-price forever to pay for China to keep bases on its territory? That also doesn’t seem plausible.
Realistically there is no amount that Iran would be willing to pay and that China would be willing to accept for China to essentially agree to be responsible for the defense of Iran. It’s a non-starter.
They want a base in the Middle East and they have many reasons to be there, oil being one of them, they actually get it from there. As Trump says (today), the US does not have any need for their oil, so in that sense China has more reason to be there.
Mutually Assured Destruction has worked for 75 years, China is aggressively expanding their stockpiles. Would the US or Israel risk a war with China over Iran if they get the assurances from the Chinese they will keep Iran on a tight leash?
> Why would China agree to that?
Ultimately the aim to displace the US as the world hegemon. Having bases across the world is what hegemons do.
the big difference with Iran is the strait of hormuz. It doesn't matter how "well" it goes if it stays closed and torpedos the global economy
> inconsistent communication
I feel like "inconsistent communication" is putting it lightly, with trump going back and forth between "we won", "we'll take the oil", and "whatever we'll leave" often within the same day.
Does it matter? US is a net oil exporter, and not exactly starved for Gulf oil. And every day the strait stays closed is a day other Gulf states have a very pressing reason to conflict with Iran. As if Iran didn't give enough of those to the entire region.
Iran isn't somehow able to exert infinite economic pressure forever. They can play the chaos monkey, but how much does it helps them? Threats only work on those who cave in to them.
It does matter because oil is a global commodity, the fact that the US is a net exporter doesn't stop the prices from going up and other follow-on impacts to the global economy.
It means that US isn't hit the hardest. There's no "we have to end the war this month or our country grinds down to a halt". Just the slow grind of economic pressure that, I remind, affects more countries than just the US - and many of them far stronger.
US leadership can just say "this isn't enough to deter us" and proceed with the rest of the war however they want.
The Iranian regime is betting that they can outlast Donald Trump on this front. Trump's War is very unpopular and they don't care what the Iranian people think or suffer through.
Holy shit, thats really saying the quiet part loud.
“Does it matter?”
Yes, Who cares about the rest of the world?
Nations shutting down, businesses shutting down, and all because the elected leader of America got involved in a war to avoid accusations of pedophilia.
And lest we forget, this is the nuclear superpower. Thank god there is no conspiracy theory about Nukes being useful so far. I have more faith that the administration will bend towards conspiracies than away from them.
> They should be able to do much more to regional military bases.
I don't see why they couldn't. The obvious strategy for Iran right now is to use cluster munitions and Shahed waves to expend as many interceptors as possible before sending in the high-throw unitary (or nuclear) warheads. It makes sense that we saw the smaller MRBMs first since they're the cheapest minimum-viable threat.
> this has been about as good as one could expect - within the limits of what an air-only campaign can do.
We're deep in the missile age. Air campaigns like this sucked during the Scud hunt, and it triple-sucks now that America has to contend with drone warfare. The limits of an air-only campaign have been constricting for the past three decades, and the death toll can only climb if the air war fails.
I wouldn't draw comparisons to Desert Storm, 36 years ago and a differently composed US military, along with all the ISR advancements since then.
> They should be able to do much more to regional military bases.
Could, they are not going all out, but they do keep striking gulf states on the regular
> people mocking the presidents inconsistent communication.
Asking questions, we the people deserve some clarity instead of half a dozen changing reasons and being told we already won, but still need to win, and that we'll be done in a few weeks a few times now. We the people have to pay for this, we deserve answers, especially what's the plan for when the shooting stops?
Israel, or at least Bibi, seems to be the only one who is very clear about the goals and intentions.
US military is performing quite well. US political leadership is the questionable part of this war.
It would sure be nice if White House gave a reason to believe that there's an actual plan for dismantling Iran's regime, or Iran's influence, that goes beyond "wing it".
The only ones I'm seeing act like there should be no expectation of losing aircraft in a war are social media figures who always want to bloviate about something.
dang moved the comment from those threads to here, so the discussion is empty. I'm not sure if the press coverage has more info. (My guess is that they are quite similar.)
Yep, fair, this one probably just on front page at present. At the time of commenting, one of those two links was flagged, and this one was also freshly flagged, so the Earlier one was still active and available is all. Things change.
Read the section titled 'The Gamble' if you want that opinion, but the tl;dr is that our 2025 strike against Iran ceded our ability to claim dis-involvement in Israeli strikes, and so Israel was able to draw us into this war whether we wanted to or not.
> The American people voted for this, they wanted this.
Less than half of the people who bothered to vote actually picked the guy.
I even believe that a non-trivial number of those folks actually believed their own rhetoric about America first, no wars, etc. But their commitment to one man is stronger than their commitment to ideals, and so here we are.
While criticism of Israel should not be conflated with antisemitism, the concept of a "Zionist Occupation Government," without question, originates from neo-nazi conspiracy theories. Take that shit elsewhere.
At this point Israelis (and the bulk of Israel-backing jews around the world) only have themselves to blame for the resurgence of neo-nazi conspiracy theories.
>antisemitic conspiracy theory that claims that Jews secretly control the U.S. government.
Anyway, this just seems to be fact, and not a conspiracy theory? Besides for the "secretly" part.
I think at this point it's entirely fair to hate the state of Israel and anyone who supports it existence. Not because of blood libels, but over a century of Zionist aggression.
There's no need for just about anyone to live in Israel, it's a choice. It's okay to hate people for the choices they make.
>A bigot is a person who is obstinately, unreasonably, or unfairly attached to their own beliefs, prejudices, or opinions, particularly regarding race, religion, or politics
It's not in any way unfair to despise people who still support Israel after nearly a century of crimes against humanity.
That'd be a fair criticism if I subscribed to some traditional antisemitic views, but I don't really have any inherent problem with the jewish people. I just want the destruction of the state of Israel and any who would support it, it's purely coincidental that this includes most jewish people.
“i just want the destruction of a 9 millon people country (btw including the 2 million arabs? what about druze, samaritans, circasians?)” hate consumes you, you totally are a bigot
Totally, it’s their home. Israeli Arabs also have way higher standard of life than all of other Arab countries – including LGBT rights, passport strength etc. etc.
Destruction of Israel is not about "legal structure", and btw we’ll prevail and people like you are the reason Israel needs to exist. We saw what happens when jews don’t have a national home.
Right, including all the women and the LGBT people. Penalties include severe punishments such as the death penalty, floggings, imprisonment, and fines.
And Israel keeps millions of Palestinians in large concentration camps.
It's hard to imagine what sort of sick mind would consider the Saudi treatment of minorities to be worse. It's abhorrent, but it doesn't come anywhere close to how Israel treats people.
Besides, the whole concept of "Israeli arabs" is a bit hilarious. How are those different from other Palestinian arabs? Is it just that Israeli state considers them more acceptable than other arabs based on some arbitrary standards not grounded on physical reality?
They are different from other palestinian arabs in that they hold israeli citizenship. Not sure how this can be hilarious.
Why don’t you say billions of palestinians in concentration camps? The type of concentration camps with hundred thousand euro luxury cars https://www.facebook.com/LUXURYAUTOMOBILECO/ and corrupt politicians living in mansions. You have no idea what you’re talking about, you never been to Palestine or Israel and you drown in your hateful lies
Something arbitrarily bestowed upon them by recent European invaders that secretly built nuclear weapons to secure their claim to stolen land.
>Why don’t you say billions of palestinians in concentration camps? The type of concentration camps with hundred thousand euro luxury cars https://www.facebook.com/LUXURYAUTOMOBILECO/ and corrupt politicians living in mansions. You have no idea what you’re talking about, you never been to Palestine or Israel and you drown in your hateful lies
I've visited my family in Israel on several occasions in the past. I don't do that anymore though.
Palestinians are prisoners, they have to ask Israel for permission to leave. They are kept in large camps, even if some drive Maybachs.
im sure you are lying and shame on you comparing people driving
maybachs to concentration camps in which millions of jews perished. people from west bank can travel via jordan no problem and so could gazans through egypt. lies and hate as in all the rest of the comments
do you hate Russians? do you hate Syrians/Alawites? Do you hate Turks and Iraqis for what they do to Kurds? Do you hate Japanese for what they did in WWII? Do you hate Americans for Vietnam / Afganistan / Iraq? Do you hate Chinese for Tibet, Xinjiang? Do you hate the British for Bengal Famine? France for Algeria? Pakistan for Bangladesh? Saudis for Yemen? Myanmar for Rohinja? Serbs for Kosovo?
No. You hate on Jews.
All of these conflicts have significantly more deaths than Arab/Israeli conflict. All of them are much more clear cut than Israel that defends itself since 1948 and Jews that defend themselves from hate crimes against civilians since 1920s.
Everyone should hate Israel. It's a terrorist state built on ethnic cleansing and genocide. It's executed so many crimes against humanity since its inception that it's impossible to track them all."The jews" aren't a nation, there's a nation that claims to represent all jews and it's up to the jews (and only the jews) to push back on that.
I will repeat this question - do you hate Russians? do you hate Syrians/Alawites? Do you hate Turks and Iraqis for what they do to Kurds? Do you hate Japanese for what they did in WWII? Do you hate Americans for Vietnam / Afganistan / Iraq? Do you hate Chinese for Tibet, Xinjiang? Do you hate the British for Bengal Famine? France for Algeria? Pakistan for Bangladesh? Saudis for Yemen? Myanmar for Rohinja? Serbs for Kosovo?
No. You hate on Jews.
All of these conflicts have significantly more deaths than Arab/Israeli conflict. All of them are much more clear cut than Israel that defends itself since 1948 and Jews that defend themselves from hate crimes against civilians since 1920s.
Israel is actively a bad actor, many of the ones you listed are not.
>All of them are much more clear cut than Israel that defends itself since 1948
It's dishonest to suggest that Israel was in any way defending itself in 1948, given that it's very creation was an act of aggression.
Despite a plenty of opportunities, Israel has never taken a step back to reset that. Because of that, Israel remains the aggressor.
Yitzhak Rabin perhaps tried and was rewarded with two bullets for his efforts. The Jewish supremacist who killed him is widely celebrated as a hero in Israel.
Oh, and when Rabin was killed it was the fourth assassination attempt by jewish supremacists that year. Now those same people run the country.
I disengage, no need to argue with psychopaths. I am sure you never held a gun or would shoot anyone, keyboard warrior.
If anyone reads his comments I strongly recommend verifying everything he says as it îs factually incorrect, but is based on russian style firehose of falsehood mixing in couple of sensible statements (like the fact that Rabin was killed by an extremist).
Iran had one of the largest and most extensive integrated air defense networks in the world. US has been bombing Iran from day 0 of this war. Those are the air losses they took.
Being able to counter air defenses to this degree and operate with this level of impunity is a major SEAD/DEAD win.
Given that 8 hours after your comment mainstream news sites are still reporting on ongoing SAR ops for the 2nd F-15 crewmember, it's likely those stories were false or confounded recovery of an A-10 pilot (also downed, separate incident) today.
When the first-tier hostile leadership structure was eliminated in the first day of the war, and only after a month do the surviving enemies finally manage to damage a plane so severely that it can't return to a friendly base to land, is "quite useless" an adequate and accurate description of the technology used to prosecute that war?
It's useful in saving the pilot's life. With less advanced tecnologies, more pilots would have been shoot down. It's useful in targeted attacks, but they have proved themself uneffective (at least for now) as the new leadership is alined with the objective of the replaced one. It's close to useless when it comes to making the war cost-effective, which start being a relevant metric when the conflict start lasting too long. Of course the US has a bigger economy, so all the news about cheaper systems damaging or destroying quite expensive ones may still lead to a US victory, but a costly one for sure
When you decapitate a well organised military, all you achieve is installing a new enemy you know little about you can’t predict their actions and that now know they are fighting for their own survival.
Whether you have specific leadership or not doesn't matter much to (a) having to adapt to the enemy and learn what works, and (b) probability just doing its thing, more chances and so on, and (c) US leadership descending the oceans of stupidity all the way to the Mariana trench.
It reminds me of a Age of Empires campaign I played at a LAN from a long while back, where the game went on for 20 hours and ended in a stalemate between an atomic age player and a very primitive age player. The atomic player had total control of the map, they were carpet bombing the entire thing with nuclear weapons. But they could only create them so fast while the primitive player was running around on horses, just surviving enough to prevent the other player from winning. The only reason the game ended was because I tripped over the power cord to one of the computers.
Weapons are designed with an opponent in mind, and guarded against the expected threat models from that opponent. Everything breaks down when the opponent does not what you want them to.
It's only "high tech" to the aforementioned cavemen. To everyone else it's a 707 you can't even get spare tires for any more, equipped with some truly obsolete technology aboard. I mean it has a mechanical waveguide for crying out loud.
I don't even know why I clicked on this thread. It's like reading a thread on economics or other topics where we tech folk think our success at pushing around bits makes us instant expert on anything we ponder.
Most of the responses here are either demonstrating a heavy bias, an utter lack of background knowledge or both.
US jets are massively more expensive and supposed to represent the state of the art. While the models used by Iran are considered to be museum pieces by any country that can afford more modern ones.
Much more relevant to the current conflict is that it invalidates the claim that Iran's air defense capabilities are gone.
The United States will never understand that while they are a technologically advanced army, they will consistently get smoked by countries with a far more rudimentary arsenal. It's been happening in every war since Vietnam.
The US could probably steamroll Russia in a week, because both countries will try to deploy the latest tech they have, and the US blows Russia out of the water. But in Iran, Iraq, Afghanistan, Somalia ... etc, their stealth jets and raptors stand no chance with weapons so old that those new systems didn't even account for.
US is not a technologically advanced army just the most expensive one. Centralized systems are not technologically advanced systems. Iran's distributed architecture makes it technically advanced than US not to mention hypersonics which is a technology US doesn't have.
The 'superior' distributed architecture you hyped failed to capture even one of the two individuals in their territory, and failed to a non-distributed centralized world spanning synchronized architecture. I was simply pointing out your superior model failed. The model you hyped has no military benefit, it only serves to act as 'terror cells'. In this case lobing missiles at civilian shipping/civilian infrastructure in neighboring countries.
The important information was the US was able to rescue their people, loss of equipment doesn't matter. When we removed Bin Laden we lost an helicopter. Equipment loses that don't degrade our capabilities don't matter to the US.
There were ZERO American casualties in an operation in Iran, where the USA basically setup their own airfield, and Iranian forces tried to engage.
Idiots watch Iron Man come flying and think US can steamroll Russia.
Iran alone is beating the shit out of US. Thinking it can steamroll Russia is not even funny. Some serious epidemic of Hollywood syndrome permeates the US.
During the entire gulf war (Iraq, 1990-91), only two F-15s were shot down via surface-to-air engagement. At the time, Baghdad was known to have the highest density of SAM protection out of any city in the world.
An F-15 being shot down in Iran after weeks of strategic bombing of their anti-air defense systems is not a good sign.
New reporting that an A-10 ~was also shot down~ has also gone down (unconfirmed if it was shot down)
https://www.nytimes.com/live/2026/04/03/world/iran-war-trump...
> A second Air Force combat plane crashed in the Persian Gulf region on Friday, and the lone pilot was safely rescued, according to two U.S. officials who spoke on condition of anonymity to discuss operational matters. The A-10 Warthog attack plane went down near the Strait of Hormuz about the same time that an Air Force F-15E was shot down over Iran, the officials said. In that incident, one crew member was rescued and search-and-rescue operators are looking for the second airman. Officials provided scant details about the A-10 crash, including how and where it happened.
there's some additional osint rumor mill that a blackhawk helicopter involved in rescue operations was also shot down but claims that crew been recovered
On top of these cases there is all of the aircraft that has been destroyed while grounded. The high tech AWACS getting blown up was a big hit, among others. The losses are likely much worse than we know since the military has been trying to keep a lid on most of them.
Not to mention the multiple THAAD radars taken offline. Those are $500M assets - and only 8 exist in the world. 24,000 precise transceivers all liquid cooled… not available on Amazon for next day deliver either.
a single AN/FPS-132 radar costs $1.1 bln, not $500m. And Iran stuck 17 of the CENCCOM sites hosting radars of all kinds across Qarar, Bahrain, Iraq, UAE, Saudi, Jordan, Israel, etc).
Total cost is so much bigger, it is staggering. The whole CENTCOM is blind basically, as well as Iron Dome which relied on these radars - all blind now, in addition to long-range early nuke detection to protect CONUS is also blind.
in addition to cost, they all require Rare Earth Minerals, and China has banned the export of these (they own like 99% of the market).
So not only CENTCOM is blind and incurred damage in high single digit billions, but also will be unable to repair the damage any time soon (probably for decades) even if the funding were made to be available
Government obviously pretty silent on all these failures and media doesn't want to dig and ask hard questions
Sources: https://www.nytimes.com/2026/03/03/world/middleeast/iran-str...
https://responsiblestatecraft.org/iran-radars-airstrikes/
>So not only CENTCOM is blind and incurred damage in high single digit billions, but also will be unable to repair the damage any time soon (probably for decades) even if the funding were made to be available
not just what i quoted, but your source does not say any of what you are saying.
your source says: Satellite images show damage near vital equipment on sites in at least five countries https://archive.ph/QHNXW
> Iron Dome relied on these radars — all blind now.
Iron Dome’s primary fire-control radar is the Israeli EL/M-2084 Multi-Mission Radar, not the USA’s AN/FPS-132
GCC radars are needed for early warning, not only fire control.
the evidence is Alert system may not even work for missiles, or give very short warning (seconds to 1 minute instead of the usual 10 minutes)
https://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/israel-security/2026-03-...
If we are speaking of interception/penetration, these are also solved by Iran using several strategies that Israel/CENTCOM did not expect:
Sources: https://en.defence-ua.com/news/russia_likely_modified_irania...https://www.csis.org/analysis/unpacking-irans-drone-campaign...
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2026/mar/23/iran-cluster-b...
Both you and the Guardian are confused (or perhaps the Guardian is just trying to ride the popular understanding of the "Iron Dome" as a super catch all missile defense system vs reality). The Iron Dome has nothing to do with shooting down ballistic missiles. The Iron Dome isn't designed to target ballistic missiles: it targets short-range rockets and artillery like the ones fired by Hamas and Hezbollah, and has been modified to also target slow-moving drones (although the Iron Beam is intended to be the main drone defense system in the future). The Iranian missiles are targeted by different systems: David's Sling and the Arrow 2 and 3.
The Iron Dome does not depend on the American radar system in Qatar that Iran hit. It would be crazy for it to do so when it only targets short range attacks. If someone is telling you that the "Iron Dome is blind" because an American radar in Qatar got hit by a missile, you should probably update the amount you trust that source negatively, since not only is that not true, but it doesn't even pass the sniff test to anyone who knows what the Iron Dome is.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iron_Dome
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David%27s_Sling
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arrow_3
> The Iron Dome has nothing to do with shooting down ballistic missiles
This is not true, Tamir interceptors have been upgraded to target ballistic missiles. It is extremely visible when this happens, as the interceptors fly a very different path than usually.
you are arguing semantics, both me and Guardian using the term "iron dome" as a collective of all air defense systems in Israel (not that one system built to counter cheap rockets), because all these systems are integrated into one military network, including the GCC/CENTCOM radars that were destroyed.
if you replace "iron dome" with "air defense network" everything else would still be true
The problem is you do not understand how these systems work and are making claims that don't pass the sniff test to anyone who does know how these work. For example, you claim multiple times that Shahed drones have somehow exacerbated these Iron Dome missile interceptor issues, and now claim you're not talking about the literal Iron Dome — you're talking about who knows what (you don't specify any actual, concrete system and instead use a metaphorical understanding from the popular press). The problem is: actually, the literal, real Iron Dome does target Shaheds! So if it's the radar system that was the problem and caused the metaphorical Iron Dome to be "blind" — why did drones matter, if those are targeted by the literal Iron Dome that doesn't use that radar? Are you meaning to talk about David's Sling, which targets missiles and drones? But David's Sling is a medium range system that doesn't use the American radar in Qatar either! Arrow 3? Guess what — it has nothing to do with Shaheds, and has nothing to do with the American radar system either — it uses an IAI radar system.
The Iranian hit on the American radar in Qatar hasn't left the "Iron Dome" blind, figuratively or literally, and your proposed mechanisms of actions don't make sense.
you have constructed a strawman argument and are arguing with it, mostly semantics and splitting hairs.
Perhaps a problem here is that we are mixing up two theatres: Israel and GCC.
Iron dome exists in Israel, but the radars and air defense network was degraded in GCC, it is these patriots there that are having interceptor issues and shahed drone issues.
Israel is not being bombed by shaheds, it is being bombed by ballistic missiles that they are having problems intercepting and alerting population in advance.
you can check with the sourc elinks I provided that confirm that the radars in GCC were part of the early warning system for israel, and hitting radars in Qatar has impacted directly AD network in israel (reduced alert time significantly)
None of your links support that claim or even try to make it. The Haaretz article is complaining about a day of unusually short missile notifications on March 7, a week later than the Iranian strike on the radar (and now a month-old claim, which lasted only a day — if that was due to the radar, why did it not start the day the radar was actually hit, and why did it only last a day when the radar remains ruined today?). One of your articles is about drones, which has nothing to do with the radar system, and you are now backpedaling all of your drone-related claims for Israeli air defense despite making many drone claims earlier (why is that?). The other is the Guardian article that doesn't make that claim, and one is about the American Patriot missile defense system, not Israeli ones.
Recent reporting has indicated that contrary to your claim that the American radar system getting hit has left the Iron Dome "blind," Israeli missile detection has actually improved over the course of the war:
https://www.i24news.tv/en/news/israel/society/artc-israel-up...
https://www.nbcrightnow.com/national/israel-using-ai-to-fine...
Which makes sense, because:
1. Israeli air defense was not dependent on that American radar system (unlike what you keep claiming).
2. Israel has had many more data points on Iranian missile launches since the war started.
> israel using ai to fine-tune alerts
ohh, they use AI... this sounds like a YC startup pitch, I bet they also use AI agents and Claude Code to improve air defense...
then why all these radars were even needed in the first place? why did US taxpayers spent billions procuring installing and maintaining these radars, if simpel fine-tuning with Claude Code would work just as well ??
Well, I see you've graduated from wishcasting the Iron Dome being "blinded" by a radar it doesn't use to being confused that shooting down missiles involves AI.
Depending on what you call AI, AI has been used for targeting for awhile. It's just usually called 'automated control' or something. This is more a re-categorizing of targeting algorithsm, and calling it AI.
not sure you are aware that you pass for the ignorant who's stuck in denial of reality.
you are arguing against official annoucements from the IDF explaning why the civilian alert system now only gives short notice and will do so from now on, and you argue on the basis of fallacious rhetoric.
"I am morally correct therefore I need not be factually correct".
Stop doing this: it completely undermines the political argument because it makes it clear you are as uninterested in reality as the current administration.
It's rich to declare "they're lying" while happily being disinterested in the truth or clear communication.
Iron Dome is a specific interceptor system, and you can trivially look up what it is on Wikipedia.
Iron Dome being unable to intercept ballistic missiles is factually incorrect as of at least March 2026.
Iron Dome is still not a catch-all term for the entire Israeli defense system, and all the other claims the poster has made are not supported by their links or evidence.
As noted: Iron Dome intercepting ballistic missiles is an apparent new capability which it was not expected to be capable of: so it's kind of weird to turn up and say "Iron Dome can't intercept ballistic missiles anymore!" when no one except whoever developed the upgrades would've expected it to do that, and Israel has a number of other still unrelated to THAAD ballistic missile interceptor systems.
Bro just throw out your privileges or pick some solid ground instead of dragging us all into the mud.
>Israel/CENTCOM did not expect
that after 4 years of Ukraine war where those tactics have been widely used, in some cases by both sides, and where Russia has even been using the same Iranian drones
Well, October 7 clearly was unexpected too, so these guys unexpect a lot
There is considerable evidence that it was not unexpected.
I believe that was the point being made.
It might be more of a selective listening issue
I've read that NATO radars in Turkey were equally important to provide early warning to Israel. It's not far-fetched to assume that US radars in the middle-east did too. US THAAD in Israel would definitely be networked into those.
I think that there is a problem here - you're talking about the firing of the defense system at targets, whereas knowing that that radar needs to be readied because missiles have been detected is what the other radar system provided.
Remind me in two weeks?
> Government obviously pretty silent on all these failures and media doesn't want to dig and ask hard questions
Some analysts are sure drumming up the severity [0]. In the fog of war, it is hard to tell what's exaggerated and what's not. The proposal by the current US Admin to increase defence spending by 40% to $1.5t is not a welcome sign for those opposed to heavy spending, for any number of reasons.
[0] https://shanakaanslemperera.substack.com/p/the-last-molecule... / https://archive.vn/5H0L5
> In the fog of war, it is hard to tell what's exaggerated and what's not.
Honestly it's more than that. Propaganda and lies put out by ALL actors in this conflict. If you want to understand what's going on I think you have the expose yourself to as many competing sources as you can find. And still you're going to end up with a very shoddy picture. The term for this is epistemic collapse.
This.
One of the things I have disliked about the Iranian conflict is that their propaganda/messaging has been, by quite a margin, more reliable than what the US/Israel have been putting out.
I like to think that I live in a free/liberal democratic portion of the world, but seeing the "other side" being more honest really puts a dent in things.
> One of the things I have disliked about the Iranian conflict is that their propaganda/messaging has been, by quite a margin, more reliable than what the US/Israel have been putting out.
Can you please expand on this with some examples?
The most recent example - I have been seeing reels/tik toks fronted by young women, that push Iranian talking points, they were saying that Trump's announcements on the conflict were timed to manipulate markets, and to "watch tomorrow"
They were referring to a Sunday before the Markets opened, and right on cue President Trump started making announcements that had a massive effect on market movements
Previously the USA government were downplaying (then retaliatory) Iranian drone attacks on bases in the middle east, claiming zero damage, and laughing at the attackers, the Iranians provided footage that showed real damage, and the US military released statement(s) that agreed with the Iranian claims.
Now, I'm not going to pretend that the Iranian regime is anything but a steaming pile of ew, but the lesson we were supposed to learn from the Vietnam war, and the Iraq war (II), was that hearts and minds are the key to "winning", and that's built on trust, which is built on transparency and honesty.
edit: and the Afghanistan invasion
not only that, one big fact is that the Trump administration attacked twice Iran during negotiations. That sort of backstabbing gives you a sense of what their word is worth.
The easy example is that meta was full of influencers confirming the war was over, with the us having won, at a time Iran's own statements declared otherwise. That was a while back.
The open letter to Americans from Iran:
https://www.straitstimes.com/world/middle-east/full-text-of-...
Vs Trump's speech:
https://apnews.com/article/donald-trump-transcript-address-i...
One of those appears to be written by a sensible adult and the other one by a boastful teenager.
>One of the things I have disliked about the Iranian conflict is that their propaganda/messaging has been, by quite a margin, more reliable than what the US/Israel have been putting out.
Kek. Tell me you live in a bubble without telling me you live in a bubble.
"Both are doing propaganda, but one side's propaganda is totally less propaganda" gave me a good laugh today, thank you
The multiple sources don't know either, the reason the picture is shoddy is it is necessarily composed of the primary information that is coming from ... people with the strongest incentive to lie. There aren't a lot of independent ways to assess the situation. And of course that is part of the fog of war - even the militairy struggles to put together a picture of what is going on. I'd imagine that defining where the front-line is presents a complex and uncertain exercise for the commanders involved.
The only thing I think can be said reliably is that this has been going on for weeks, the Strait seems to be more closed than open, Trump is clearly out of his depth and the US is sending more units to the area. All of those point to a serious problem for the US military.
No the problem is that operational security necessarily biases what you see.
Drones, unlike many other systems produce a lot of kill footage and due to the specific users a lot of that is getting uploaded right now.
Successful sorties get uploaded, unsuccessful ones do not (if only because it's boring media).
No other system does this: artillery and missiles don't, manned systems worry about opsec, etc.
Iran was known to have such capabilities, it's baffling the US wasn't more prepared in its gulf bases.
> it's baffling the US wasn't more prepared in its gulf bases.
Probably want to drop the assumptions about it having anything much to do with US interests. Better to start looking at who has had the alliance that contained them damaged and their oil sanctions lifted.
If only there was a 4 year long war where thousands of drones are flown every day both on offense and defense that we could have learned from ..
Problem is that there was too much propaganda in that war, that parsing propaganda is too difficult even for military watchers, let alone general public. Only when american weapons are being destroyed that, US MIC is willing to acknowledge that may be million+ usd missiles are not solution to cheap drones.
Problem is also that your “Secretary of War” has fired two dozen of your most experienced military leaders since coming into office.
When the history of the American demise as a global superpower gets written, this war and the government behind it, will merit a beefy chapter.
https://www.bostonpoliticalreview.org/post/pete-hegseth-fire...
These traitors will eventually be all prosecuted. They are all traitors with putin connections, every one of them.
There will be no prosecutions. Even if there's a situation where Dems regain power, they don't have the political capital or efficacy to prosecute.
Like how assiduously Obama went after Bush Jr. administration.
...and how decisively Trump was prosecuted for the 6/1/21 attempted ~coup~ tourism, and for how thoroughly the Epstein child abuse ring was dismantled, and...
Yes, the only chance the US has going forward is to primary all current incumbents and hold both party leadership accountable for complicity in treason.
Even that won't matter. The problem isn't the elected officials, the problem is that most of the county doesn't care either way.
nobody will prosecute them, unless there is regime change in the USA
Haha, by whom? There are zero higher-ups who are actually getting institutional backing and are in favor of this.
Look at how Mamdani didn't even get any backing. Quite the opposite, he was obstructed. And he's 100x more palatable to them than the idea of prosecuting the traitors.
This is a completely unrelated problem, the US MIC is heavily incentivized to invent new problems.
Gp was referring to AN/TPY2 which is the THAAD radar.
Iron dome has nothing to do with that systems.
Fact check on this brand new account?
I read the source he listed and it doesn't say any of that
Ah thanks, I think that was added after I commented.
This is the second time in 2 weeks I’ve seen a comment like this on HN. 37 years old. Been on here 16 years. Incredibly odd to me. Just announce “can someone else tell me if this is true?”
That’s what I was doing, because I don’t think assertions like “CENTCOM is blind” should just sit out there without evidence.
I watched an interview with a retired British military guy who said that the radar destruction does complicate things, but the US still has the other AWACs, so there is still early warning and visibility, just complicates things and reduced range/more risk.
The E3 fleet is aging and difficult to keep airworthy. Of the 32 or so planes the US has, it sounds as though they struggle to keep the operational number above 16, and moving more to the gulf means they have to pull them from other theaters. In short, they simply don't have enough to provide coverage of all the areas they want them.
This was completely foreseeable and is a situation that appears to have arisen entirely due to vest interests stifling procurement of a suitable replacement in order to spruik up business for their own competing, but unfinished offering. Prior to the war in Iran, total cancellation of the procurement of E7's had been announced.
https://theaviationist.com/2026/04/01/e-3-awacs-loss-saudi-a...
It seems like demoralization propaganda.
Then go get some! It adds nothing but spam when you to take time from your busy day to tell us what to do
Usually it’s on the person posting assertions to justify them, and looks like they’ve edited in a NYT link since then.
that's true about assertions, but blindly saying "Fact check!" is still an attempt to offload a wished-for effort onto other people while simultaneously sowing seeds of discernment and distrust into the topic.
What happens when someone yells "Fact check!" at absolutely true things constantly? It erodes confidence. That's why "Person yelling fact check" isn't a typical or generalized role in normal discourse.
Yes, it's good to correct the incorrect. How does one do that typically? A rebuttal.
A supposed 'deferment to experts' on the internet is worth next to nothing, just a way to paint yourself a bit more altruistically while producing FUD.
I asked if anyone could rebut it. Normally I'd do the work myself, but I'm not very up to speed on this stuff and I wasn't in a good place to do a bunch of research, and someone who's been following it more closely could probably do a better job pretty quickly. The comment smelled like a possible propaganda account to me, making what I thought were some pretty wild claims, and the commenters that were there were piling on because tribalism, so I was trying to act like an antibody in HN's immune system against nonsense, and flag it. Sorry if it sounded like a demand, it was probably too terse.
But look at the account's comment history since registration a few hours ago: https://news.ycombinator.com/threads?id=bijowo1676
I lit up at sorry (so rare), then, had to chuckle at "but..."
Haha the “but” wasn’t meant as an excuse for the terseness.
Am I wrong about the comment history? Might be biased.
And it's worse than spam when someone is posting incorrect things and people are downvoting people questioning it. As another user has already posted, the Iron Dome does not use the same radar they are talking about and is not "blind"
IMHO, people making claims should provide the evidence for them. One link is behind a paywall and the other clearly states that it is making informed speculations.
I could make all sorts of claims on the spot here. It doesn't create a duty for people reading this thread to go investigate them.
You're so close, just one more step, and it's easy, just have to step away from keeping it hypothetical.
<SPOILER> Then it certainly does not create a duty for people to go investigate, when the only difference is "someone replied telling someone to fact check" </SPOILER>
You're the one in this thread claiming people are responsible for "going and finding the evidence" of other people's unsourced claims. You could have just not replied since you didn't have something to contribute.
None of the words you have in quotes are in this thread. :/ Not a single one. Nor did I advance this position.
I'd wait for your apology, but I'm old enough to know I won't get one.
I apologize for not quoting you directly “Then go get some!”. That’s what you said in response to there being no evidence. Would you like a link to your comment?
"People are responsible for going and finding the evidence" and "Then go get some!" are not paraphrases of each other. They don't share a single word, or advance a similar idea. I am uncertain linking comments can change that.
Of course they’re paraphrases. And since when does 37 warrant constantly mentioning how old you are?
I'm not sure what's going on: "People are responsible for going and finding the evidence" and "Then go get some!" are not paraphrases.
Best steelman I can come up with is you're seeing deep red, so it's hard to see "Then go get some!" is suggesting he could fact-check his own question instead of asking the room to do it for him.
Which is the opposite of your characterization that I think people are responsible for investigating strangers' unsourced claims. We violently agree, not disagree.
Making this exchange all the curiouser.
Are you inebriated? I only ask because it's unusual to see someone on HN choosing to say obviously incorrect things, aggressively, on purpose, just to talk down to someone. Much less making bullying attempts based on comment history.
Relax, I was mostly asking whether someone else who already knew about this stuff could comment on its veracity. There’s obviously no obligation.
Right (c.f. the thing I am replying to)
If you spend a moment to verify the info that is the fact check.
No one can do the thinking for you.
Did a quick search, didn’t see confirmation that they’re blind/that all radars had been knocked out. Was asking whether others who know more about this topic than me would confirm.
You did a reasonable check in my opinion. Perhaps if you had said that you already did search I wouldn't have written the last part.
Also if I had an answer to your question I would say it. Hope you are able to find the answer.
Are you asking someone to fact check publicly available information for you ? Even NYT reported this
Traveling with kids on spring break, I don’t have time to read all war related news, and it tends to set off my propaganda account alarm when someone registers a new account to drop a bunch of assertions on such a politically divisive topic. So I was asking whether someone could confirm things like “The whole CENTCOM is blind basically, as well as Iron Dome which relied on these radars - all blind now, in addition to long-range early nuke detection to protect CONUS is also blind.”
There’s a good reason new accounts are colored green.
New account that only has politics-adjacent posts; worth being skeptical.
a war end up being a war about information.
hence the first department that goes into full throttle mode in any war - is the department of propaganda | press corps (as modernly called).
so we gonna see lies on both sides - Iranians | US / Israel. with the truth in between.
No problem - Trump is asking for an FY 2027 1.5 TRILLION dollar military budget, and just said that Medicare and Medicare may need to be cut to afford it.
A reminder that these losses will mean we all each lose something. And Israel gains a whole lot more.
What’s the next country we move to?
Cuba.
In a "rational" world the quagmire of Iran would make such a move unlikely, but with this administration the prospect of an "easy win" could have them just go for it.
After all, nobody's stopping them. The Constitution only remains so that the 2A fanatics can LARP at being patriots.
Our country is currently enforcing a blockade that is murdering children in Cuba. It is all so sickening.
As well as aiding and abetting Israel actively murder children, starve them, and sequester the land of Palestine and Lebanon.
So much for the moral high ground.
If the US is allowed to annex Cuba the PRC has a right to take back Taiwan.
Taiwan people have not been risking their lives trying to escape to join PRC.
These very expensive toys are the reasons of the to be $1.5 trillion DoW budget. It’s insane and not sustainable.
Iran fired at 17. Do we know how many radars are actually offline? I thought it was only 2.
So maybe not blind? but also, hard to verify.
And running out of Patriots
Looks like Iran is doing what i suggested Ukraine should have done to Russia https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42529638
Absolutely. A big part of the western Ukrainian defense was solely to drain the Russian military apparatus and drain they have. It will take Russia decades to rebuild their fighting force. Now Russia and China are doing it right back to us and the intelligence gained from this conflict is extremely valuable. Come to find out the US has been sitting on ego in its military more than actual might. The previously untouchable machines of war in the sky are now very much touchable. All that's left is for them to sink a battle ship. If Iran can shoot them down, you can bet China can inflict exponentially more harm. Drain our intercept missiles, destroy radars, corrode relationships, etc. At this point, China has the world on a silver platter if they want it.
Russia has rebuilt their military, which was neglected at the beginning of the war. The Russian and Ukrainian armies have adopted to drone warfare, which the rest of the world lags behind.
They haven't rebuilt the manpower. They've lost no less than a few hundred thousand fighting age men over the course of the war. It will take them 20-30 years minimum just for those births to occur and those newborns to make it to military age.
That works for Iran because US air-defense is still comprised mainly of advanced and expensive systems (like the Patriot). It doesn't work as well in Ukraine or Russia because both have figured out drone interceptors quite well. Both countries do the type of attack drone clustering you suggest. I read somewhere that a strike like from Russia that might include 60-70 drones + ballistic missiles in the hopes that one or 2 get through.
you miss that i was talking about 650km/h "drones" (because, yes, it was already 3rd year of war, and 200km/h drone like Shahed became much easier target - this is why Russia has started to also use the 600km/h modification of Shahed with RC jet engine). There is related discussion under that comment addressing your point about interception.
>Both countries do the type of attack drone clustering you suggest
Ukraine still isn't completely there. They do attack Russia with up to 200 drones/day. They seem to never cluster more than a few, and the drones they are using are comparably small - 50kg warhead - and slow, 100+ km/h, almost always less than 200km/h. So they are easy to intercept/shoot down, almost never penetrate Moscow air defense, and do noticeable damage only when hitting flammable targets like oil/gas industry related.
In case you haven't been following Ukraine, that's what it's doing. It has multiple cheap long range drones (FP-1, FP-2, etc) plus more expensive ones (FP-5), and it's making them in the millions a year, I think.
They just took out 40% of Russian oil export capacity.
no, the million or two is small battlefield drones, mostly quadcopters carrying an RPG warhead or similarly sized payload. The long range drones - and they carry only relatively small, like 20-50kg payloads - are well under 100 thousands. FP-5 was declared 1 per day half a year ago. By now i think we've seen may be 10-20 such missiles used - they use real turbo jet engine, there isn't much of them available, and they are expensive.
>They just took out 40% of Russian oil export capacity.
Yes, Ust-Luga and Primorsk. Very successful hits. Painful for Putin. Yet it isn't a knock-down. Russia is like a big drunk guy in a street fight - just delivering painful blows to him doesn't help, you have to deliver a knock-out blow, and unfortunately Ukraine still seems far from it.
There will be no knockout punch here, instead it will be death by exhaustion.
North Vietnam didn't die of exhaustion, nor did Afghanistan (2x), Iraq.
For reference, it's likely Ukraine is making more medium cheap drones per year than Iran, the current boogeyman.
This war will end the same way, probably around 2030.
Countries aren't human. You don't deliver a "knock out punch".
WW2 wasn't ended by capturing Berlin, it was ended because the German military was destroyed or surrendered as they were forced back towards Berlin.
By the time it fell, there wasn't an effective German military left.
Running out of patriots as well.
> Rare Earth Minerals... ...unable to repair the damage any time soon (probably for decades)
Look bro, if we can make SR-71s out of pizza ovens, I'm pretty sure somewhere in the CIA can scrounge up a few ounces of gadoluminium. Tankie dreams are placation for those who wait for somebody else to make the birdseed fall from the sky.
[dead]
This is good news. Actually not for those whom chose to start the 2nd Epstein war.
I really hope that Israeli and Iranian governments both go to hell. May both destroy each other.
For the United States, the government doesn't have the capability to extricate Israel from its political system, but the feds can create blowback for Israel which makes them less capable to influence the US in the future while achieving other strategic aims in the region. US war planners know plenty about blow back and I think this is being done on purpose. I am terrified for innocent Israelis, Iranians and Gulf state residents that have been led into this. Most of the states and peoples in the Middle East who have been destroyed used to be allies with the US. That isn't on accident.
Government could sanction Israel like they did to Iran.
Nope, that would take congressional approval and congressional leaders are all bought by the people that paid for the Iran Sanctions Act of 1996. At this point only DoD and CIA can make it happen, thus why I mention any of this.
The problems with inventory of THAAD and similar missile systems is actually quite serious: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47504505
Is this story even true ? There has been fake AI photo about destructed THAAD radars : https://factcheck.afp.com/doc.afp.com.A2B239E
If you scroll to the bottom of that page, they discuss possible evidence of damage to the radar from satellite imagery.
AFAIK, the one in Qatar was paid by Qatar and operated by US.
I thought all the US ones existed in US states/territories? The ones in the middle east could be potentially destroyed true though.
we have likely moved on from this to satellite as a stop gap.
Moved on how? Satellites are useful for launch detection and cueing but as far as we know there isn't a satellite constellation capable of tracking airborne targets with enough precision for targeting. And the military couldn't really keep such satellites secret: the emissions would be impossible to hide.
Cmon. At least it is all justified with good reasons!
> not available on Amazon for next day deliver either
Available on aliexpress - but has longer shipping times and of course those tariffs, that you don't have to pay, that you have to pay.
yes, this part I find to be most interesting.. how many losses before the picture changes for the public?
The problem is that the losses indicate something worse. A breakdown of doctrinal disciplin- mostly created by chronic underestimation of advesaries in the region. If Israel can pulp the proxxies that easy, iran would be easy. Thus it was not necessary to do what ukraine does- mostly keeping planes in the air so they are not bombed on the runway, rotating them among bases - etc.
Which is specified as a strategy in the doctrine of the airforce.
> breakdown of doctrinal disciplin- mostly created by chronic underestimation of advesaries in the region
"Keep in mind that the greatest entities, whether they are cities or nations, are the ones most susceptible to the pride that comes before a fall."
Thucydides, History of the Peloponnesian War
[dead]
This is exactly the situation I think of when I hear news of rescue missions. Running a rescue in a place with functional air defense is a recursive rescue problem that could quickly get out of control.
Isn't that basically the plotline of the Blackhawk Down movie?
And, more importantly, the real-life events on which it's based?
Exactly what happens to me in Kerbel Space Program.
Rescue team for the rescue team.
The first time I ever attempted a rescue mission in KSP, I ended up stranding 5 different kerbals in various orbita nearby trying to get the first one, and of course every one was a bigger and more complicated craft trying to save as many kerbals as possible. Eventually I just gave up and put a giant cross memorial in orbit, part as a reference to Neon Genesis Evangelion, and part as a memorial to the like 6 kerbals I left stranded in space.
Kerbals don't need food or water and can live forever on a limited air supply. I once rescued a kerbal who got stuck around their equivalent of Venus for multiple years. So it's all fine, they'll patiently wait...
Did you tactically forgot to put parachute on the landing pod? Or run out of fuel mid mission?
Slaps car, thsi baby can fit soo many rescue teams in it
The US did it all the time in Vietnam.
And it did sometimes get way out of control: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rescue_of_Bat_21_Bravo
My neighbor was a helicopter pilot in Vietnam, the one mentioned in this article who came back with over 100 bullet holes in his helicopter after the rescue operation: https://historynet.com/rescue-in-death-valley-with-hhm-163-t... That rescue wasn't to retrieve a pilot, but nearly 200 surviving soldiers being overrun.
It's difficult to squeeze stories out of him, mostly because it was so long ago and ancient history to him. Just to put his timeline in perspective, after the war he befriended a captain of the White Russian Navy who had to flee after losing the Russian Revolution. Alot of White Russians ended up in San Francisco, which is where my neighbor settled down in the '60s. He was also a military escort for Nelson Rockefeller, I think during one Rockefeller's campaigns. Once a staunch Republican, needless to say he's not a fan of where the Republican Party has ended up since then. Still a gung-ho Marine, though, who keeps insisting on climbing over our 10-foot fence whenever he locks himself out of his house, which means I have to jump the fence. Were it anyone else I'd just call and pay for a locksmith myself, or badger him to finally give me copies of his keys.
Thanks for sharing, that's a crazy read.
That's an example of things getting out of control.
Possibly the best example
Not sure if it was actually used, but a fun idea for pilot recovery..
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hiller_ROE_Rotorcycle
The Fulton recovery system[1] using a self-inflating balloon was used in production.
Though if Iranian air defenses are capable of shooting down an F-15, mounting a rescue operation with a C-130 may not be the brightest idea.
Anyone know the minimum speed of a B-2?
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fulton_surface-to-air_recovery...
>Lifted off the ground, the pig began to spin as it flew through the air at 125 miles per hour (200 km/h). It arrived on board uninjured, but in a disoriented state. When it recovered, it attacked the crew.
Understandable
Iranian Air defense getting lucky is different to it being impenetrable.
This is not a binary situation, and a lucky F-15 kill would not make it a good idea to concentrate more assets in an area where the US will now focus more resources.
…against the viet cong, where the biggest risk was the pilot getting pierced from small arms fire (in addition to the helo going down from pilot error). Quite different from the anti-air weapons modern day Iran possesses.
Are you aware that hundreds of American fixed wing aircraft were lost to surface to air missiles in North Vietnam? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._aircraft_losses_t...
Ah yeah, well I didn’t know it was that high!
But I’m responding to the rescue mission comment, which, since Vietnam, have overwhelmingly employed helicopters (Huey’s then, Black Hawks today). But machinery aside, the larger point is that air operations will likely go worse here than they did in Vietnam, unfortunately for both sides.
Or a MiG-17 that could outrate your F-4/F-105 at every subsonic flight regime.
You're conflating the Viet Cong with North Vietnam.
I imagine Trump would threaten to nuke a major city if it didnt stop and pilots werent returned safe. Not that I agree, but I think that's what he would emotionally do.
What are A-10s doing there? There isn't yet any ground operation, right?
They were largely being used for maritime patrol against fast boats. I saw a newsblurb a couple days ago that more were being sent to the region.
Cheaper to operate than any fighter, longer endurance, good for patrolling over the Strait. Filling the gap between helicopters and fighters with a big, but cheap cannon.
[dead]
The A-10 carries AGM 88 anti-radiation missiles, and while it's a slow aircraft it can still passably perform SEAD with the AGM 88.
Geran-2 (which is Russian licenced Shahed drone) also carries air-to-air missile, so sending slow archaic manned airframe is just suicide mission (aka shaheed)
https://militarnyi.com/en/news/russia-used-shahed-drone-arme...
That is not a Shahed drone, that is a Geran-2 drone. Which is similar from the outside but not the same. Also Iran doesn't have stock of R-60s I think.
There's also no possibility that a Geran would be able to engage an A-10. It doesn't have a RADAR, it is much slower and less manoeuvrable.
radar is not required for A2A missiles with infrared seekers, like the R60
Well, bijowo1676, you need a RADAR to find the target before you shoot at it. An IRST can be used, or an off board track, but that is a an expensive and limited capability technique, and usually used to augment a RADAR, not replace it. The missile IR seeker has a narrow FOV.
Manpads (man portable air defense) works just fine.
"Just fine" for what? AGM88 is air-to-ground and manpads are surface-to-air. If you're implying that manpads work just fine instead of A-10s, you're wrong.
Well, the A-10 is down no matter how correct you feel you are.
Shoulder launched missiles are absolutely capable of taking down large slow aircrafts in 2026.
This is not a rpg from 1930
Exactly, someone might be at risk of reading the thread with a 1930s RPG
I'm not sure that I understand what you are implying.
That A-10’s can’t suppress manpads
Well, they absolutely can with a BRRRRT, but if you mean "AGM 88 HARMs are a poor weaponeering choice against a Misagh-3", then sure, no argument here. But a dude on a hilltop with a shoulder tube is not the only type of air defense.
I'm not sure why any of this is relevant. The question I was responding to was about why A-10s are even in-theatre, given there's no boots on the ground yet.
The answer to that question is "they're probably doing SEAD". They might also be there to hit Iranian naval drones, though I doubt it'd be effective in that role.
This high profile failure means the end of the brrrt meme.
Well, A-10s are well suited for strafing runs, etc. Presumably they'd be sent in if the area they're entering is presumed safe. That clearly didn't pan out.
The reality is avoiding a ground operation was probably the wrong move at this point (ignoring the spicier broader debate of if the whole Iran campaign was the right call or not)
It's really hard to truly guarantee surface to air capabilities are gone when you're relying purely on sat images + aerial surveillance (and obviously this carries risk). Iran has fairly portable SAM systems that are public knowledge.
> ignoring the spicier broader debate of if the whole Iran campaign was the right call or not
How spicy of a debate is that really? How many people outside of the admin and the dwindling hardcore trump base actually thought this was a good idea?
Apparently 37.7% of Americans, so roughly 116 million people, support the war. I'm not sure "this was a good idea" was a the exact question though.
https://yougov.com/en-us/articles/54454-most-americans-oppos...
https://www.natesilver.net/p/iran-war-polls-popularity-appro...
Clearly this war isn't popular but that's a far cry from saying there's no debate. Like many other topics/questions we're seeing people following their tribe and bubbles rather than actual debating.
I would question to what extent repeating propaganda, qualifies as debate.
Even if you do say that it qualifies, it doesn't qualify as productive debate.
There is really no productive debate to be had here. Even if you think that Iran needed to be bombed, it took absurd incompetence to start doing so before planning how to handle asymmetric warfare against drones in an affordable way.
Repeating propaganda does not generally qualify as debate.
Why isn't there a productive debate to be had here?
Your arguing that the incompetence has to do with handling drones. To me that statement feels close to "repeating propaganda" because the Shaed drones are generally handled in an affordable way which is by shooting them with bullets from helicopters: https://www.youtube.com/shorts/uZ07pcDGE70
This is a method that has been used for a long time in Ukraine as well: https://www.reddit.com/r/Planes/comments/1qzj19h/an_f16_of_t...
https://taskandpurpose.com/tech-tactics/us-apache-pilots-dro...
There are endless videos and news stories about how drones are shot down effectively by the UAE (with AH-64 cannons), by Israel (where Iran doesn't even bother sending drones over because none of them make it), and by Ukraine (including with newer counter-drone tech they have).
The propaganda says "we fire a 2 million dollar THAAD missile on a 50k dollar drone". Many can be shot down cheaply. Some are shot down with $500k AA missiles. We also need to account for anything destroyed on the ground and not launched. So it seems like your opening argument can certainly at the very least be debated.
OTOH it is true that some drones got through and inflicted significant damage. But maybe that's unavoidable to some degree.
Even beyond the base statement. If you think Iran needed to be bombed, e.g. because they were manufacturing 100 long range ballistic missiles per month and because they had enough nuclear material to make 12 bombs and were working on all the technology pieces to be able to put them on ballistic missiles and launch them, then what would be the alternative universe where we somehow magically came up with solutions to the asymmetric nature of this war? Would waiting for them to have a lot more missiles and drones and bury them deeper be a good thing or a bad thing. What would be the odds of the regime either compromising and giving up their abilities or collapsing without external intervention.
Exactly. Support means saying "I accept the reduction in my social security and medicare and other govt services in exchange for this war."
I also think there was an initial “euphoria” (I guess) during the initial days of the campaign.
People I know (even Iranian expats) were excited to see the regime get hammered and there was hope for possibility of change (and also a little bloodlust)… but I think as the war drags on and the US is exposed to be in an un-winnable mess, sentiment will continue to sour.
This has already started to happen in Nate Silver’s post you linked.
Trump has been talking about destroying Iranian desalination plants, and "bombing the country back to the stone age". This is no surgical decapitation strike, nor one just targetting Iran's military capabilities. This is a vicious senile old man living out his dictator "I can do anything I like" fantasies, who could care less about helping the Iranian people, or those in America for that matter.
I am shocked that the Democrats are not making clear to the military that engaging in crimes against humanity may have consequences for them -- not to speak, of course, of politicians higher up in the chain of command.
Several have (Deluzio, Slotkin, Kelly, Crow, Goodlander, and Houlahan), Nov 2025:
<https://deluzio.house.gov/media/press-releases/joint-stateme...>
Because a lot of the democrats are basically controlled opposition and need to please their MIC and Israeli donors
> I am shocked
You shouldn't be, especially considering that Schumer and Durbin both voted for the Hague Invasion Act.
He is simply doing israels bidding.
75 million using the YouGov number and just under 100 million using the Nate Silver average. (I think you must have used the more Trump-favorable number AND included children in your computation, which is not reasonable.)
Also worth noting that Nate Silver's measure has been declining for almost 3 weeks, the majority of the duration of the invasion.
Before the invasion, a University of Mariland poll says 55 million and a YouTov poll says 71 million support. These are useful numbers because we know there's a rally around the flag effect that distorts thinking during a conflict.
https://criticalissues.umd.edu/feature/do-americans-favor-at... https://yougov.com/en-us/articles/54158-few-americans-suppor...
20-25% of Americans would support Trump pulling his pants down and taking a shit on the floor in the oval office on live TV. These people's opinions shouldn't be taken into account or respected in these discussions.
That is an interesting take. Seen from elsewhere in the world, we cannot afford not taking into account a big chunk of the American electoral body, which is effectively at war with us (by various means).
Essentially, a MESA movement, “Make the Earth Shit Again”.
The obvious implication is that the rest of the world is at war with the US (by various means), and should act accordingly, starting with a wide-ranging consumer boycott of all US products.
Which is right in line with the "crazification factor": https://kfmonkey.blogspot.com/2005/10/lunch-discussions-145-...
The relevant quote:
> Obama vs. Alan Keyes. Keyes was from out of state, so you can eliminate any established political base; both candidates were black, so you can factor out racism; and Keyes was plainly, obviously, completely crazy. Batshit crazy. Head-trauma crazy. But 27% of the population of Illinois voted for him. They put party identification, personal prejudice, whatever ahead of rational judgement. Hell, even like 5% of Democrats voted for him. That's crazy behaviour. I think you have to assume a 27% Crazification Factor in any population.
Herschel Walker got 48.6% of the Georgia vote against Warnock. Slightly different in that Walker was a popular football hero in Georgia but he was also clearly mentally incompetent.
You can see that factor in a large number of polls on all kinds of subjects. It doesn't matter what the question is, a fifth to a quarter of the population will make the dumbest, least consistent, most self defeating choice every time. I think if you can get ~70% of the population on board with something that's all that should matter because the bottom 25% of the intelligence curve are literally incapable of making good decisions and worrying about them or their opinions will only lead to disaster. I also think that this is a major flaw of a lot of democratic systems because if a movement can effectively mobilize that group to vote as a bloc then it can easily sway policy. Add in messed up systems like in the US where you can amplify the power of that bloc beyond their population and it easily explains how we got here
The problem with this line of argument is that people will put you in that camp as well and paint you as the "dumbest". Let's take it as truth that 25% of a population are morons. You say those morons are all in the camp that opposes your policy/opinions. The other side says those morons are all in your camp (including you). And that's how we shut discussion down and get more polarization.
I think the reality is a lot of people aren't that smart. And sometimes even smart people can make bad choices. The average IQ is 100.
Here's an interesting random paper for you: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S01602...
"• Individuals who identify as Republican have greater probability knowledge
• Individuals who identify as Republican have higher verbal reasoning ability
• Individuals who identify as Republican have better question comprehension
• Cognitive ability’s effect on party identity works through socio-economic position"
At least this does not seem to support the common opinion here of presumably a democrat leaning crowd (based on the comments) who seem to think that their opponents are all morons.
Bottom line of sorts for me is that we need to be able to debate issues from first principles and based on facts. We often go to appeal to emotion and herd mentality instead. Very much so on these sorts of partisan button pushing threads.
>>How many people outside of the admin and the dwindling hardcore trump base actually thought this was a good idea?
> Apparently 37.7% of Americans,
These are the same thing. The MAGA base is fracturing and the polls are showing that with the very number you are using as a retort.
Your first link says 28% support it, so somewhere between 28 and 37%. I do wonder how many of those people could find Iran on a map, though I suppose you could ask the same about the people who are against it.
The first link (YouGov) in fact is even less enthusiastic than GP quoted: 28% of Americans strongly or somewhat support the war with Iran.
(setting aside that it's illegal under international law, and unauthorized by Congress)
I lost trust in humanity when I saw how many people on HN fell for the CERN Mario Kart April fools article.
[dead]
The number for boots on the ground is more like 12% though. And the people opposed to the war span various bubbles or tribes, including some right-wing influencers. You can easily find critiques of the conflict from various former military and intelligence officials across many podcasts, news media and Youtube channels.
Surprisingly so, I would say. Without going into any identifying details, my buddy, who is otherwise fairly reasonable, thinks it was. I disagree. Reported country split ( US ) seems to fall some along common political lines though, so maybe we shouldn't be so surprised.
Then again.. I can no longer can rely on those surveys in any meaningful way.
> seems to fall some along common political lines though
While true, I think it's more correct to say that the determining factor is which television news media people most readily consume.
[flagged]
This is what bringing democracy looks like?! The regime is more entrenched than ever and our commander in chief keeps threatening to commit war crimes on a massive scale. If he follows through on what he says he will do and obliterates all the civilian infrastructure in the country it will kill mass numbers of innocent people and turn millions of survivors into impoverished refugees.
As bad as the regime is, and it's very bad, what we're doing is even worse for most Iranians and the odds a democratic government arises from the ashes of our bombing campaign is incredibly unlikely.
As a person who believes in democracy, don't you think it should be the US Congress the one declaring war?
Supporting an illegal war would be a funny way to support democracy. Or maybe they believe in democracies that ignore their constitution.
Sure, but that ship sailed about 75 years ago with the Korean "police action".
In any case a slightly dysfunctional democracy is in a totally different realm than a theocratic quasi hereditary dictatorship
Yes, bombing schools, universities and dessalination plants is a sure way to have more democracy in a country. Especially double taps where you kill the rescuers.
The US have so many examples where they did so and worked!
Oh, didn't you hear, we actually _triple tapped_ the school, so after the first wave of rescuers was also hit, anyone who came to help was also attacked.
Totally not a war crime.
Where do you even find this?
Even if true, it's legally incorrect, btw. There are 2 kinds of warcrimes: Rome treaty (the only legal definition) and Geneva convention. The Rome treaty allows countries to opt-out of the treaty, and then nothing on their territory qualifies as a war crime. Iran has opted out of the Rome treaty, and so when it comes to international law, nothing that happens on Iranian soil is a war crime.
And we all know WHY islamists want it that way. But of course they will confuse matters as propaganda ...
Second, "colloquial" definition of a war crime are Geneva convention violations. And ignoring that EVERY attack Iran executed in the 2 days was a warcrime in that definition. Every last one. They didn't even try to go after military targets for days. But ignoring that.
What warcrimes do, in the sense of the Geneva convention, is that they are justifications for the UNSC to intervene, should it want to. Well, Russia, China and France have just declared that the UNSC does not follow the reasoning that these are warcrimes. Not because they don't believe Geneva convention violations aren't heinous crimes (of course Iran has violated it constantly for 50+ years with constant heinous crimes), but that these states don't see any reason to act.
> Second, "colloquial" definition of a war crime are Geneva convention violations.
The other "colloquial" definition of a war crime is "things we prosecuted the Nazis for at Nuremberg".
One side here is playing "world's police", so this "but those people (that we've painted as fundamentalist extremist terrorists) are committing war crimes so why shouldn't we get to, too?" isn't exactly the fine upstanding argument that you seem to think it is, just as it's not when the IDF responds to children throwing rocks at main battle tanks with live ammunition and turning off the power to a country for three days.
I find it absolutely incredible anyone would choose to use such arguments to defend Iran's islamist regime. Why?Unfortunately every conflict has 2 sides. This is what the side you're defending does:
(man it's difficult to get a list of links into hacker news) (also: stolen from a reddit summary)
Recently, Iran has lowered the entry age into the Iranian military to 12, and they have a long and storied history of using child soldiers in the Iran/Iraq war as suicide bombers - and sending them into minefields tied together with rope to prevent escape, so they could be human minesweepers for tanks and adult soldiers [1].
550,000+ child soldiers were used in the Iran/Iraq war, with over 36,000 as young as NINE years old being killed. Martyrdom is taught in Iranian schools to this day [2].
UNICEF reports 1/5 of ALL marriages in Iran are child marriages. They can legally marry 13 year old girls, and can marry any age with the father’s permission; it’s likely higher than 1/5 as in rural regions it’s common for marriages to not be reported [3].
They just slaughtered 30,000+ civilian protestors in January who were demonstrating against a literal terrorist puppet state who has committed some of the worst human rights atrocities in the world in the span of their 50 year history [4].
Ayatollah Khomeini (Iran’s Supreme Leader) stated virgin women are to be raped prior to their executions (largely for minor acts) so they don’t die a virgin, and justified it through his interpretation of his religion [5].
Here’s Iranian Parliament chanting “Death to America”, which they do constantly [6].
They are directly funding and arming internationally recognized terror groups [7]. Based on Intelligence estimates, Iran-funded terrorist groups have been responsible for thousands of deaths, including hundreds of American personnel, since the 1979 revolution. Major casualties are attributed to Iran-backed proxies such as Hezbollah in Lebanon, Hamas and Palestinian Islamic Jihad (PIJ) in Gaza, and various Shiite militias in Iraq [8].
And are visibly, via satellite, enriching uranium past 60% which is only used for acquiring nuclear weapons [9].
This is far from a complete list. We're not even discussing that iranian clergy are literally pimping underage girls for sex, which sharia is perfectly fine with (and also happens in other muslim states, including sunni ones) as long as what we'd call the pimp is an imam.
[1] https://www.jns.org/opinion/yoram-ettinger/irans-sickening-u... [2] https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/news/2026/04/iran-recruitm... [3] https://www.girlsnotbrides.org/learning-resources/child-marr... [4] https://time.com/7357635/more-than-30000-killed-in-iran-say-... [5] https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201314/cmselect/cmin... [6] https://youtu.be/GUDLkKmzpeU?si=QiPMeyj8y8gWQfzr [7] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran_and_state-sponsored_terro... [8] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran_and_state-sponsored_terro... [9] https://www.csis.org/analysis/csis-satellite-imagery-analysi...
So now Wikipedia is a valid source? Interesting!
> I find it absolutely incredible anyone would choose to use such arguments to defend Iran's islamist regime. Why?Unfortunately every conflict has 2 sides. This is what the side you're defending
Pump the brakes and do not put words into my mouth.
There is not one statement in anything I've said here that defends Iran's islamist regime.
Because I don't.
Stop getting yourself all bent out of shape that side professing a moral/ethical superiority might be held to standards that befit that supposed superiority.
It's in the wikipedia notice, if you ever tried to search it:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2026_Minab_school_attack
"According to witness accounts verified by satellite-based analyses, the school was triple tapped by three distinct strikes."
War crime isn't just a legal definition, just like the world was genocide-free before WW2. And by your reasoning it's totally fine to genocide people as long as no treaty/law prevents it. Of course it isn't.
Most people would agree to say that bombing a school or a dessalination plant is a war crime, whatever the convention was signed before. Schoolchildren are not responsible for the IRGC's actions.
If you trust wikipedia without checking the talk page, and frankly in anything remotely involving Israel, you've lost the plot. Sorry but it just isn't remotely neutral on more and more subjects.
And this is the old trick: judging one side by absolutist morals, and then claiming SOME portion of the other side was innocent. Obviously, this is a fallacy and not a reasonable way to judge the morals of an action.
In reality, of course, nearly everyone the Iranian government attacks is totally innocent, and that's 100% intentional on their part. From toddlers in Argentina to Metro goers in Brussels. In Brussels, in an Iranian organized terror attack the guy put 5 bullets in a baby in a child carriage, waiting to shoot the mother (she survived, by the way) until she collapsed to the ground. THAT is who is being targeted here. That was not an accident.
That's one side, and the other side ... makes mistakes.
Clearly, the moral problem here is a mistake by the other side. Clearly THAT's the problem that needs to be solved.
Removing an evil actor requires, frankly, evil actions. Any real moral system will allow for that. Have you ever been to Dresden? What happened there is far worse than even Hiroshima. There's a shelter you can visit there, with a book like in Lord of the rings. It is open to a partially burnt page with the text that people were panicking when the wind drew fire into the shelter during the bombing. People caught on fire, put it out in panic, and it would immediately catch on fire again. Then those people collapsed. The text ... ends there, with spilled ink. There are 2 child carriages in that basement.
This action is considered morally justified, even by the survivors at the time, despite the fact that it didn't even achieve it's military objectives (the factories it targeted weren't destroyed, the city center was, and the aircraft factories, the main target, had stopped producing for lack of inputs months before the attack started)
Both historically and in moral source texts you will find people give enormous moral leeway to actions meant to save others. To remove an evil actor. That is even the case when they cause incredible damage.
Wikipedia provides sources that you can check yourself. In this case, it's the BBC, a well known IRGC-aligned and extremist media hostile to the USA.
https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c5yqqyly9n0o
And you whataboutism is childish, on top of the basic fact that the school bombing happened in the first days of the war, after a stupid and sadistic decapitation strike that destroyed any chance of negotiated settlement.
It's not the US' job to punish the IRGC for their crimes, and now that they started this idiotic war, the situation in Iran is even worse than when it started, including for the population. Which is yet another complete, objective failure and a proof that bombing populations don't lead to regime change.
> That's one side, and the other side ... makes mistakes.
This is a widely biased interpretation absolving an army whose chief has declared "no quarters" (=war crime) and conducts double-tap strikes on civilian infrastructure. And who bombed Dresden, Gaza, Vietnam or Cambodia? Why was it wrong then, but now it's cool?
The BBC article in no shape, way, or form supports your statement that the school was "triple tapped".
The article was written by an Iranian, but let's just for a moment assume that they're not monumentally biased and instead let's look at the pictures and the text.
The picture in the BBC article clearly shows one impact point in the middle of the school building, and also one each in the surrounding IRGC buildings.
What "eyewitnesses" would have observed from some distance away would have been a series of explosions. Six to eight bombs, all dropped in rapid succession, likely from two to four planes.
Double-tapping (or triple tapping) involves a long delay between the initial hit and the follow-up hit. The idea being to also kill the emergency services personel that turn up... half an hour later.
The article carefully misquotes the locals who witnessed a series of explosions to suggest that this was a series of attacks on the school itself, but fails to scrape together the evidence to sell this narrative:
"suggesting it was hit more than once" -- but not proving. Actually, not showing that at all, since the picture clearly shows one hit on the building!
"around the Shajareh Tayebeh primary school" -- but not in the school.
"the area was "struck by multiple" -- the area around the school is an IRGC base, not "more school".
"Two damaged buildings" -- and then they admit one is the IRGC building leaving... one school building that was hit, once.
"difficult to independently verify" -- here the BBC admits to repeating IRGC propaganda without even bother to check the picture they put in their own article that obviously contradicts their biased narrative.
"speculation about what the intended target" -- what speculation? It was the IRGC base! It was a former IRGC building! Nobody in their right mind would "speculate" about this. This is a brazen lie.
"may have been used"
"who may have been operating"
etc...
I could keep on going, but why bother? This BBC article is total garbage, packed with deceptive language, weasel words, and "just asking questions".
The real, factually true heinous act here is the sloppiness of the US administration in keeping up with the changing status of IRGC targets. They got lazy, killed a 168 students and teachers, which is horrific.
We can blame them for their hubris. We can blame them for starting the war in the first place. We can lay the blame at their feet for any number of things.
But please don't repeat a made-up story of unbelievable, cartoonish evil. It's obvious that the US administration didn't set out to on-purpose kill school children! It's obvious that they didn't "double tap" the school building! It's obvious that they thought that they were hitting an IRGC building and it turned out not to be so. They made a mistake, but a mistake surrounded by deliberate war. Be angry at them starting this unnecessary war, which they did on purpose.
Middle East Eye provides alternative testimonies by the Red Crescent medics:
https://www.middleeasteye.net/news/exclusive-iranian-girls-k...
Why is it so hard to accept? Israelis commonly do this already.
Why is it so hard to accept the basic fact that Iran - and Palestine (and China, and Russia, and Cuba, and ...) do not allow free press or free communication? That means with rare exceptions (unless someone is willing to risk their life for it) you ONLY have access to propaganda.
In any society that doesn't allow free press:
ANY television broadcast = government propaganda
Red Cross/Crescent = disguised government propaganda (Hamas/Iran's islamist regime)
ANY internet message = disguised government propaganda
ANY story published in the BBC with sources from that country = disguised government propaganda
ANY information delivered by anyone who wasn't risking their lives = disguised government propaganda
ANY information delivered by a foreign journalist "invited" into the country (ie. CNN in this conflict) = government propaganda (like "embedded journalists" in US army)
You do not have ANY information from within Iran except propaganda and very rare, very incomplete viewpoints (slowly) anonymously smuggled out. That's it. Yes, this means you generally just do not know. Not even if "the Red Cross/Crescent" says so, because they cannot risk saying anything but the government's viewpoint.
I get that this is very hard to understand for someone living in the US or Europe but that's how it is.
This was the case in the cold war with all the communist regimes. This is currently the case with Russia. With Cuba. With China. And, of course, with Iran. There is no information BUT propaganda from both sides. Nothing but that.
And sorry to point out the obvious, but given the choice between the US army and Iran's mullahs ... even Trump beats the islamist mullahs in reliability and credibility. Yes this is choosing the best option between Syfilis and Gonorrhea. But Trump wins that contest. Easily. Hands down.
> Wikipedia provides sources that you can check yourself
Are you somehow confused about how to lie with sources? The earth is flat. Proof: https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/library/books/Is%20the%2... (read it, it's fun. Not the usual rants you find everywhere)
Finding websites, or even 100-year old books that obviously lie about Israel is not exactly hard. Here's one you might not know about (look at the author, yes, it's really him): https://www.thehenryford.org/collections/explore/artifact/48... (now this one is a rant, still far above average though)
And the BBC. Ahh the BBC. They used to actually have journalists, and ... well, clearly, they've decided that actually having journalists around the world is not that relevant to producing news anymore. The quality of their work is dropping like a stone year over year. Also, when it comes to reporting about the UK, they've obviously switched to just being a propaganda outlet. Even the historical articles about the poverty in Manchester, which is certainly not improving, can hardly be found on the BBC anymore. And there are no new articles made about it. And reporting on Scottish independence movements or Northern Ireland ... they've started just outright denying anything like that exists. BBC was great, up to about 20 years ago. Now it's barely more authoritative than any other news outlet. You know, the ones that almost exclusively just repeat press releases. You want to know what a government has to say about an event? BBC is your friend. You want to know the sentiment on the ground in an event? BBC doesn't even try to collect that anymore, and when it is presented to them, they refuse to report it. And they've "become political", on a great many different subjects.
There's other things on wikipedia where what we'd consider evil is winning more and more over time. The Armenian genocide, for example, where ever more attention is going to denying it ever happened. And the many genocides that happened at the end of the Ottoman empire at muslim hands, of which the Armenian genocide is merely the biggest example, have already lost the fight on wikipedia. Or the whitewashing of the extremely bloody and, frankly, disgusting early muslim history. Muslim slavery is getting erased, especially what young female slaves ... islam's involvement in the holocaust (ie. the involvement of muslim clergy in creating Nazi SS extermination squads in the balkan. It's still there ... you just won't find it linked anywhere). Or the downplaying of aspects of communism (such as the fact that socialist theory is rabidly, even violently, even murderously, anti-immigrant). Or ... every year the list extends further and further.
> This is a widely biased interpretation ...
What do you hope to achieve by doubling down on the totally one sided view of the situation? Iran's government is evil, massacres everyone it can, brutally tortures and executes children, sells underage girls for sex (perfectly legal in sharia as long as the pimp claims to be an imam) and deserves everything that's happening to it 100x over.
Let's discuss that first.
> Wikipedia
The link provided comes from the BBC. Wikipedia simply acts as an aggregator on certain topics, which is convenient to share in such debates.
Your ad hominem against the BBC is laughable, please provide a list of correct media sources then. And don't try to debate the content of course!
> Iran evil
The US and Israel have no goal to change that, so the population will in the end have a destroyed infrastructure, and a hardliner regime even more brutal than ever. Mission accomplished!
> > Iran evil
> The US and Israel have no goal to change that
Even if you believe in the most absurd conspiracy theories you could still accurately classify US efforts as "trying to change Iran's behavior to the world for the better". So this is entirely, 100%, false.
And, yes, we all hope for more, which may or may not happen.
Ah yes, US efforts along with their actions against Venezuela, Lybia, Cambodia, Syria, Vietnam, Irak or North Korea. It totally worked, and those countries were much better than before the bombing!
When you think about it, every country between Pakistan and the mediterranean sea was bombed by the US in the last 30 years. How did it end up?
At some point the people in power very well know what's happening. Bombing schools, bridges, universities and hospitals don't create better regimes.
They just prove that hardliners of the IRGC were right from the start. Moderates have nothing to show, since the Trump admin never wanted to negociate. Yet another massive US self-own.
And I don't see why it is a conspiracy theory. Trump showed with Venezuela that he didn't care at all about democracy. And Israelis don't either. You are the one absorbing the blatant propaganda lies of the Trump administration.
... and then, of course, we switch moral fallacies. The supposed superiority of doing nothing. Hope you never need an ambulance, because of course, clearly, according to your reasoning the moral action would be to let you die.
And btw: your motivation, obviously that you want Iran hardliners to win inside Iran, is showing. Carefully placing the blame for the actions of the hardliners with the US. Needless to say, that is not a moral position at all.
There's many problems. First: every agent with agency is of course responsible for their own actions. Which means Iran's regime, islamists and islamic clergy are despicable monsters because of what they did.
That there is a reason they did what they did does not explain their actions in any moral sense. It makes it worse, of course. It means that they're indeed fully responsible for their actions, that they're not insane, made a choice, and their choice shows them to be truly despicable, immoral and disgusting human beings.
You are conflating "doing something" with "doing something useful".
The US could have chosen not to kill the supreme leader (who was the only one able to drive a change), a large part of the moderates in the government and negociators.
It could have chosen to send other people than crooked incompetent real estate managers to negotiate with Iranians about complex nuclear issues.
It could have chosen to propose an acceptable plan to Iranians that allowed room for negotiation, not just a blanket capitulation and surrender.
Your view of foreign policy is immature, similar to a child trying to wash the dishes and breaking them as he does. When the parents arrive, he cries and says "but I'm trying to help!".
And I don't like the IRGC but I also would prefer to avoid the humanitarian and refugee crisis and civil war in a 90M pop country. Which will happen after the US "liberates" them by bombing civilian infrastructure such as water treatment or electricity plants. Did they ever say "thank you"?
Because I know that others will pick up the pieces after the US and Israeli meatheads in power will come back home. Just like it happened in Irak, Syria, and Lybia.
All of those are choices the US government DID make, and Iran threw into their face before we switched to this. Which of course changes whose view of foreign policy is immature, but who cares? This is just a discussion forum.
Found the Nazi! Found the Nazi! Please ban this asshole if you have any morality.
Aren't those war crimes? Will anything be done about that I wonder. And if your goal is bringing democracy and liberating a people from a oppressive regime, then hurting the people by making their air unbreakable or bombing the water plants is NOT how you go about.
I understand that war is not pretty and regime change is brutal to all parties involved, but this is done in the worst way possible.
> Will anything be done about that I wonder
Most probably nothing. If things get really bad and there is a revolution or something of that magnitude in the US there may be a Nuremberg moment. Don’t count on it. Whatever government will come next will do everything they can to shield American generals and officials because otherwise they would be afraid the same thing would happen to them once they leave office. The only thing that could keep these people accountable is the American people through Congress. So yeah, probably nothing. Which is bad, because these war crimes are up there with what supposedly evil regimes did in the past.
[dead]
> As a person who believes in democracy, I'm pretty on board with it.
As others have stated. This war will not bring democracy. Bombing Iranians have united them with the regime.
Also, US and Israel do not want a democracy in Iran. Israel would prefer a non-functioning place like Palestine or a mostly non-functional place like Lebanon that they can easily control.
It might bring some democracy to the US, though. There is hope for the midterms.
Would you say you fall into the hardcore trump base category?
No, I disagree with trump on most things, including possibly why he started the war.
Why do you think he actually started the war?
As opposed to the myriad of reasons he and the administration have given, differing sometimes on an hourly basis, as to why he started it?
Why did he start the war?
Well, I have no idea. I'm just guessing it's not the reason I like the war.
I generally only attempt to scrutinize government action, and not government reason for action. Random citizens are at such an information disadvantage that I think it would be impossible to have an informed opinion as an outsider on the reasoning.
It could be as simple as "Iran kept trying to assassinate me so I'm going to assassinate them". Maybe he was pressured by Israel, I really have no idea.
> I generally only attempt to scrutinize government action, and not government reason for action
This might be the wildest opinion I've read.
You're onboard with the US bombing another country ("I like the war"), but you don't know, or care WHY. You just think it was a good idea.
"Random citizens are at such an information disadvantage that I think it would be impossible to have an informed opinion as an outsider on the reasoning."
I'm trying to give you the benefit of the doubt here, but if you re-read your own words, you've just said a random citizen like yourself can't possibly know enough to have an informed opinion, yet you gave us your opinion, which is that you think they should have bombed Iran.
> This might be the wildest opinion I've read.
> You're onboard with the US bombing another country
They are totally fine with it: https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=false&qu...
One could argue what this is somehow related to the fact it's always on the other side of the planet and never on the border, but who knows.
You need to reread my words. I never said I can't possibly know enough to have an informed opinion generally. Nor did I say it's impossible to have an informed opinion in what I gave my opinion on.
> Random citizens are at such an information disadvantage that I think it would be impossible to have an informed opinion as an outsider on the reasoning.
Are you an insider then?
Denazify… oops, wrong country, sorry. "Changing the regime". But it cannot possibly be true because regime change, just like foreign wars are bad according to Trump. So, in reality, who knows?
My guess is that some nutcases at the pentagon got an adrenaline rush during the little adventure in Venezuela and looked for another country to mess with. It’s obvious that no real thought was put into what exactly is the point of all of this or how to actually get to that point. I mean, they were surprised that Turkey was upset and that Iran closed the Gulf. Or that none of the allies Trump has been shitting on for decades showed up. This does not point to any serious thought process.
You just would have rather have been lied to that this war was to "spread democracy"?
If this is a troll it is masterful. If it's an honest opinion I would invite you to check your skull for unexpected holes where your brain may have fallen out.
>"As a person who believes in democracy"
Is this a new spelling of fuck whatever semblance of international laws we have and big dicks do as they please?
You say this like a system of international law has ever existed that effectively restrains the most powerful nations in the world, democracies or otherwise.
I said "semblance of international law"
What do you think the odds are that this war results in more democracy?
Like my math teacher was oft heard saying, "approaches zero".
"Vanishingly small" is a polite way of saying it.
The math teacher was more along the lines of as x approaches zero or was it f(x). It was a really really long time ago since I've had a math teacher, but the approaches zero was something said frequently
Bringing democracy and freedom to the world by bombing school children. God bless America!
The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of school children.
In line with that logic, how is Ukraine protecting its freedom by bombing an ice rink in belgorod?
Attacking your attacker defends your freedom. Spontaneously attacking another country does not protect their freedom.
Those children who were at the ice skating rink were also attacking Ukraine? Quite precocious!
An unfortunate and unintended consequence of counterattacking the invader. Very different from bombing a school due to bad intelligence in an unprovoked attack.
[flagged]
Why would Ukraine mine their own cities? Unlike Russia, Ukraine signed the Ottawa Treaty that bans anti-personnel mines in 2006.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ottawa_Treaty
A more likely explanation is that butterfly mines were dropped by Russian armed forces; see Human Rights Watch:
Russian forces have used at least seven types of antipersonnel mines in at least four regions of Ukraine: Donetsk, Kharkiv, Kyiv, and Sumy.
There is no credible information that Ukrainian government forces have used antipersonnel mines in violation of the Mine Ban Treaty since 2014 and into 2022.
https://www.hrw.org/news/2022/06/15/background-briefing-land...
https://www.scotsman.com/news/world/ukraine-conflict-likely-...
Of course this is all tradition to bring rebellious minorities back into Russkiy Mir, just look at how Grozny looked in 2000. That was Putin's first war, started when he was prime minister.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Grozny_(1999%E2%80%9... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_war_crimes
Oh look, I can link to HRW reports too: https://www.hrw.org/news/2023/01/31/ukraine-banned-landmines...
Literally none of the fighting countries want Iran to be democratic. Neither USA nor Israel nor Iran. Israel dont want the country functional and would prevent democracy. USA idea of regime change is to keep regime, change head for someone who pays extortion money. And if Iranian leadership wanted democracy they would have one. Not sure if you noticed, but American admin loves dictators and insults democracies
So ,WTF are you talking about here.
Also, bombing city with that double tap tactic during protests ensures you kill protesters.
Having Iran be "non functional" would just be asking for even more hardliners take over, like what happened in syria. I don't take this to be actually indicative of their viewpoints.
Or in Gaza, and it is not an accident. As far as they are concerned it’s working great. Israel is in a state of permanent warfare, which completely silences any kind of debate about what country it wants to be, enables racist nationalists who can freely go about burning villages, and it keeps Bibi out of prison. None of what has happened in the last 20 years or so in the region strikes me as particularly well thought out with a long term strategy besides keeping all their neighbours in the Middle Ages.
There is a reason that Israel is arming criminal gangs in Gaza (which Bibi even publicly admitted).
I think that you will find that many people think that we ought to solve the 50 year old problem in the Mideast once and for all. Now that the Russians are busy, that Venezuela is down, that Syria has fallen, and that the Chinese are minding their own business is a good time to decapitate Iran. Also Cuba is next.
What exactly are the problem and the solution?
Permanently disarming Iran, and creating conditions favorable to the fall of the Islamist terrorist regime that has been bullying the Mideast since 1979.
Maybe read up on the history before 1979. Maybe toppling a democratic regime in 1952 in order to get their oil was not the best move.
If you're worried about a state that terrorises the region, best to focus on Israel
Any guesses on how long that will take, what it will cost, and the odds if it happening at all?
No idea, but it's safe to say that Iran has lost most of their navy and air force already. It's harder to tell how many launchers, missiles, and drones Iran has left however, as it is deliberately hiding and conserving munitions for what they expect will be a protracted conflict.
The other unknown is how far the U.S., Isreal, and potentially other countries are willing to go. Turning the lights off and literally sending Iran back to the stone age wouldn't be so difficult at this stage, but would probably rule out the possibility of a deal that sees Iran disarm and hand over the enriched uranium.
You're basically advocating for war crimes which the US has already started to do.
Iran had already offered to give up the enriched uranium bit that is off the table now. Iran should and will pursue a nuclear weapon in order to protect themselves from American and Israeli imperialism.
I don't see the difference between the US and Iran given what you are suggesting. How would you treat an Iranian attack on the Golden Gate Bridge? Would you call that a cowardly terror attack?
Yeah, does sending them back to the stone age buy us anything good? 90 million starving migrants with an understandable axe to grind with the US? Or are we just going to kill them all and become the monsters we claim to hate?
You realize that Iran will retaliate by attacking their neighbors' power and desalinization plants? Do you want most of the ME to go dark and lacking water?
Even Netenyahu has said you can't do regime change without some sort of boots on the ground. Iran is much bigger and more mountainous than Iraq. The IRGC has a couple hundred thousand active personell.
Who's going to deal with the Zionist terrorist regime that has been bullying the Middle East since 1948?
Or the Wahabi regime that sponsored the sort of fanaticism that led to the rise of Al Qaeda?
Let's not put a moral spin on America's realpolitik.
North Korea was able to get nuclear weapons because we didn't want the carnage of artillery bombardment to Seoul that would have been the retaliation, had we stopped them.
Iran was close to achieving that same thing with ballistic missile bombardment of Europe.
The problem is that Iran, unlike NK, is run by a fanatical death cult with stated goal of attacking United States and history of running proxy militias in every nearby failed state, in a neighborhood that has no shortage of failed states.
The US defense secretary (excuse me, War secretary) is almost covered with tattoos and mottoes celebrating the Crusades [1]. I wouldn't go around accusing other countries of being run by "death cults" if I were you. We have a nuclear-armed death cult called Christian Dominionism here at home.
1: https://i.imgur.com/cDjIG2S.png
I agree that the quantity of tattoos on the SecWar is appalling.
> fanatical death cult
Why do you believe this? Their recent actions don't seem to back it up.
Their idea of "martyrdom" is killing people who disagree with them. Not, "it can be ok to kill people who disagree with you once it reaches the point of war," but, "these people's forebears didn't listen to our god, so we must always hunt them, and also the jews."
IF(highest sacrifice in your cult is dying while trying to kill those who disagree with you because of same) THEN (you are in a death cult)
> it can be ok to kill people who disagree with you once it reaches the point of war
How does this work out when we are the ones that decided to start the war? Does saying the word "war" suddenly absolve us of the crimes we commit in that war?
> Their idea of "martyrdom" is killing people who disagree with them. Not, "it can be ok to kill people who disagree with you once it reaches the point of war," but, "these people's forebears didn't listen to our god, so we must always hunt them, and also the jews."
You know the one about extraordinary claims requiring extraordinary evidence?
>You know the one about extraordinary claims requiring extraordinary evidence?
I will give you the benefit of the doubt on asking for these claims, but you should consider what burden of proof you are asking for: constant political slogans advocating attacks? Or do you need the leader to explicitly state that that's not just a slogan? Forthright statements in their religious texts advocating the same?
And would you expect that level of specificity and forthrightness of other comparable claims?
No need for any benefits of the doubt, let me make myself perfectly clear. I think that you're throwing wild claims, relying on the general ignorance and media conditioning of the average American (largely the audience on this forum) in order to provide "familiar vibes" as the foundations of your claims in the minds of that audience.
Now, specifically, you said that: "Their idea of "martyrdom" is killing people who disagree with them". Are "they" Iranians? Shia? Muslims in general? People of the middle east in general? After having settled the question of who "they" are, you are then claiming that if they kill those who merely disagree with them, they consider those doing the killing to be martyrs? That would disagree with the common understanding of what a martyr is worldwide, and hence my comment about your claim being quite extraordinary.
I challenge you to not try to steer the topic away from my questions, or make additional claims without being specific and providing evidence for those either. I am not interested in widening the scope of the conversation into endless arguing.
Ok, I'll be clear too. I think your questions are meant not to seek answers, but as aspersions, and I am skeptical that any evidence, overwhelming though it might be in other cases, would satisfy you in this instance. Iran is exceptional in providing so much evidence of the leadership's ill intentions, and by your generalizations I doubt you are aware of them.
More playing to vibes. For the passive reader, given that no evidence whatsoever was provided (let alone of the extraordinary kind) despite having been given ample opportunity to do so, please consider the extraordinary claims to be effectively retracted.
Have a good night.
You're more than 5 layers down in a day-old thread; there's no one else here. Just me talking to you and you, as I now understand, talking to no one.
What makes you think the Iranian regime wants a destroyed country as opposed to setting up strong opposition to the West in the region? "Fanatical Death Cult" just sounds like propaganda for justifying war with them as opposed to diplomatic solutions. North Korea and Russia saber-rattle plenty. It's a tactic.
So you're saying you want a solution, and you want it to be a final one?
The military advantage of colonial powers, and the political weakness of the pawn countries is reduced making the great game harder. Venezuela and Syria fell because internally they were divided and the US could find traitors willing to sell out. That didn't happen in Iran, and Cuba will defend themselves if they are united.
Way to go proving Iran right. Who wouldn't want to eliminate a nation that bombs and kills your civilians?
So I see that you agree that Israel must destroy a significant portion of Gaza - at least those parts of Gaza educated by UNRWA.
To my understanding blowing up drone boats designed to destroy shipping.
The A-10 is a horrible friendly-fire as a service. Might as well use the thing as a bomb truck while you are still forced to keep it in service because certain brain cell lacking individuals think brr is good.
I always wondered why China doesn't flood foreign war zones with weapons to field test their fancy new gear against the USAF. Seems like a no-brainer.
They do. India-Pakistan was basically a field trial of Chinese AD. It failed miserably but the Chinese blame operator error (which is still valuable info; there is no reason to assume a PLA ground operator would be more competent than a Pakistani one).
They sell them. Military gear (at least aircraft and missiles) aren't cheap like an AK47. They have enjoyed watching India and Pakistan in their latest air battles. Lots of operational intel gleaned from that.
Your link and your quote does not say the A-10 was shot down though.
It's on NYT site now.
Their point is that the NYT says it crashed, the cause isn't clear.
Do A-10's normally crash? Or is there reason to believe that an A-10 flying in hostile territory was downed because it was shot?
It's an airplane. It is as susceptible to doors not being bolted on as much as a civilian flight. Maybe actually a higher chance of some benign mechanical issue as it is well known that air crews are often overworked with little to no sleep with the high tempo of sorties in these types of missions. Lots of historical examples of US military aircraft crashing from mechanical issues and not being shot down
122 A-10s have been lost outside of combat over the years. 8 have been lost in combat.
Lots of flights, maintenance resources stretched thin, old aircraft - this is when you'd expect to see crashes.
My comment was re: stating it as fact which is misleading. Beliefs or guesses are not facts.
Military airplanes do crash, there are lots of crashes every year: https://www.defenseone.com/threats/2025/11/military-aircraft...
At war there's a lot more pressure on ground and air crews that can lead to more mistakes. Also the mission would be flown closer to the limits vs. training.
So... We don't know? If your question is whether that's a good guess/greater than zero probability then sure. Is it a certainty? No. The Iranians will claim they shot it down. The Americans may or may not admit and if they deny then people will say they're lying.
In the first Iraq war, the KARI system in Iraq, which was built by Thompson-CSF, had its specifications leaked and the US obtained access to back doors and codes that allowed it to bypass and/or disable much of that system. You need to remember that the US and much of the West had friendly relations with Iraq and provided some infrastructure assistance and military support because Iraq invaded Iran.
No such analogous advantage exists in Iran, which is a much larger country, with better air defenses, and no western contractors ready to provide back doors into systems.
By that same logic that fact that we only lost 1 F-15 in, what, almost 3 weeks of bombing is actually a pretty good sign. Especially when you factor in that the Russians (proven) and Chinese (yet to be proven) are assisting Iran and Iran has been buying and building all of this military infrastructure at the expense of living conditions for its people just for this very attack, only to have almost everything obliterated.
And 3 weeks in to the war and the US is flying refueling tankers to refuel Blackhawks in the very area the F-15 was shot down to recover the pilots (1 so far has been received) should be much more informative than it seems to be.
But sure... the KARI system in Iraq.
> Iran has been buying and building all of this military infrastructure at the expense of living conditions for its people
Iran spends about 2.5% of its GDP on defense, compared to USA at around 3.5%. How much should they be spending?
https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/MS.MIL.XPND.GD.ZS?locat...
Is that reliable? The IRGC basically runs the economy and takes a significant cut. The IGRC is also separate from the military. The nuclear program, quite obviously for military use, may also not be included. What about support for proxy groups? Hezbollah alone gets support above $1B per year.
I was aware of the IRGC graft.
I tried to check the amounts normalized for % of GDP.
Conservative estimates put them at half of the 2% GDP military spend. However, the IRGC's tentacles are also estimated to siphon off something like +50% of the GDP.[0]
Not all of that money's going to military hardware, but they have a substantial slush fund and use the Iranian resource base as a military piggy bank.
[0]https://fortune.com/2026/03/02/iran-islamic-revolutionary-gu...
Not just that, but the IRGC cronies have massive overseas investments bought with stolen money: https://www.transparency.org.uk/news/londons-role-irans-fina...
$1B per year for Hezbollah is like $1 a month per Iranian.I doubt it changes the Iranians living conditions much...
Almost half of the economy is controlled by the IRGC: https://fortune.com/2026/03/02/iran-islamic-revolutionary-gu...
Which is a logical result of decades of sanctions, allowing only the insiders to profit from the country's ressources while the common man is bared from providing an alternative. Sanctions do not work and only entrench regimes, as we see in Russia, Cuba, North Korea and now Iran.
I've just been at a conference where some high-up guy from germany was talking about the effect of sanctions... russia used to sell wood pulp to germany, german factories would produce paper products and then sell a lot of them back to russia.
Then sanctions came, no more very cheap wood pulp for the german industry, and after a year of sanctions, the russians built (i think) 4 large paper factories, so even after the sanctions end, that business is not coming back to germany.
OK, so what? Obviously we shouldn't continue trading with enemies regardless of the economic impact.
Why? If the objective is to weaken a regime, and the sanctions strengthen it, why should you help your “enemy”?
The classic mistake here is to consider that dictatorships are like democracies—they aren't, and their power structure is different and more resilient to economic shocks. Even Bachar Al-Assad, who was much weaker, took 13 years to leave power.
At some point, one should question if wide sanctions targeted at increasing the suffering of the civilian population are really worth it.
Your assumption here is that, since sanctions strengthen the regime, not having sanctions weakens the regime, which is not logical.
Not having sanctions potentially strengthens a regime more than sanctions do, embeds them in the global geopolitical/cultural/economic stage, normalises their behaviour, and goes against a lot of people's deontology.
Look at Israel: no sanctions, strong Zio regime, majority of US/German pop supported the "self-defense" argument for decades, complete normalisation of Palestinian genocide until the horror reached an unbearable threshold. Etc., etc.
Yes, sanctions are far from perfect, but I strongly believe that a world with Israel santioned would have been a much better place for everyone, including the Israelis (from having to contend with their ideology).
Edit: I'm also aware that my argument is not perfect either. For example, I wouldn't qualify what Cuba has or what Iraq had as sanctions in the sense that I'm talking about: these are to my eyes an economic war of aggression by the US/West. What I'm defending is sanctions on fascist and ethonationalist global/regional superpowers that are engaging in large-scale horror. But I'm aware how leaky my definition is.
You can do sanctions on items that allow the regime wage wars (weapons and dual-use products), yes, that can work. Or wide sanctions on small countries such as Israel can be a credible deterrent, since it lacks economic depth to find substitutes.
However, wide sanctions on large countries such as Russia or Iran are now proven to be quite ineffective in the long run. Even worse, by preventing the creation of a middle-class, you won't have the conditions to start a democracy later, after a possible regime change.
I know it sounds counter-intuitive, but it's what data shows.
And sanctions don't prevent countries from committing atrocities either. What about the deaths and suffering induced by sanctions? 500k Iraqi children were estimated to have died due to the US sanctions. The architect of the policy told that it was "worth it". Was it?
https://www.newsweek.com/watch-madeleine-albright-saying-ira...
- Economic growth slows down under sanction.
- removing their leverage over you is also good.
Even if regime will not change, it will be weaker
Sanctions also affect population and create indirect deaths and suffering in the civilian population.
I guess that, just like Madeleine Albright, you believe that 500k Iraqi children death caused by US sanctions were "worth it"? (US still wanted to invade after, proof that sanctions worked!)
https://www.newsweek.com/watch-madeleine-albright-saying-ira...
Quite a loaded question (a-tier).
Counter-question/game:
Hypothetically, imagine that you become president of US today, inheriting current situation. What would you do regarding Iran situation?
What is the correct action now in current situation?
Spoiler: I think there is no “correct” solution, somebody will be hurt in the end despite best wishes.
Note: Lower supply of oil and fertiliser affects poorer countries more than the rich ones (possibility of famine in Africa). Current Iran government just killed their own civilians a month ago in thousands to end protests; and repressions will likely repeat as protests are likely to repeat. (Irans populace seem to be quite educated and want some reforms) Ground invasion of Iran would cost a lot of lives - civilian casualties always exist.
But honestly, what would you choose to do?
But they just became more independent.
Germany stills needs and wants russian energy, because they're overpaying a lot currently, but russians don't need the german paper industry anymore.
Paper is definitely not the only thing Russia was importing. Check statistics of Russian aviation accidents (not sure if Germany was in supply chain for aviation, but this is visible thing that clearly was affected by sanctions)
Is there evidence sanctions strengthen a regime? With Russia at war right now, sanctions do indeed seem to be helping Ukraine with Russia having a budget crisis.
“ sanctions strengthen authoritarian rule if the regime manages to incorporate their existence into its legitimation strategy.”
https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/european-journal-of-...
Sanction strengthen the political grip of a regime on society, which can use them as a justification for its repression. They also hollow-out the middle class, which prevents a democratic societal change, which requires it.
In the case of a war, it is of course useful, but it won't solve the long-term issue of the nature of the Russian regime, which has gotten only more entrenched since 2014.
Russia is actively and directly at war with Ukraine. Russian tax dollars fund that war with Ukraine.
Sanctions on Russia are us not funding the war on Ukraine.
Do you count enemies as the one we try to invade, or only as the one that invade others and more generally don't respect international laws?
I think sanctions against government officials, rather than the whole population, work better.
Extensive domestic economic control by security forces is also a feature of Egypt and Pakistan. America does not complain about those examples of course, because those countries bend the knee.
Those countries, like Iran, are also quite poor because the army siphons off so much of their resources.
And it seems that they did in fact need that army.
[flagged]
If by "bend the knee" you mean that they don't regularly chant "death to America", sure.
[flagged]
A lot more than 1/2 the world, a lot more...
Currently lot if people dislike/distrust america. Which is understandable and rational thing to do. Chanting “deato xyz” is very irrational and unproductive and just bad.
if I was disliked and distrusted by a lot of people I’d think long and hard about why that is vs. complaining about how that dislike/distrust is communicated
Do you assume that I am American and that I was complaining about people chanting?
I am not; yet I prefer that my side stays rational without such chant’s (somebody has to be the responsible adult)
I made no such assumptions, no
They should probably be closer to 0 or more in line with European countries but these numbers aren’t accurate and don’t tell the full story. They don’t, for example, include money paid to and missiles transferred to Houthis to launch from Yemen. Nevermind Hamas and Hezbollah, rebels in Iraq and so forth.
EU countries spend about 2% of GDP on their militaries. It's not at the high US levels, but it's closer to Iran's number than it is to zero.
Europe is just under 2% of their GDP spent on military. Where are you getting this "0" figure? https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/MS.MIL.XPND.GD.ZS
Russia today probably.
> They should probably be closer to 0 or more in line with European countries
Expand on this logic please.
European countries are protected by NATO and a nuclear umbrella.
Why would you expect a nation state to not invest in its military?
> European countries are protected by NATO and a nuclear umbrella.
Well, protected by the United States primarily. They've mostly divested from military spending and capabilities over time, which is the ideal thing, but it seems like maybe we can't live in that ideal world, anyway...
I'm not suggesting that Iran shouldn't have a military, but instead questioning the purposes for which it would have one. Today its military is used for sending missiles at Gulf States, funding Hezbollah, and oppressing its people. So for it to have little to no military practically speaking would be a good thing.
Second at 2.5% GDP (again these figures are highly questionable) that's plenty to have defensive capabilities versus neighbors. There's nobody there to really worry about because who outside of the United States is going to invade Iran? And even then the US is only doing it because they won't stop doing crazy shit and launching missiles at everyone.
> I'm not suggesting that Iran shouldn't have a military, but instead questioning the purposes for which it would have one.
Well, they're currently being attacked. "Defending against attackers" is a pretty important purpose for a military.
[flagged]
> Notice how it's just Iran that's being attacked
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2026_Lebanon_war
Yes, Hezbollah is an Iranian proxy who has, in violation of UN actions and against Lebanese government wishes seized and held territory in Lebanon from which to launch rockets into Israel lol.
If you're going to use that as such a loose category than the list of countries that have been attacked expands quite a bit. Israel has attacked Iran, while Iran has attacked Israel, Turkey, Azerbaijan, Iraq, Oman, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, UAE, USA, and maybe one or two others that I'm not thinking of.
Iran hasn't attacked USA or Israel. USA and Israel are the invaders that attacked Iran.
Do we now start listing American proxies and their terrorism? CONTRA alone should make the USA deserving of several nukes dropped on its lands by that measure.
Like, this very second?
It’s been ones of months since USA attacked Venzuela. We are openly musing about invading Greenland. We are actively embargoing and threatening to invade Cuba. We are the unhinged aggressor in all of this.
There is no civilization on the planet that would accept full disarmament under the logic that they should just trust that you won’t attack them if they weren’t armed.
Let's be fair, if someone bombed trump right now, most of the world would be happy, including a lot of americans.
Does that mean that someone should bomb US because of your regime? I mean... you have more homeless people living in tents than most cities post some natural disaster, your people can't afford education, healthcare nor (as above) homes, and you guys are spending money to bomb a place half a planet away that is in no way endangering you... and that after you've bombed it once before and "completely destroyed the nuclear program"... and before that and before that.
I mean... i understand americans are well... americans, but you guys can't even imprison pedos running your country, why should you decide who to bomb?
I mean.. what's next? Iranian special forces will eventually start destroying stuff in US, and you guys will claim "terrorism" or something again... well, it's not terrorism if you're in a war.
> Well, protected by the United States primarily. They've mostly divested from military spending and capabilities over time,
UK and France have nukes, european nato part isn't going to be invaded without nuclear exchanges.
Apart from that, each country is specialized on various things and combined military is quite capable.
Sure, it's not US level of spending... which is probably a good thing given the US basically cut education and healthcare for a few generations for that.
> UK and France have nukes, european nato part isn't going to be invaded without nuclear exchanges.
I like to think this is true, but how many French soldiers coming home in body bags defending Lithuania will it take before they say enough? Are they going to just resort to nuclear weapons against Russia immediately? I don't think the nuclear umbrella is the trump card that it you might be portraying it to be. It's really difficult to say who would use those and when. There are some obvious cases, but there are also some not so obvious ones.
But nukes aren't enough. You're not winning the Ukraine war with your nuclear umbrella for example - that's being won on the ground with Ukrainian blood.
> Apart from that, each country is specialized on various things and combined military is quite capable.
Combined command of a military like this is incredibly difficult, and while I'd certainly agree that some specific militaries are quite capable of [1], I think the political and organizational system in Europe really poses a challenge. But even so those militaries lack power projection capabilities and lack in some other key areas.
[1] In order probably Ukraine -> UK -> France -> Poland and then nobody else registers. Ignoring Russia because they're not really European IMO.
> Sure, it's not US level of spending... which is probably a good thing given the US basically cut education and healthcare for a few generations for that.
Nah, we actually have money to easily afford both we just have a bunch of morons in charge (Democrats and Republicans) who, particular to healthcare, have gotten us the worst of both worlds. Education we're #1 there's no question about that.
France trained the most efficient recon crews, and the most efficient Ukrainian sniper units (some of them led by ex french soldiers. At least with a french passport, or on the verge of getting one). Caesar MK1 are the most efficient howitzer by a large margin in Ukrainian conflict, and Ukraine have half the French number, and first MK1 units, when France is starting to get Caesar MK2. Our MBTs is so much better than Ukrainian tanks it isn't a comparison, and French rafales are not a joke, unlike su57s. When it come to boots on the ground and artillery support, nobody can beat Italy in Europe, though Finland probably can give it a run, and both countries would have defended Russia aggression easily. Special units are not even a consideration tbh, both French and Italian winter units are incredibly better trained than Spetnaz it appears (and they have the advantage of like, not being dead), and even they are less well trained and equipped than those in Finland/Sweden/Norway/Denmark or UK.
If you're talking about global capabilities, including power projection, then the ranking have to start with France, and have Italy very, very close to the UK if not ahead (if we don't take into account nukes), and then Spain should be slightly above Poland and Ukraine, maybe with Finland and Sweden in the mix (gripe3 and CV90?). German have the Gepard which seems to be the best response to drones, but their army is too new. The only thing Europe truly lacks is a strong IFV with reactive armor like the Bradley, maybe the Lynx would qualify but the quantity is clearly not enough.
And here I didn't talk about military doctrine and how well both French, Italian and German equipment fit their own, which to me is a huge advantage right after the early days of a conflict, because even when no one really know what to do and improvise, at least the whole army group improvise in the same direction.
Nice write up, I'd also add up Turkey, has a massive military on its own, is part of NATO and had no worry shooting down russian jets
True, Turkey is a bit harder to rank. Or was hard to rank before February. They showed during NATO joint exercise projection capability i didn't know they were capable of, and imho they should be ranked around UK/Italy on projection capacity (though special forces seems to be a weak point, so probably below them tbh). If the fight is local though (in first sphere of influence), yeah, they probably are the first fighting force in europe (including Russia), with their army size, drone, artillery and AA capacity.
> Education we're #1 there's no question about that.
I am wondering what you mean. Top-tier universities full of foreign nationals doing excellent research and funded by exorbitant fees? Sure.
But what about pre-college education?
Reading this thread, with people variously claiming things about Israel as if the country had sprung up from nothing with divine rights on the 7th october, or about Iran, as if the regime had suddenly appeared in 1979, without any US involvement in its suffering before (1953) or after (1984), makes me willing to question that education in the US is promoting critical thinking. Maybe the time spent singing the anthem would be better used actually reading history?
> Education we're #1 there's no question about that.
Education is about social mobility, a chance for anyone to participate depending on their intelligence/grit/motivation.
You guys only have education for the rich/elite.
If you have to pay for it, or be lucky to have parents next to good schools then you've failed.
> But nukes aren't enough.
Lookup french nuclear doctrine to see discouragement effect.
Also, european NATO is capable of bombing conventionally moscow/other russian cities in case of war with some losses.
Eliminating Putin/Leadership would probably stop any war.
That would probably be the first counter to any invasion with threat of using nukes as a threat to keep russia from going for nukes. (losing moscow/sankt petersburg might be too much for russia same as paris/berlin would be for other countries)
The other counter is some rapid deployment of troops to hold off any russian troops and make it very deadly for them until leadership decides to retreat.
Ucraine can't do that.
> By that same logic that fact that we only lost 1 F-15 in, what, almost 3 weeks of bombing is actually a pretty good sign.
"Good sign" of what, though? Air superiority? I guess, sure. But we've constructed a strategic situation for ourselves where mere air superiority is losing.
The straight remains closed. Because let's be blunt: if we can't reliably fly a F-15E or A-10 in the region, there's no way an oil company is going to bet its crew and cargo.
Honestly the best situation here is that Iran merely decides to toll the straight. That's "losing" too, but at least one with a merely "large financial overhead" on international energy traffic instead of a disastrous 15% off the top cut in capacity.
Iran is winning. This is the difference between tactics and strategy.
The toll is cheap I think, between one and two dollar a barrel, so less than 2 million per boat. Honestly a good price to end the war.
In a practical sense, from the perspective of the world as a whole, sure. It's also true that it leaves Iran in a much more powerful position than they held before the war[1]. So it's a "loss", strategically.
It's uncomfortable to admit given the context, but the truth is that the Islamic Republic of Iran really is a terrible state, both to its own people and its neighbors, and a much wealthier Iran represents a genuine threat to world peace on its own.
[1] To wit: "This is Our Water now. Pay us what we want. Don't like it? Come bomb us again and see how your oil markets like that. We can take it. You soft infidels can't, and we proved that already. Now it's $4/barrel, btw." Imagine that delivered on Truth Social for more ironic impact. It's Trump bluster, but with actual teeth.
The US has lost mutiple KC-125 tankers and an E3 as well, although those were destroyed ont he ground rather than shot down.
building all of this military infrastructure at the expense of living conditions for its people
Just yesterday, Trump was talking about another $1.5 trillion for defense in the coming fiscal year, and saying the US can't afford things like daycare, medicare etc.
Iran's military budget as a % of GDP has historically been inthe low single digits: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_budget_of_Iran
[flagged]
Did you completely miss the disaster of DOGE in the first year of this administration?
US welfare system seems to contain a lot of fraud, waste, abuse and grift across the board, so this will be a good chance to cleanse the system of fraud.
Taking money from social programs and piling into the military which contains "a lot of fraud, waste, abuse and grift across the board", certainly is a choice. Sort of the opposite of a smart choice, but definitely a choice for sure.
[flagged]
>" taking money from fraud waste and abuse"
Congrats. Finally somebody who wants to dismantle US government.
Uh huh. Do you have any confidence that this administration will do a competent job of that inspection? I don't. I mean, they could surprise me...
> The US has lost mutiple KC-125 tankers and an E3 as well, although those were destroyed ont he ground rather than shot down.
Which makes them irrelevant here in this discussion but sure yea. Russia (those sneaky guys who invaded Ukraine and are being supplied by Iran) provide targeting information to Iran, Iran has missiles, we can't shoot them all down, and here we are. It's unfortunate but that's what happens in a war. Frankly, these are very good lessons learned by the United States and they're going to come in handy if we end up in another war.
> Just yesterday, Trump was talking about another $1.5 trillion for defense in the coming fiscal year, and saying the US can't afford things like daycare, medicare etc.
We can easily afford both, but we choose not to because our political system is full of morons and corruption, but instead of Iran being more like the US and being dysfunctional in this regard, it should be more like Norway (excluding population differences) and pump and sell the oil and do so for the benefit of their citizens instead of this authoritarian rah rah death to America and death to Israel nonsense.
> Iran's military budget as a % of GDP has historically been inthe low single digits:
Figures provided here are inaccurate and don't account for spending on proxy groups, for example.
> Frankly, these are very good lessons learned by the United States and they're going to come in handy if we end up in another war.
This is an interesting take given that the US seems to have ignored many of the most important lessons from Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan, etc.
As for "end up in another war", the language you chose is very revealing. You don't just "end up in...war". Wars don't start themselves. Someone starts them and in the case of the US, it's almost always the US.
[flagged]
> we don't care what militarily irrelevant countries think about our activities because, well, we don't and they don't matter and we don't really care what they think.
Why is the US pleading and whining for help then?
America has its own oil. Europe is buying it, which increases the price.
To lower prices, America can help Europe get their oil back from the strait or it can ban sales to Europe both of which could make American oil cheap for Americans.
By not helping, Europe is screwing Americans. And, pretty soon, screwing Europeans too because Americans will be fed up with high prices. They will move to stop exports.
Where does that leave Europe?
The USofA is refinery challenged, most of its sweet light goes direct to export ports, not to home soil light refineries.
This is a challenge, not a simple switch that can be flicked overnight.
See: https://www.fuelstreamservices.com/why-the-u-s-cant-use-the-... for surface scratch intro to the issue.
But the US already buys only 8% of it's oil from the Middle East. How long do you think they will care to help people that don't want to help themselves? It's more likely they will stop selling to Europe.
If I had to guess, I think American oil companies that operate in the strait selling oil to Europe are the only reason the US is still working so hard to control the strait. It's a lot of money on the table. But it's certainly not for Americans, just for a few rich American oil companies and their European customers.
1. Oil is a global market. Global supply and demand affects prices everywhere.
2. Oil isn't the only commodity that is at stake here. The closure of the Strait of Hormuz has disrupted the global helium supply, for instance, and helium is used in critical products Americans need.
3. Asia relies heavily on oil and other commodities that pass through the Strait of Hormuz. Asia is the factory of the world and manufactures tons of the goods that are exported to the US, from clothing to electronics. Obviously, an energy crisis in Asia has the potential to disrupt American supply chains.
4. The petrodollar system creates artificial demand for US dollars. This is a massive financial and soft power benefit to the US. If Atlas shrugs and the petrodollar system starts going away, the rebalancing/recalibration that takes place is not going to be very pleasant for Americans.
1. So the US is responsible for reclaiming a global market by itself? Or is the US required to be terrorized for 4 decades as a sacrifice for the global market?
2. And Europe doesn't need any?
3. But not European supply chains?
4. That's probably true. So the US is required to serve the EU with its military because the EU is their customer? I can think of several ways that the US can keep this position without the strait. But it's much more expensive for Europeans.
1. "Reclaiming" what? The president of the US, without Congressional approval, decided to launch a war against Iran. He broke it and now, like a petulant child, he wants everyone else to help him fix it. There was no credible evidence that Iran posed an imminent threat to the US. Virtually all of Iran's actions against the US in the past 40 years involved targets in the Mideast and once again, the history explains why Iran and the US aren't friends. In addition to the fact that the US was instrumental in the 1953 coup and supporting the Shah's brutal dictatorship that terrorized millions of Iranians, let's not forget that the US provided significant aid to Iraq in the Iran-Iraq War and it's pretty much accepted as fact in the Arab world that the Iran-Iraq War was a US design. Bottom line: the US needs to accept responsibility for creating the very environment that it says threatens it.
2. Europe didn't launch a war against Iran. They are obviously going to suffer (like everyone else in the world) but that doesn't mean they have an obligation to allow the president of the US to effectively commandeer their resources to clean up the mess he made.
3. Of course it affects European supply chains. It's going to affect everyone on the planet basically. But again, Europe didn't launch this war. Why do you seem to think they have a moral obligation to get involved in what virtually everyone in the world sees for what it is (a foolish war started by the US and Israel)?
4. The US isn't required to do anything. Your perspective seems to be that the US is God's gift to the world and everyone else is just freeloading. Another perspective is that alliances like NATO, the petrodollar system, etc. have been the sources of America's outsize economic, political and military power post-WW2. In my opinion, Americans have no idea what is coming as Pax Americana dies. It's not going to be pretty and I believe it is an existential threat to the way of life Americans have come to expect.
[flagged]
Someone is drinking the cool aid.
>Where does that leave Europe?
Where does it leave US without allies?
Allies? Doesn't look like it.
Europe is screwing Americans? That is rich. You started this fucking war you....
[flagged]
It's funny your link starts in 1979. Perhaps you should read about what the US did in Iran before that.
Here's a teaser: in 1953, the US and UK instigated a coup that overthrew the Prime Minister of Iran. The goal: keep Iran from nationalizing British oil interests.
The coup put the country in the hands of the Shah, who was basically a pro-Western dictator.
In 1957, the Shah set up SAVAK, which was basically secret police. Per Wikipedia:
> According to a declassified CIA memo citing a classified U.S. Senate Foreign Relations Committee report, the CIA played a significant role in establishing SAVAK, providing both funding and training. The organization became notorious for its extensive surveillance, repression, and torture of political dissidents. The Shah used SAVAK to arrest, imprison, exile, and torture his opponents, leading to widespread public resentment. This discontent was leveraged by Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, then in exile, to build popular support for his Islamic philosophy.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SAVAK
Two wrongs don't make a right but the US is by no stretch an innocent victim of post-revolution Iran.
And now it appears the US is looking for a second bite of a poison apple.
[flagged]
> But America has tried to make peace with Iran for 40 years.
It's insane that you probably actually believe this.
Go read up about the Iran-Iraq War. The US has had no interest in making peace with Iran.
[flagged]
And who created the problem in the first place?
Also EU can be reached and bombed by Iran so we have more to loose than some army bases in the desert like you guys. I assure you that Europeans wouldn't support getting bombed because we had to help Trump make more money.
[flagged]
> The US shouldn't be expected to continue being victim to terrorism just so that Europe can have cheap oil.
Uh?
[flagged]
Also, let's not forget that most of the people responsible for murdering ten thousand protesters a few weeks ago are now dead. No matter what else happens in this war, that is an excellent precedent.
Thank you, it's always interesting hearing a USofAian PoV on the stupid things the country has done.
They are shockingly dumb, aren't they?
[flagged]
Strong comment, good response save for the opening snipe which gives reason for some to flag.
Still time to take that out: https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
> Vietnam - actually has great relations with the US and we won the peace.
Ironically, I used to teach English in Vietnam and my wife is Vietnamese.
The US didn't win anything. What Americans call the "Vietnam War" was and is called the American War in Vietnam. The country was absolutely decimated and left with scars that are still healing today (see for instance Agent Orange). After the US fled the country, it continued to wage what amounted to an economic war against Vietnam, excluding it from the global economy. Into the 90s, Vietnam was one of the poorest countries in the world. My wife's parents had relatives who survived the war only to starve to death after the war.
Vietnam, largely because of its geography, is a very smart and pragmatic country. It's the only country in the world that has comprehensive strategic relationships with the US, China and Russia.
Relations between the US and Vietnam are good because Vietnam's "bamboo diplomacy" policy allows it to leverage its unique position to extract benefit from all of the superpowers. Relations are not good because of US exceptionalism.
> The US usually starts the war because the US is the only country in the world actually trying to do anything about nefarious actors.
The good old, "I had to beat my wife because she wasn't acting right!"
> Iraq - well they had Saddam and now they have a functioning parliament and things seem to be going a lot better for them.
An estimated 300,000 to 1 million Iraqis died as a result of the war. But yeah, they have a parliament and "things seem to be going a lot better for them."
> Afghanistan - We wanted to provide schooling for little girls and stuff like that and, well, the population didn't want it. So at some point you cut your losses.
Do you actually believe anything you write? The US went into Afghanistan to get bin Laden and attempt to eliminate Afghanistan's role as a safe haven for Al Qaeda. Ironically, through Operation Cyclone, the US directly supported militant Islamic groups during the Soviet war, and where do you think the Taliban came from?
> Iran - We're not going to like invade and occupy Iran, though we could. We're just going to have to keep blowing up their military capabilities until they have a more reasonable government.
Iran has about 4 times the land area and double the population of Iraq. Given the amount of debt the US has and Trump's ecstatic destruction of Pax Americana by defecating on all of America's most important alliances, I think the most optimistic scenario is that the cost of making the Persian Empire again would be the collapse the American Empire.
> Vietnam - actually has great relations with the US and we won the peace.
They won the peace (and the war). You didn't win shit. You lost, badly. The wound in the American psyche by this defeat will never heal, to the point we have to witness claims such as yours.
> Afghanistan - We wanted to provide schooling for little girls and stuff like that and, well, the population didn't want it. So at some point you cut your losses.
So you lost. Mainly because you went on a military adventure, with unclear goals, with a population you didn't understand. Much like in Vietnam!
And here you are, in Iran.
I think the one lesson you did learn is to heavily control the media and the narrative. Body bags and mission failures are bad press. Lesson learned.
> We wanted to provide schooling for little girls and stuff like that
After arming the very terrorists that prevented the soviets from doing just that? How generous of you!
US is providing targeting information, weapons and money for ukraine... it seems totally fair that russia is providing the same info for iranians, hopefully they (and china) will send them some weapons too.
> instead of this authoritarian rah rah death to America and death to Israel nonsense.
After US and israel bombing them.... again... what do you think, will there be more or less "death to US" chants? Also, considering the number of dead people in iran, lebanon, palestine and other countries, the next step is probably special force work in US... the ones you guys call "terrorists".
Good lessons. Like ignoring previous military plans that showed how tough a nut Iran would be to crack.
Lessons like the value of AWACs. Now we're down to 15 and the availability rate is like 50%. So 8 or so WORLDWIDE. Yeah, that's a good lesson. And we've cancelled its replacement after someone (probably Elon) whispered BS into Trump's ear about space based sensors.
I'm sure China is watching with a notepad out about all these lessons. Thucydides is rolling in his grave.
>if we end up in another war.
If you end up in another war.. the coming month? Do you think Trump has had enough? Ans that the coming presidents wont start one?
[dead]
Well there were also the 3 F-15's that were shot down in one day in Kuwait. CENTCOM said it was a "friendly fire" incident
Correct. Kuwaiti Hornet pilot who likely thought he was shooting down weapons or aircraft from Iran.
I’m reading one of those Blackhawks was shot down. An A-10, F-16, and a refueling plane, in addition to the F-15 so far today. Which, if true, is not a good sign.
[flagged]
> Yet we've wiped out quite a bit of their military infrastructure and have complete control over the skies.
How can you believe that the US has "complete control over the skies" given today's events?
Oh yeah, its going great, so much achieved for only 30B and untold human lives, the winning!
Well we’re talking about Iran instead of the President’s “dealings” with a bevy of children so mission accomplished!
We must be using different definitions for ‘complete’. I think Iran is using loitering anti-air missiles with IR seeking which seems to be effective. Maybe this sudden spike is reflective of receiving new equipment from China.
[flagged]
> I guess my definition is “US can do whatever it wants without contest” and that seems to be the case here.
Whatever it wants, as long as that doesn't include flying aircraft or going through the strait.
Maybe ericmay is arguing that the US wants its planes shot down?
I would term it; the US has air dominance but the airspace is still contested as evident by the recent losses.
Also, I think the US is still predominantly using standoff munitions instead of switching to dumb munitions because the airspace is still contested.
[flagged]
> Yes the US probably is still using precision weapons because, well, unlike the Iranian government we don't want to use so-called dumb munitions and indiscriminately bomb civilians or civilian targets.
Are you referring to the "precision" weapons that hit the girls' school?
The us has air dominance but not air supremacy, which is why missiles are mostly used rather than bombs with gps kits, requiring to get much closer.
And the US has been very keen to bomb civilians and civilian infrastructure, along with Israelis, since the start of the war [0]. The US-Israelis are guilty of war crimes.
The recent bombing of an unfinished bridge is another example of the US-Israeli actions, especially since they did a double-tap to kill rescuers. [1]
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2026_Qeshm_Island_desalination...
[1] https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/firestorm-for-hegseth-a...
US did murder 170 girls in Minab school, and hit many civilian targets, including a water desalination plant.
Yes US is using precision weapons, but not because they want to avoid indiscriminate bombing.
It's because US wants to precisely bomb specific civilian targets
One could argue that the IRGC, much like Hamas, purposely builds military headquarters and other facilities near hospitals, schools, and civilian infrastructure precisely to use civilians as human shields.
Even if that's true, it doesn't justify killing a bunch of girls. I honestly can't understand how anyone gets to this point.
There's a day care center across I-95 from the Pentagon.
nobody can argue that, unless you are a war criminal trying to justify your war crimes
> have complete control over the skies.
If we had complete control over the skies, we wouldn't be losing aircraft, would we?
Not sure why you're getting downvoted. It is completely expected to lose aircraft in an operation of this scale, against an opponent with this level of sophistication. People put way too much stock in all of these modern stealth systems and whatnot. Stealth, for example, is a buzzword. It will give a slight edge, but it's not going to make your aircraft completely invisible and unshootable.
Stealth really should be qualified as radar-stealth, not optical stealth and not infrared stealth.
Iran is using infrared seekers to shut down planes and US pilots never get a warning of incoming missile due to Iran's passive IR seekers
The Iran war is going exactly to plan and this isn’t a bad day for the US administration?
I don't know if any have completed runs yet, but supposedly we're using B-52s...
>Iran has been buying and building all of this military infrastructure at the expense of living conditions for its people just for this very attack,
And how much is US spending?
>just for this very attack, only to have almost everything obliterated.
The spending was apparently justified.
I have a friend who flew in Desert Storm, and he talked about how incompetent the Iraqis were. Like
- De facto language of aviation (i.e. manuals) is English, and the regime had just purged most of the English speakers before the thing started
- They had these advanced ground defense systems and...didn't use the targeting, they were just spraying in the air
I don't know how well the Iranians can use their tools but I bet they're better than that.
[flagged]
It'll probably come in the form of permanent $5+/gal gas.
We got through it in 2022. We can get through it again.
Though unfortunately Americans will learn the wrong lesson from this which should be to reduce dependency on oil for every day life. We should be aiming to have fewer cars and abandon car-only transportation as policy, and more sidewalks, trams, bike lanes, and better medium density mixed-use development. But if folks want to have Ford F-250s and drive 15 miles for a loaf of bread, you have to care about the Straight of Hormuz which Iran could threaten to shut down anytime and as they continued to strengthen their military capabilities increasingly likely to shut down in the future.
-edit-
Also to be clear EVs aren't the answer either. Can't be dependent on China for rare earth mineral processing, still doesn't solve c02 emissions, still have traffic and all the negative externalities.
The rare earth dependency on China is very much overblown. The U.S. has very significant natural reserves of rare earth minerals. The problem is the same with all mining - it's uneconomic to mine minerals in the U.S. because the job of "miner" is unattractive to Americans (both the laborers and the governments that sign environmental permits) when there are cleaner, safer, and more highly paid jobs available.
They're also just as much of a CO2 solution as electric trains are, i.e. it depends on the fuel source for the local electric grid (which today is overwhelmingly solar in most of the places where EVs are popular).
We're dependent on processing and refining, not the minerals themselves. Takes, from what I understand, 10-15 years to stand up that capability.
Overall EVs are great and all and that's what I have, but they're not addressing the underlying concerns and sticking with car-only or car-based infrastructure whether that's ICE or EV is a losing proposition.
> They're also just as much of a CO2 solution as electric trains are,
No, you need fewer electric trains to move much more people plus you don't replace the trains as often, &c, and then add in all the miles and miles of paved roads you need, parking lots, you name it. There's no way around this, if you care about the environment or care about human wellbeing you have to move away from car-only infrastructure like the US has and move toward more European models. And no, the geography isn't a challenge, most people live in urban areas in the United States, China is big too, and so forth.
10-15 years to stand up legacy refining capability, which is heavy in pollution.
China invested decades into research and has made significant progress in extra refined, four nines purity rare earth minerals, required for advanced industries.
They may be two decades+ ahead of US at least, plus the talent pipeline
Sure no disagreement there - I think that just strengthens my point. Though I don’t think they are really 2 decades ahead because we can just start stealing their research and reverse engineering products as we see fit.
Another good lesson could potentially be that going to war as a sideshow to distract from a news cycle that threatened people in power is not the best choice for the world at large.
The people who are benefiting from that distraction are not the same who are being harmed by the distraction. The leaders seem to be quite okay with these turn of events.
I agree that we should abandon car-only transportation and instead move cars much further down the transit hierarchy. Ideally we would be relying on trains, bikes, and buses for most daily movement, using cars as needed instead of by default. But,
> still doesn't solve c02 [sic] emissions
This is incorrect. It doesn't magically make the entire grid carbon neutral but it does let us use much more efficient forms of power generation to make the electricity, and electric cars themselves do not emit CO2 (Carbon with 2 Oxygen). Effectively, switching to electric cars would remove cars themselves as a source of CO2 and make decarbonization much much easier.
I remember 4 dollar gas in 2011.... So that was nearly 6 dollars in modern money.
> aiming to have fewer cars and abandon car-only transportation as policy,
impossible in the US due to (sub)urban sprawl. The only way to get rid of car-only mode is to get rid of suburban sprawl and put people back into dense Eastern European style commieblocks.
Also it is impossible in the US due to market economy. People will inevitable have to commute long distance to reach job sites or customers. Eastern commieblocks could solve that because people worked in large industrial factories, and there were only a handful of factories per town, and one downtown, and all routes were predetermined and planned.
car-only mode is the expression of the American Dream (tm), that you can live in your SFH in a burb, and hop into your personal car any second and go anywhere you want. It is the Ultimate Freedom (tm) and anything else is a significant downgrade in a lifestyle
We certainly face headwinds and challenges and we will never be totally free of suburbs or anything - even Europe has those, but we can make great progress in specific areas and to your point leverage market efficiency to drive the progress we need to make as a country. When I think about my hometown of Columbus I think about the hundreds of acres of surface parking lots, those can be converted to economically useful land with shops, small-scale workshops, housing of various types, offices, and more. And by doing so we can build up appropriate density without too much of a challenge. Younger folks than me are clamoring for better living conditions - we should make it happen. That doesn’t mean we abandon cars or anything - I like mine, but with better building patterns we can reduce the burden on everyone to have to buy all this stuff just to get a loaf of bread, go to school, or any other normal daily activities. Then we can make more use of our existing infrastructure instead of building more and then not being able to afford to maintain it (state DOTs are big jobs programs and they build even if they don’t need to so that they don’t have to lay people off - biggest scam in the USA and maybe the world).
There’s a really well known photo of Amsterdam before and after their car-first infrastructure. I can try to find it later but if you search for it, you could find it pretty easily I think. You’ll know it when you see it and it’ll blow your mind.
Oil is still underpriced wrt to its environmental cost. It is good to see at least the political cost being accounted for.
From my point of view, this incredibly stupid war has only positive externalities. The costs of oil are legion and unaccounted.
> Oil is still underpriced wrt to its environmental cost.
This may well be true, but we still haven't found a better fuel. Sure, we have electric cars, but they are still too expensive for the masses, or impractical, e.g. for apartment dwellers. Besides, oil has countless other uses besides as fuel for vehicles.
There's no incentive to find a better fuel as long as the price of oil doesn't have the externalities priced in.
Yes, and, the world would be better off if the price of oil were higher. We would produce less plastic crap and take fewer frivolous airplane trips and take more public transit. Our petroleum consumption is based on underpriced oil.
This could be an argument for investing in more reliable/higher capacity public transit systems though. Which would also likely result in a fair increase in public health from moving a bit more and possibly less polluted air going in an out of the lungs of the populace.
> This could be an argument for investing in more reliable/higher capacity public transit systems though.
Public transit is impractical outside of big urban centers. And even there, it's nearly always a nasty experience. This is why people who can afford it still drive or use taxis in cities.
> but we still haven't found a better fuel
We have. It's electric.
China makes them cheaply enough.
Software-on-wheels under the control of a foreign nation, what could go wrong?
That's a good start, but maybe toss a "1" in front of the "5".
You can't compare time, you need to compare sorties. There were only 5900 F15 sorties during the gulf war. It's not clear how many of the 8000 combat sorties sorties flown so far in the Iran war are with F15s, but it's almost certainly several thousand. Overall during the gulf war coalition forces suffered 52 fixed wing aircraft lost in combat over approximately 116,000 combat sorties.
Given Iran ought to have far better SAM systems than Iraq 35 years ago, this comparison doesn't seem in any way alarming.
For a more direct comparison, in the first 5 weeks of the invasion of Ukraine, Russia flew approximately 7000 combat sorties and 22 fixed wing aircraft were shot down.
Look at the super-precise strike on the E-3 sentry that we have pictures of. We know at least one other was hit.
If Iran can do this with AWACS, they can do even more with the hundreds of fighter jets in Israeli and US bases (it's much easier to cover up the destruction of an F-15 or F-35). Once this war ends, I think we'll see that most of the aircraft kills are going to be on the ground.
I'm talking about things being shot down.
Hitting ground targets is even less of a technical flex.
That E-3 sentry was stationary on the ground.
I'm not sure that you read the comment that you replied to.
It seems like the Iraqis were relatively poor operators of their systems. A few days ago I was reading about the Nato bombing of yugoslavia on wikipedia and it had the following entry:
"Yugoslav air defences were much fewer than what Iraq had deployed during the Gulf War – an estimated 16 SA-3 and 25 SA-6 surface-to-air missile systems, plus numerous anti-aircraft artillery (AAA) and man-portable air defence systems (MANPADS) – but unlike the Iraqis they took steps to preserve their assets. Prior to the conflict's start Yugoslav SAMs were preemptively dispersed away from their garrisons and practiced emission control to decrease NATO's ability to locate them."
So their SAMs likely just got stealth bombed / bombed from a distance.
> An F-15 being shot down in Iran after weeks of strategic bombing of their anti-air defense systems is not a good sign.
Why? We don't know exactly what happened but its easy to imagine that Iran held some anti-air systems in reserve for this phase of the war. They aren't trying to defend a target, their goal was likely to stay hidden and wait for an opportunity. They could keep the radar off and use a passive sensor network to notify them when it was in range, then turn the radar on to get a lock for the shot. Or even just IR. Recall, the Houthis gave stealth F35s some near misses over Yemen, no doubt supplied and trained by the Iranians.
https://www.twz.com/air/how-the-houthis-rickety-air-defenses...
It was pretty much a given that over time some of these airplanes would be shot down. There's no way to get every single MANPAD or even some of the larger anti-aircraft setups. A jet can even be brought down by a canon or a bullet given enough luck. We've had quite a few near misses, there's a video of an Israeli F-16 evading a surface to air missile, there have been the F-35 that was hit but managed to continue and land, there were countless drones shot down.
This was inevitable and just a question of time. Out of >10k sorties something is going to get hit. I've no idea what range the military planners expected and how we're doing vs. that.
Why would that not be a bad sign? The US declared victory several times, but clearly Iran still has plenty of firepower to shoot down planes, and probably also ships in the Strait. If the US is incapable of preventing Iran from shooting ships and planes, how do they intend to win this?
It's absolutely a bad sign. One among many.
OP left a little to interpretation, but, I think, top of the list starts with 'mission accomplished 2.0' meme followed by increased US casualties ( though I suppose the exact order likely depends on your current disposition ).
> During the entire gulf war (Iraq, 1990-91), only two F-15s were shot down via surface-to-air engagement.
was it because F-15 was used as superiority fighter at that time and now they use it as heavy bomber? I assume plenty of bombers likely was shot down in Iraq.
Both F-15s lost in the 1st Gulf War were the air-to-ground focused F-15E Strike Eagles. https://rjlee.org/air/ds-aaloss/
per wiki, f-15e was first produced in 1987, so there were very few in service at that time, and most of ground strikes were carried by other aircrafts.
Yes, most ground strikes were by other aircraft types, but the F-15E did have a lot of sorties, almost as many as the F-111 or F-4G (although the F-16 had many, many more sorties, but not all of them were air-to-ground)
Source is the Gulf War Airpower Survey, page 184 (PDF page 205): https://apps.dtic.mil/sti/tr/pdf/ADA273996.pdf
This one is also an F-15E it seems.
[flagged]
[flagged]
[flagged]
[flagged]
Have you considered not providing intel to Irak to allow them to use sarin gas against the Iranians? Or overthrowing their democratic regime that wanted an audit to understand how much of its oil was stolen by US companies? Or designating it as the "Axis of Evil" and sanctioning it after that it helped you invade Afghanistan? Or assassinating their religious leader during negociations?
Iran didn't become skeptic about the US overnight. I would advise to do some reading on wikipedia on the topic to make up your mind.
Did the other 10 countries Iran bomb do the same thing or are you poor guys just misunderstood?
Iran sent missiles to countries hosting US military assets. I think that it's quite clear why they do it, unlike the US. They had also warned before hand that it would happen in the case of a US unprovoked aggression.
I'm glad warning before hand is all you need to do. Sounds like you full support the US then. Welcome aboard!
Khamenei explains what that is intended to mean:
https://www.nbcnews.com/news/world/irans-ayatollah-ali-khame...
[flagged]
Don't know, ask Iran. But you can't since they've silenced everyone by turning off the Internet for all their citizens
[flagged]
[flagged]
[flagged]
The Iranian government can suck and it can still be a net negative for the Iranian people to bomb the shit out of their civilian infrastructure and kill and bunch of schoolgirls.
The Iranian government sucks. There is zero chance that Trump is capable of leaving this conflict with a stable liberal democracy that protects the rights of the Iranian people in place.
That’s not what Iranians expect or are asking for. Every Iranian I’ve spoken to is thankful that Khamenei is now dead and there is at least a chance of change. They don’t expect Trump to fix their country for them. They want someone to help so their own government isn’t shooting them dead by the thousands in the streets.
[flagged]
Surely SAMs have improved since 1991? Have the F-15s improved significantly? (I know nothing about military stuff.)
They certainly have, but the general idea is to first use stealth jets to bomb defensive systems (including radar observability) to conquer the skies, and then you can fly around somewhat freely. While SAM technology has improved, so have America's observability and stealth bombing capabilities. It will be interesting to learn the context and sequence of events which led to an F-15 being shot down by enemy fire.
(In 1991, the United States relied on the F-117 Nighthawk to penetrate Baghdad and launch salvos against radar and SAM sites. Simultaneously, Tomahawk cruise missiles were fired against similar communication and defense sites. In this war with Iran, the F-35 and B-2 have been used for stealth missions).
> F-117 Nighthawk
Recall that the Serbs shot down a Nighthawk when they were in a similar situation to Iran. They kept some good AA missiles in reserve and used a system of spotters and just waited for an opportunity. Its likely that similar tactics were used by Iran.
Also recall that the Houthis, armed and trained by Iran, gave F35s some close calls over Yemen.
https://www.twz.com/air/how-the-houthis-rickety-air-defenses...
The story is actually quite interesting. The Serbs observed that a nighthawk would routinely fly the same route but their radar couldn’t lock on it unless the missile hatch were open, which they managed to elicit.
In short, it took 2 rare events to occur for it to happen.
Turns out Iran is good at hiding stuff in caves and driving it out on a truck platform. Who would have known?
Next you're going to tell me that operating out of your own mountainous terrain has an advantage.
Would be news to the US military it seems. Mountains, jungles, who would have thought?
This isn’t unexpected for anyone in the actual military: they’ve planned for this for decades. A couple of friends served in the previous war and they mentioned that this is what their training exercises were like: same enemy, same difficulty.
Possibly true, but at least they don't have the ability to control some critical waterway or something to hold everyone at ransom.
The Serbs successfully used a similar tactic to down an F-117A, so yeah.
Most of the F15 upgrades have been against other aircraft. The F15 is primarily an air superiority fighter, it isn’t designed for attacks or defence against ground forces. The F15E is modified to attack ground targets, but ideally they would be targets without any air defences.
The F-15E Strike Eagle variant is definitely designed for attacks and defense against ground forces, but overall air defense is a probability game so it's not too surprising that it eventually happened
Yes, although it’s designed for interdiction, rather than primarily a ground attack aircraft, the difference being that it’s intended to be used against defenceless ground targets (like supply lines), not on the front lines.
A lot of the planes are doing attack runs at altitudes where they are susceptible to man pads I imagine.
We have attacked their “legacy” air defense systems. We cannot really degrade their ability to use their anti-aircraft loitering missiles which don’t rely on radar.
https://cat-uxo.com/explosive-hazards/missiles/358-missile-S...
Operation Desert Storm was only 43 days long. Epic Fury is most of the way there.
The latest reporting is that only 50% of Iran's missile capacity has been destroyed
https://www.cnn.com/2026/04/02/politics/iran-missiles-us-mil...
Doesn't break out anti-air, but Iran absolutely has a lot of teeth left.
What's the reliability of this reporting?
What we can tell though is that Iran is still firing missiles (including cluster munitions) at Israel's civilians and at gulf states. So the ground facts are that it can still do that.
We also have to remember that Iran has a large number of different missile systems for different ranges. It's mostly not the same missiles they are firing at the nearby gulf states as they are firing into Israel. Some of the longer range missile systems they have need to be fired from western Iran to make it to Israel. There's a lot of other nuance, solid fuel vs. liquid fuel, mobile vs. fixed launchers etc.
I don't think we'll see anything close to reliable reporting any time soon.
The story of whether Iran had a nuclear program has been reported every which way but loose for the past 6 months.
By the time Trump started pushing that they were close to a nuke again, those that claimed he was wrong 6 months ago and the nuclear program was intact. Had started claiming it was in fact destroyed.
Gosh that sentence is hard enough to write, but the story is so contolvuted I don't think I can improve it.
"Iran will have a nuclear weapon real soon!" is a claim that has been pushed, particularly by Benjamin Netanyahu for thirty years.
https://www.news18.com/world/weeks-away-by-next-spring-video...
>The story of whether Iran had a nuclear program has been reported every which way but loose for the past 6 months.
6 months?
Try like 35+ years. Bibi has been pushing the "Iran is 2 weeks away from a nuke" narrative since the late 80s.
That Iran had a nuclear program was not in dispute. It was regulated under international supervision based on the terms of Obama's agreement with Iran, which Trump promptly tore up because he has the mental capacity of a fourth-grader.
That Iran was on the verge of building bombs was far from clear. Khameini had previously issued a fatwa against doing so, on the grounds that it would be haram, or un-Islamic. All signs suggest that the IRGC was operating in full compliance with that fatwa.
I'm sure the remnants of his administration regret that now.
But the JCPOA had some big issues with it. It was time bound- that is it only delayed Iran's program ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran_nuclear_deal ) and Iran got sanctions relief in return that allowed it to fund its proxies and pursue other activities not constrained by the agreement (such as its ballistic missile program, drones etc.).
Iran also restricted IAEA access to military sites while the agreement was in effect.
https://isis-online.org/isis-reports/revealed-emptying-of-th...
That's a fascinating insight into what friends of Bibi can do with photoshopped text on long range photos.
Doesn't include any 256 channel multi spectral radiometric data from ground level crystal packs though ... I guess they didn't show much of interest in the gamma spectrum.
We have two competing theories. One is that Israel is making everything up. The other is that Iran is pursuing nuclear weapons. At least the second one seems to have some evidence backing it up like secret underground facilities with centrifuges, enriched material, and yes, that warehouse in Tehran. The theory that Israel is making everything up doesn't seem that well supported.
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-50382219 "The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) has found uranium particles at a site in Iran that had not been declared by the Iranian authorities.
A confidential report, seen by the BBC, did not say exactly where the site was. But inspectors are believed to have taken samples from a location in Tehran's Turquzabad district.
That is the area where Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has alleged Iran had a "secret atomic warehouse". "
https://www.reuters.com/article/world/exclusive-iaea-found-u...
"VIENNA (Reuters) - Samples taken by the U.N. nuclear watchdog at what Israel's prime minister called a "secret atomic warehouse" in Tehran showed traces of uranium that Iran has yet to explain, two diplomats who follow the agency's inspections work closely say."
...
"Those traces were, however, of uranium, the diplomats said - the same element Iran is enriching and one of only two fissile elements with which one can make the core of a nuclear bomb. One diplomat said the uranium was not highly enriched, meaning it was not purified to a level anywhere close to that needed for weapons. "There are lots of possible explanations," that diplomat said. But since Iran has not yet given any to the IAEA it is hard to verify the particles' origin, and it is also not clear whether the traces are remnants of material or activities that predate the landmark 2015 deal or more recent, diplomats say."
Iran has been pursuing nuclear deterrence by enriching for decades, the entire time I've been in and out of the country. That's a given.
Bibi and his tales that Iran is just a week away from an actual working bomb has been going on almost as long. Bibi - the guy with a secret / not secret collection of bombs.
The question of whether or not Iran was playing along sufficiently with inspectors when there was an inspection deal in place is what we are talking about here.
IMHO they weren't getting away with much, at that time Israel was making up claims that they were and media blasting.
That is all times past, of course.
It's also clear that once Trump tore up the deal they went (sensibly in light of everything it seems) back to unchecked enrichment, and now that they've been attacked during negotiations there's zero trust and it would seem certain that there is a real risk that reinvigorated hard core fanatics will set a bomb off in either Israel and / or the US.
Smooth move clowns.
Isn’t this just weapons of mass destruction again circa Iraq 25 years ago? We had evidence back then also, it turned out to be fabricated. Are you sure Netanyahu didn't just need a big distraction to prevent from being impeached and sent to jail? And Trump didn't need a huge distraction from the whole Epstein thing? Because this war come out of nowhere and was way too convenient for them.
It's true that no stockpiles of WMDs were found in Iraq. But we also know Iraq has used chemical weapons: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraqi_chemical_weapons_program
I lived in Israel during that war and everyone had gas masks and people were truly worried about chemical weapons being used. They weren't.
But in Iran there really are/were centrifuges and enriched Uranium. Remember: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stuxnet ?
Iran admits having this Uranium: https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2026/2/9/iran-suggests-it-cou...
So which part is fabricated?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_program_of_Iran
"By the early 2000s, two key clandestine facilities were nearing completion: a uranium enrichment center at Natanz (in central Iran), built to house thousands of centrifuges, and a heavy water production plant alongside a 40 MW heavy-water reactor (IR-40) near Arak. These facilities, which had been kept secret from the IAEA, were intended for ostensibly civilian purposes but had clear weapons potential. Enrichment at Natanz could yield high-enriched uranium for bombs, while the Arak reactor (once operational) could produce plutonium in its spent fuel, and the heavy water plant would supply the reactor's coolant.[41] In August 2002, an exiled Iranian opposition group, the National Council of Resistance of Iran (NCRI), exposed the existence of Natanz and Arak.[41] Satellite imagery soon confirmed construction at these sites. The revelation that Iran had built major nuclear facilities in secret, without required disclosure to the IAEA, ignited an international crisis and raised questions about the program's true aim.[41]"
People who are pro the Iranian regime claim that there was a religious order against building nuclear weapons. But at the same time there is no other explanation as to why Iran would enrich Uranium to 60% as that has virtually no other use. It also seems they were working on other components related to weaponiztion (though admittedly we have less confirmation/visibility into that). Ofcourse the precise timing of when they would chose to build those weapons and their intent is not that easy to guess but it's also not unreasonable to assume they would do so when they felt it would be to their advantage.
People who are pro the Iranian regime claim that there was a religious order against building nuclear weapons
No one here is "pro the Iranian regime." Do better.
To that add what Joe Kent and Tulsi Gabbard said about Iranian nuclear bombs -- no indications that they have one or are building one.
But everyone agrees that they have enriched >400kg of Uranium to a level that has no other purpose than nuclear weapons and that the remaining steps of enrichment are measured in days/weeks.
So something doesn't add up in what your references are saying. What is your explanation of the discrepancy?
https://www.sipri.org/commentary/essay/2021/why-iran-produci...
https://armscontrolcenter.org/irans-stockpile-of-highly-enri...
Oh shucks! military intelligence and 19 different intelligence gathering agencies are such nincompoops that they completely missed what an expert HN commenter of sparkling genius pointed out.
I don't have the expertise to know what use its for, but I suspect the agencies assesment was informed bybthe knowledge of 60% enriched uranium.
It's used for subs btw and maybe they felt they needed a nuclear one to secure Hormuz.
I get it. So according to you Iran is building nuclear subs. JFYI it takes 4-5Kg of material for a nuclear sub reactor. So according to you they're building 100 nuclear submarines.
Got it genius. But hey, by the trust you put in Joe Kent and Tulsi Gabbard we already knew you were a genius. Didn't need the additional observation about Iran building 100 nuclear submarines to secure Hormuz.
I have no F'ing clue what Iran wants to do. But I know that the intelligence agencies are well equipped and experienced to guess that, especially more than 'that guy on the internet '.
Why in the world would Iran be expected to remain in compliance with the JCPOA after 2018, when Trump tore it up?
As I recall, they did remain in compliance for another year after that, given that it was originally supposed to be a multilateral agreement. But IMHO they should have put everything they had into refinement and weapons production as soon as Trump unilaterally ripped up the agreement. Instead they held back, and they are now seeing the result of that mistake.
None of this would be happening if Iran had actually done what Israel assured us they were doing.
You're asking why wouldn't they pursue nuclear weapons and ballistic missiles to deliver them? Why should they? Don't you think as a country they should have some other priorities? Like ensuring Tehran has water? So because Trump tore up the agreement (and the US was sanctioning them anyways for their ballistic missile program and other reasons) that's somehow justification? Trump tore up the agreement because it would enable them to get there anyways and Iran refused to sign an agreement that would prevent them from getting there.
The JCPOA would have expired in 2025 anyways assuming that they even meant to observe it in the first place.
Your last statement isn't as solid as you think it is. Iran hasn't gotten to a point where they have nuclear weapons mounted on ballistic missiles not because they didn't want to but because they were unable to get to that or were concerned that getting closer would invite the same attack we're seeing today.
You're asking why wouldn't they pursue nuclear weapons and ballistic missiles to deliver them? Why should they?
Turned on a TV lately?
Which came first. The chicken or the egg?
Maybe Israel and the US wouldn't be attacking a country where stepping on US and Israeli flags, chants of death to America and death to Israel, calling Israel little Satan and the US big Satan. Building an arsenal of ballistic missiles and trying to get to a nuclear bomb? (and I mean the list goes on and on).
They need nuclear bombs and ballistic missiles so they can murder with impunity without risk of retribution. A regime that conducts public executions in stadiums, or mows down 10's of thousand of their own citizens who dare to protest, or give people plastic keys to heaven to walk into minefields: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plastic_key_to_paradise or beat up woman on the streets to death for not wearing a hijab: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_of_Mahsa_Amini (and this list also goes on and on) can't be allowed to act with impunity.
Maybe had the US not upended their parliamentary democracy with a coup to grab their oil, they would have continued to maintain their earlier friendly relations with Israel.
Burning US flags and calling for death to blacks has been a KKK thing. We did not bomb them collectively, or break their infra, when they got their guns because their expressions were considered free speech. Individual transgressions of law were pursued (once in a while).
> which Trump promptly tore up because he has the mental capacity of a fourth-grader.
That would be an insult to fourth graders IMO, my son happens to be one.
Yeah, valid point, I was out of line there. Apologies.
I do a mild bit of environmental geophysical radiometrics, that took me to Iran decades ago - it's not a new thing, they've been edging having nuclear deterrance for a good while.
Trump ripped up the monitoring agreement - that was unquestionably stupid.
He attacked Iran during talks to get that back on track .. that was unbelievably stupid (see: current world state).
Had he agreed to have in country monitoring again and had the USofA simply waited it was probable the old hard line core would have withered in time.
That's certainly not on the table now, the fanatics are dug in and feel fully justified. On both sides.
Incapable of The Deal.
Seems to me their strategy is to shut down the Strait as cheaply as possible, force ground operations on known strategic points of interest, then just missile and drone strike Americans in Iranian territory where they have ~no air defense.
There are 4 players in this war and they all have very different goals and "victory" conditions.
1. Israel wants to ruin Iran permanently, to turn it into Somalia 2.0, meaning a quasi-state with no organized, central government. Were they to succeed in this it would be a humantarian disaster the likes of which we haven't seen since probably WW2. Tens of millions of refugees that will probably collapse surrounding countries;
2. The US (IMHO) wanted to placate Israel with a cheap decapitation strike that would force regime change and bring in a US-friendly regime, similar to Venezuela. This was completely unrealistic and they completely underestimated Iran's ability to maintain an offensive capability. We don't even know how much Iran's missile and drone capability has been degraded (to the GP's point). I don't even believe it's been degraded 50% (as GP claimed) abut we have no way of knowing. The entire Iranian military is built to resist a strategic bombing campaign;
3. Iran no longer trusts the US as a good faith actor and negotiator after multiple incidents of acting in bad faith, killing their negotiators and bombing an embassy so their goal is to make the price of this war so high economically that the US never thinks about doing this ever again. And that's a cheap thing to do, as you note. Drones can close the Strait and ne devastating to the economies of the Gulf states; and
4. The Gulf States just want to maintain the pre-war status quo. Saudi Arabia in particular just wanted to contain Iran. They're less vulnerable to the Strait being closed but it's still a problem politically as the US and Israel are bombing other Muslims. The Gulf states are learning the the US security guarantee ain't worth shit but they can't break away from being US client states with their own unpopular regimes probably collapsing without US arms. But in a prolonged conflict some of them may collapse anyway, particularly Bahrain and even Iraq.
So Iran just fires a dozen ballistic missiles a day to remind Israel of the war Israel started. An estimated ~50% of missiles get through missile defences now. Otherwise threats and the occasional drone are sufficient to close the Strait and massively disrupt the ME3 airlines. Militarily, Iran can probably keep that up forever. Mobile missile launchers are cheap and drones can be launched from basically any truck. They're also produced and stored in underground basis that are essentially impervious to bombing short of nuclear weapons.
Many believed prior to Trump's speech this week that he would either escalate or pull out. Instead he found a secret third, worse option, which is to tell Europe and Asia "you're on your own" (with the Strait closure) after the US launched a war nobody but Israel wanted or supported. That's an interesting strategy because it's going to cause some serious soul-searching in all of these countries about the wisdom of US allegiance.
You forgot the 5th actor - Russia - which is benefiting hugely from the collapse of NATO, the loosening of oil sanctions, the huge hike in oil prices, and the way the US was persuaded to expend a ridiculous percentage of its conventional missile stockpiles on a pointless project.
Ukraine is doing its best to minimise Russian oil exports, and that's certainly having an effect.
But strategically, Russia is a huge beneficiary of this mess.
It depends where you draw the line. The extended players include:
1. Russia (as you say): I think this war of choice virtually guarantees a settlement of the Ukraine war along the current borders. At some point Europe will need to ease their energy crisis with Russian oil and gas. Well done, everybody, the system works;
2. Europe: like the GCC they are finding US security guarantees and the NATO protection racket aren't what they were sold. Pax Americana was an illusion. I've elsewhere predicted this is going to lead to arms and tech nationalism within Europe. It's actually a race between fascism taking over Europe and Europe divorcing itself from the US and I suspect fascism is currently winning; and
3. China: the biggest wineer of all this. China is still receiving Iranian oil exports. In fact, the US "punished" Iran by lifting oil sanctions, allowing Iran to sell oil to China at market rates instead of below market (because of the sanctions). Again, well done, everybody; and
4. Asia: this has exposed their weakness of imported oil, particularly Thailand, Vietnam and the Phillipines. I would not be surprised if this war of choice is the turning point that leads to a China-cenetered Asian security compact.
In one year, the US has essentially torn up the entire post-1945 rules-based international order, which it designed for its own benefit.
China's bigger win is the future demand for solar, batteries, EVs, induction stoves (replace LPG/LNG), all things electric and energy storage. There were plans to shut down the oversupply of solar, but now there must be a huge demand.
In other words, all the ingredients for WW3. Lets hope we can somehow avoid that.
> I suspect fascism is currently winning
I think this war is actually pushing many away from fascism. Trump was the reference for a lot of the European right and this is showing people he was terrible and, by extension, embarrassing them all.
Heck, Orbán is currently running an electoral campaign as "the candidate of peace".
If Trump wasn't embarrassing for them before I doubt they're embarrassed now.
With the price of petrol skyrocketing, what I see in France are people complaining about taxes, not the war started by Trump.
And they still don't see the point of EVs.
Those short-sighted people are the ones cheering for fascism, so the current events have no impact on their vote.
My impression is that the fascists in Europe are trying to break up with the US too. So it's not "either or".
But I know one thing: we re going to see a rush into implementing renewables after this that will look like a post-war policy. What is also bad news for he GCC.
The post-1945 rules-based order was already a slow motion train crash that most of the West remained in denial about until Putin wiped his behind with it in the 2014 invasion of Crimea. To pretend that Trump is somehow breaking an otherwise intact system at this point is fanciful.
The post-1945 order was dead after the NATO's war in Yugoslavia in 1999, and the subsequent recognition of Kosovo. At the very latest.
One coulld argue that it happened earlier, for example after the collapse of the Soviet Union, or the collapse of the Warsaw Pact, or after the annexation of East Germany.
>"The post-1945 rules-based order" - it was always one rule for me another one for thee
Oh, also China who benefits from US deterrence being relocated from APAC and buried into Iranian dirt
Really, any rival state-level actor benefits from seeing America squander its currently limited supply of high-end munitions and put months of stress on its airframes, warships, and people.
... & sells drone parts to any and all participants. You need drones? You know who to call!
I agree with most of this, but: The collapse of NATO is not yet in evidence.
Russia needs its energy sources for its own war, too. Energy getting more expensive globally, while UA reducing the supply by targeting RU production, is a double edged sword. RU is now putting bans on export of some fuels, etc. Whether EU turning into a defense alliance with sole focus on RU, while taking in all lessons from UA war (without having to deal with US pressure to buy its expensive state of the art military HW which may not be all that effective in the potential drone war) is great for russia is also questionable.
> The Gulf States just want to maintain the pre-war status quo. Saudi Arabia in particular just wanted to contain Iran. They're less vulnerable to the Strait being closed but it's still a problem politically as the US and Israel are bombing other Muslims. The Gulf states are learning the the US security guarantee ain't worth shit but they can't break away from being US client states with their own unpopular regimes probably collapsing without US arms. But in a prolonged conflict some of them may collapse anyway, particularly Bahrain and even Iraq.
Saudi and the UAE don't want the pre-war status quo, they want America to bomb Iran back to the stone age so it can't continue missile or launcher production.
UAE wants that because their leaders are highly Israel aligned. Saudi Arabia is a lot more pragmatic, they take their role as the "leader" of the Islamic world pretty seriously.
Pre-war views were very much the status-quo was better than starting a war.
Now that a war is started it has to be finished or the GCC is left far worse off with Iran in a much stronger strategic position in the region despite a decimated military.
> Iran no longer trusts the US as a good faith actor and negotiator
Iran ("the regime") was never a good faith actor or negotiator. Their position was something like "we won't develop nuclear weapons as long as we have free reign to torture our own citizens and fund violent groups that destabilize regional governments". And still marched on enriching uranium anyway.
There's nothing to trust on either side. This war was eventually going to happen, I'm just disappointed that it happened under such incompetent leadership in the US.
> Their position was something like "we won't develop nuclear weapons as long as we have free reign to torture our own citizens and fund violent groups that destabilize regional governments"
This is unfortunately the best possible outcome. Nuclear weapons have been around for 80 years now. They are quite achievable by modern states, and they are obviously the only path to sovereignty. Ukraine, North Korea, and Iran have affirmed it.
Bombing a country in pursuit only reaffirms this logic, especially after agreements have already been made or negotiations are under way.
The only path forward, for Iran and everyone else, has been established and stable since ~1945: give people major concessions in exchange for the major concession that they will not try to achieve true sovereignty via nuclear weapons.
Every attempt to bomb or coerce someone off of the nuclear trajectory just increases the motivation (globally) to pursue it with more vigor and more secrecy.
We're on this tightrope until we fall off it, no other options.
The war absolutely did not need to happen. Iran was not pursuing a nuclear weapon and was fully complying with the jcpoa. It's mostly the US and Israel that have acted I'm bad faith.
Most countries in the region torture their citizens, even Israel except it's Palestinians, because it's a racist apartheid state.
Let's not pretend we care about funding terrorists when it's the US that has the biggest supporter of terrorism in the last 70 years.
Iran doesn't torture its citizens. At least, no more, than, let's say, Arabia Saudi. You don't say it explicitly, but the implication is clear that the US is doing this because 'human rights'. A week ago was to save the poor Iranians, and now is to bring the country to the stone age. The fact is that US is 7000 miles from Iran and have not business being there.
The one country 'destabilizing the region' is not Iran.
> Iran doesn't torture its citizens
Wow, I can't believe someone would say this. In January, they basically killed tens of thousands of us with machine guns. After the war, the first thing they did was cut off the internet to prevent an internal uprising. They deployed many Basij checkpoints with machine guns just to warn Iranians. This is a sample scene, don't you consider it torture?
https://www.lemonde.fr/en/international/video/2026/01/12/ira...
It's easy to dunk when you just cut off half the statement!
Since you said "us", are you there right now? How was the oil rain in Tehran, no big deal for the greater good?
I don't care why the incompetent leaders of the US are doing what they're doing. A bunch of unelected murderers just got dead. I consider that a positive improvement in the world, and I wish it happened more often.
The world is pretty small these days. Mass murderers are everyone's business. It's morally offensive to just say "well that's a long ways away, not my problem".
But at the same time, this war may have allowed IRGC to dig in. They've replaced a few people but the system may be stronger. Never mind that it doesn't even seem to be the administration's communicated goal to destroy IRGC in the first place.
On top of all that, they've threatened to reduce the entire country to the "stone age", and have started to target civilian industries.[0] If this campaign continues, how is this anything less than mass murder?
They're not doing this war for the reason you seem to want. They're not doing this to save Iranians.
[0] https://www.timesofisrael.com/israel-shifts-to-hitting-irans...
Now do putin and bibi next, and maybe Xi will realize taking other people's land by murdering is unacceptable and won't invade Taiwan.
Second order consequences can be a real sonofabitch, and history has shown that to be doubly true in the Middle East
How many civilian deaths as the direct result of US/Israel action do you consider acceptable to achieve killing the unelected murderers? 150 school children? Wikipedia cites hundreds more civilian deaths, but I don't know what sources to believe. How many layers of the regime's onion do we have to peel before we know we got all the murderers? How many children are we going to radicalize into future unelected murderers by murdering their family members and plunging their region into worse chaos? Should we kill 'em all and let God sort 'em out? Hegseth has crusader tattoos. Is he just another unelected theocratic murderer of a different stripe? Are we the baddies?
HRANA says thousands civilians dead. At least ~250 children. They are a reliable Iranian opposition source.
https://www.en-hrana.org/day-35-of-u-s-and-israeli-attacks-o...
We had a deal and we tore it up. More than once, if you include the inciting incident of undermining a democratically-elected leader who was bringing the central player in the Middle East into the mainstream economic and political global order that America had set for everyone. "Not like that!"
Frankly, it's hubris all the way down. Kalief Browder.
A deal that allows the regime to murder thousands of their own citizens and export violence to the whole region really isn't worth it. Yeah not having overt conflict in that region makes our gas cheaper. But it doesn't make me sleep better.
Maybe I agree with you that the US, in 1953, planted the seeds for this situation. If I could punish the people responsible I would, but they're all dead now. Also, doesn't our historic involvement give us some moral obligation to fix it?
No, you wouldn't do anything. bush second's wars killed million, brought about isis, and caused millions of refugees. You doing nothing.
Trying hard to maintain the facade that blowing Iran is for the good if their people..
In this context good faith means not saying you're here to negotiate only to stall for time while you're secretly planning to invade the other country in the background, which is exactly what the US did. So Iran has no reason to take US "negotiations" seriously ever again.
Not sure how the US comes back from this.
Who will trust US treaties going forward?
I don't think we do. I think this is our Teutoburg Forest moment [1].
Part of the issue is there's no real opposition in the US to what's going on. The Democrats being the controlled opposition party aren't in opposition to the war (eg [2][3][4]). They just oppose the way it was initiated. In other words, they have a process objection not a policy objection.
I've seen lamenting over Harris losing the elction (as well as more than a few doing "stolen election") about how the world could be different. But US foreign policy is uniparty
[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_the_Teutoburg_Forest
[2]: https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2024/10/8/kamala-harris-says-...
[3]: https://www.democrats.senate.gov/newsroom/press-releases/lea...
[4]: https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/congress/hakeem-jeffries-wo...
Your “sources” are just mindless whataboutism that do not in any way provide evidence Harris/Democrats would have started this same idiotic war with Iran.
Democrats in Congress are currently almost universally opposed to the War in Iran. As the minority party they are unable to stop it unilaterally. Budget obstructions are the single lever available to them and given other issues like ICE, healthcare cuts, federal layoffs, can’t be used for every issue, every time without diffusing that very limited power into irrelevance.
Talk about “controlled opposition” given the blatantly obvious differences between the last two administrations is a signal of either being uninformed or a deliberate demotivational strategy.
Here are recent quotes from Schumer/Jefferies/Harris that for some reason you selectively chose not to include:
[2] https://www.wpr.org/news/harris-iran-trump-dragged-america-w...> Part of the issue is there's no real opposition in the US to what's going on. The Democrats being the controlled opposition party aren't in opposition to the war
Most emphatically yes. We've seen occasional bursts of spirited dissent but that's about it. As far as sustained opposition, it still seems that they're hoping to just wait out the clock for things to go back to "normal".
> But US foreign policy is uniparty
No, I'd say even with this senseless "war" the "uniparty" model has still become invalid with Trump. While the US fear industry ("news media") has been beating the drums against Iran for quite some time, the US military/intelligence community has resisted attacking. If we had a President Harris, I would bet that we would not be attacking Iran, especially in this manner - not because of Harris herself, but rather because she wouldn't have gutted the domain experts who come up with reality-based plans, and who have presumably been saying "If we overtly attack Iran they close the Strait and actually end up stronger".
I like to refer to that system as bureaucratic authoritarianism - no meaningful checks on government power itself, but there are checks on how it's exercised. The critical difference is that Trumpism is autocratic authoritarianism (especially the second round after he broke so many laws the first time without consequence) - the experts and other group-project stakeholders (eg Inspectors General) were all fired (or at the very least sidelined), and replaced with glaringly incompetent yes-men who execute any simplistic "plan" regardless how bad it is.
It'll partly depend on what internal housecleaning—or perhaps fumigation—and reform happens in the US.
While it is unlikely to occur, imagine the international effect if the US resoundingly impeached and removed of a lawless president, and Congress formalized a lot of international agreements into statute rather than delegating too much to the executive branch.
Nah, this problem is systemic, and much older than the current administration. Or has everyone forgotten the "anthrax" in a test tube? The invisible WMDs? The fake news about soldiers tossing babies out of incubators? Setting up a web of lies and attacking is a foundational value of the United States.
[dead]
I think this was the nail in the coffin. Not only has the US exsanguinated their military capability at the behest of Israel, everyone with half a brain watched closely as they took AD out of the gulf states and moved them into Israel. Taiwan, Japan and South Korea are not morons, they will see the writing on the wall and they will move to make diplomatic peace with their neighbours (China) now that the US has keeled over with self-inflicted wounds.
It doesn't really matter what happens internally in the US now, everyone realizes that every four years the world will roll the dice.
That is not going to happen. Even if MAGA doesn't rig the midterms and the Democrats actually win something, they will just "reach across the aisle" and "work on healing our divided nation". Nobody will see any consequences for the suffering they caused.
What we've learned is that laws only matter if Congress chooses to enforce.
>Not sure how the US comes back from this.
It shouldn't. The responsible course going forward is a constitutional convention and the dissolution of the United States.
A Constitutional Convention, by definition, would almost certainly not cause or require dissolution of the US. You could only effectively call a convention of people who explicitly do not want dissolution.
> Who will trust US treaties going forward?
Who trusted them before?
You forgot one huge players: popular revolutions. All muslims nations that are currently managed by western puppets dictors, every single one. The puppets know their population don't like what Israels and globally most western nations are doing in the middle east and thus tried hard to pretend they support the muslim world. But this war show clearly to their population who these puppets really serve. I bet few revolutions will shake the middle east soon, and those will be powerfull (I don't believe they will create mature democraties, as those things require centuries of progress but, they won't as easy to control). And those revolution won't be easely stolen like the previous one, also because Israel don't seem to realize it lost its support from western nations, it's just a matter a time it ends up on its own.
Yep, all sounds right to me
>> Doesn't break out anti-air, but Iran absolutely has a lot of teeth left.
With the price of oil having skyrocketed, and the new revenue that will be coming from the Hormuz tolls, they will also be rebuilding their previous capacity in no time.
The entire Gulf War was only six weeks long.
It's difficult to compare; but Iran today is not Iraq then. F-15s are now based on a design that's 30 years older. Shoulder launched SAMs have moved on.
I'm not sure what happened here, but in the Gulf War, there was a move to medium altitudes after a dodgy first night and I've seen some footage that, if accurate and if I'm not getting it wrong, suggests there are different tactics going on here.
1) The US has run 13,000 missions over Iran in the last month. Thats a lot of targets.
2) The initial US degradation of Iraqi capabilities was much much greater in gulf war 1.
3) F15s are not stealth fighters.
4) This is 35 years later.
5) "strategic bombing" of air defenses is mostly accomplished with our cruise missiles. We'll take out any air defenses we find, but you don't fly non-stealth planes over SAM batteries intentionally.
We haven't even started a ground campaign. If one plane is downed per 13000 missions, I think we're doing ok.
It’s very likely their initial shock now wore off, and they got resupplied by putin and xi. We might start seeing much more damage going forward. US hasn’t fought a proxy war of this kind in many decades.
Putin can barely fight his own war, and how are you proposing that China supply Iran? You can't rebuild capability in a day.
Do you want to give odds to your proposition that this is going to turn around in the IRGC's favor?
I don't think it's that surprising. Look at Ukraine with Western military aid/sig-int.
The US has decided to step into Russia's shoes in Iran for reasons and I would be shocked if Russia/China aren't also providing similar aid for Iran.
Iraq is pretty flat on the routes between the US-allied countries and the major strongholds (Basra, Baghdad). You can't easily conceal rocket launchers there.
Tehran is protected by mountain ranges that can provide plenty of cover. And Russia is probably feeding it the real-time radar data from its military bases in Armenia.
46 airplanes were shot down during the second Iraqi war, and there has been over 150 total aviation losses (mechanical failure).
So far we have lost seven airplanes. There's no deep meaning behind one F-15e being shot down (if that's what happened): it's not a stealth aircraft and it's not heavily armored.
I'm not up on news, do we know what shot it down?
Everyone loves missiles, but could it have been guns? Was it flying low?
Remember when some helicopters were being shot down by RPG's and everyone was like 'whooo, no way, that can't be, they aren't accurate enough".
You are correct, we don't know much. Could also have been a failure.
My concern is that other countries can aid Iran with weapons in a direct and indirect way. There is no guarantee to block the railroads from East and the shipments from North.
That's not a concern it's a reality. Iran is not shut-off or blockaded to any meaningful degree. It has tons of unmolested border crossings and Caspian sea access, and maintains full control within it's own borders (minus the parts that have been blown up).
Also ships are still transiting the Strait of Hormuz to and from Iranian ports taking goods in from China, with who knows what on board. They are also exporting more oil now than they were before the war.
I mean special military operation, not war. Only congress can declare war.
Even the Philippines, a US ally, has struck a deal with Iran for safe passage. Meanwhile, Oman is working with Iran on a toll scheme. There's an emerging chance that no US-flagged vessel crosses the Straight of Hormuz again in our lifetimes (except maybe for a retreating 5th fleet).
The Philippines may be a US client state since MacArthur liberated them from Japan, but they need to deal with Iran to keep the lights on. The rationing situation is quite bad in a lot of east Asian countries.
> a US client state since MacArthur liberated them from Japan a US client state since MacArthur liberated them from Japan
And a US colony/territory for the 43 years before Japan invaded. They were ruled by a US puppet state in a supposed "transition to independence" at the time Japan invaded, however it's unclear how much actual independence they would have had in practice.
I mention this because:
1. The way you state it makes it sound like they were somehow independent before the war.
2. It explains why MacArthur was there with the US army to resist the Japanese invasion from the first day it happened (Dec 7, 1941)
3. Its history worth looking into to contextualize just how bad the US has always been at taking over places. Acting as if this is post WW2 (as the media does) is counter-productive to truly understanding the number of really botched invasions the US has done.
It’s done some pretty decent ones as well. Western Europe including West Germany, Japan, arguably South Korea although they went through a period of dictatorship, but all are staunch US allies. There have been failures too for sure. Over all of I was going to be invaded by somebody, with America at least there’s a chance it might be a least worst option.
I would be more concerned if more countries did not help Iran, since in this conflict it's the victim.
Why are you concerned that the clear victim of foreign aggression get help?
They don't need it though. Our top brass knew this war is stupid twenty years ago.
Without nukes we'll lose this war and badly.
> victim of foreign aggression
Excuse us of being unsympathetic to the greatest state sponser of terrorism in history.
The Muslim country all other Muslim countries love to hate.
The only real theocracy left in the world.
Wannabe North Korea.
The country that killed 30,000 progressive protestors in a few days.
[dead]
You can't really take out "the whole" air defense system because there will always be folks out with MANPAD-type things, those will score hits on occasion. That's probably what we saw here. I doubt MANPADs were nearly as common in the early 90s as they are today.
The videos we've seen match up with what we've seen on the ground. They are all running a custom software we haven't seen elsewhere and don't seem to be traditional MANPADS in any way.
We know Iran is driving around bongo trucks with small SAM systems on the back that use passive IRST rather than radar. The missiles themselves have the capability to cruise in the air for some period of time searching for a target before kicking in the engine for a last, fast sprint to the target. Because they are electro-optical (and piloted by a human), even early-warning and flare deployments won't do very much against a skilled operator.
Interesting, thank you! I haven't see this.
> custom software
Are you referring to screen recordings they've released?
True but without radar they have a relatively difficult task of being out there setup and waiting for a fast moving jet to pass within range.
Compare that to Ukraine defending it's skies with NATO (well mostly French IIRC) AWACS feeding early data which is what made MANPADS in Ukraine so effective against Russian attacks.
Yeah my guess was they were coming in along predictable routes at this point and that's what got them? I saw that the search and rescue mission was in an area close to water. I believe many Stinger hits in Ukraine can be attributed to predictability.
And maybe they do have some kind of radars?
There have been no legitimate reports of NATO providing real time AWACs feeds to Ukraine.
I don't think manpads themselves are connected to the AWACS infrastructure.
It's more that high altitude planes get picked up by the AWACS while low flight is at risk of being shot at by a MANPAD.
[dead]
> An F-15 being shot down in Iran after weeks of strategic bombing of their anti-air defense systems is not a good sign.
Not to dispute that but what about the comparison makes it not a good sign? Iran has much more capable radar and missiles now than Iraq did 35 years ago, doesn't it?
The success of the war depends on the approval ratings of the US president which will almost certainly take hits when US military takes hits so the US citizens seeing the US military taking hits at a higher rate than relatively recent wars in the area is a bad sign for "winning" whatever "winning" means here.
That doesn't address my question though.
They've been flying straight into sites that would normally be heavily defended with 4th gen airframes, it's not that surprising that Iran finally managed to get one
It is an aging platform despite the E series upgrades. 1990 is nearly 3 decades ago and SAM has made progress in those 3 decades
That plus likely a miscalculation...pushing into territory that is more contested than believed
I also saw some news saying an F-35 was possibly hit--but I can't find any reasonable-seeming sources to confirm that. Maybe someone here knows more?
Iran's semi-official news agency (Tasnim) made the claim. Then a bit later they posted photos of the wreckage. OSINT community pieced together that it was actually wreckage of the F-15E that is the topic of this post.
A few minutes ago Tasnim posted photos of a separate wreckage that seems to be of an F-16 that was also downed today.
These events should not be confused with the F-35 that CNN reported was hit a few days ago.
an F-35 was hit but made it back to base.
CENTCOM claimed the F-35 made it made it back to base, but right after the hit happened, they sent out a Chinook to run search patterns in the area. Additionally, the pilot was treated for shrapnel wounds. As he's at the front of the plane, it wasn't some "near miss" like that really cool F-18 evasion (where it timed the break exactly and the shrapnel all blew past it).
CENTCOM has turned out to be about as honest as the Russian or Ukrainian MoD. They flat-out lied about this shootdown all while sending out search teams. There is some circumstantial evidence that two Blackhawks were damaged trying to run search and rescue operations. There are also stories coming out that they are using bureaucracy to hide massive numbers of casualties.
Iran has systems they can pull out of a cave and deploy in a couple hours or less. We will never get all their anti air out.
With the altitudes they've been flying at, shoulder mounted MANPADs are a viable option.
US also has A-10s doing gun runs in Iraq too. It makes sense the US is more willing to take risks 1-month into the war given how effective they've been and for Iran to also adapt their manpad teams after they probably failed a ton of times previously.
You saw the same pattern where Ukraine and Russia both constantly adapted on the battlefield and the war changed rapidly over the first year.
It has two fewer of them as of this afternoon
Waiting to see the Shaheds with AA missiles like Russia was using (until their starlink was finally shut off late last year)
MANPADS have a range of around 4 miles. Most soldiers aren't carrying around armed MANPADS. They have to fetch the MANPADS, arm it, aim, and fire all before the jet dumps its load and flares before bailing out. Because of this, MANPADS are a much greater threat to helicopters or CAS like the Warthog than they are to jets dumping ordinance. This has been proven pretty decisively in Ukraine.
Radar is line-of-sight. A non-stealth fighter flying just above the treetops can only be detected if it gets within a few miles of a SAM radar. This is true to the point that the radar lock range for something like an F-35 is about the same as a non-stealth jet flying super-low (though the hit probability is lower for the F-35 if it's flying at high altitude as it has more room to detect the launch and maneuver).
The problem is that CENTCOM is actively lying to us. After this shootdown, they denied it happened while launching search and rescue operations only admitting to the facts after Iran released the evidence. The same thing happened with the F-35. CENTCOM said it landed safely, but were simultaneously sending an Chinook to run search patterns in the area. This could also mean that the alleged Kuwaiti pilot that supposedly took out 3 of our F-15 was also a lie.
Finally, with so many non-stealth planes getting shot down and stealth allegedly working great, why are we using so many stand-off munitions still and why aren't we using F-35 more?
All the shootdowns have been shown with a custom software showing an IR view and the successful missiles seem to be using electro-optical tracking. The IRST is passive and doesn't trigger sensors plus isn't stopped by our radar stealth. At the same time, a human operator means stuff like flares don't work anywhere near as well. Even more scary, these human-guided runs are premium training material for China to train AI-guided missiles.
My conclusion is that stealth is no longer the game-changer it was once though to be (if it ever was).
After the bombardment by Israel last year Russia sent a ton of Manpads, so they are certainly available. We've seen a very close call by an fa18 from a manpads. It's likely that Iran has passive sensor networks that they can use to spot patterns and provide forewarning to manpads teams.
I think you're right about stealth not being quite the game changer that it was. The Houthis were able to give f35s some close calls over Yemen last year. They're of course armed and trained by Iran, so we would expect to see some hits.
Drones and munitions depth seems to be the name of the game, logistics wins wars
If you go over 3000m then manpads are not useful I think.
Sure, but there are videos of US war planes strafing, like that near hit clip.
Yeah I have seen the clip with Iran polices firing at the UH-60s, which is very concerning. Sure SIGINT makes sure there is no serious AD but there is no way to guarantee that there is no MANPADs somewhere close.
Which is why any "adventures" that involve boots on the ground will come with a significant rise in US casualties. Few Americans have likely seen the videos from the Russian Invasion, of what modern war with $1000 quadcopters dropping grenades on terrified soldiers looks like.
It's especially bad considering the US had already taken out 100 % of Iran's military capabilities, according to the official statements.
What a clown show...
That was 35 years ago. That only shows that the plane is pretty old. I assume SAMs evolved since then.
"Let me say, we’ve won"
- DJT, 11 March
“I think we’ve won"
- DJT, 20 March
“We’ve won this war. The war has been won"
- DJT, 24 March
“We are winning so big"
- DJT, 25 March
What if air defense technology improved a bit during the last 36 years?
Not sure, but I'd wager it was shot down using their 358 missile (aka SA-67). The missile can be fired from a rail on a truck and will patrol an airspace for a time until finding a target using an infrared seeker. Since it uses an infrared seeker (combined with it being fairly small), makes it incredibly difficult be detected by radar, while stealth tech is a fairly useless counter measure.
That's because they primarily sent stealth aircraft and Tomahawks over Baghdad. They also used decoys to draw out SAM missiles, and then F-4s would strike the SAM sites directly, which over time meant that the surviving SAM launchers did not fire when targets made themselves known. However, they did do some non-stealth missions. The most well know was Package Q, which involved dozens of aircraft, and two F-16s were shot down.
The thing about the First Gulf War was that it was four months of buildup, 45 days achieving air superiority, and about 100 hours of a ground war. It was well planned, and involved a collation of of forces that shared a common purpose and common goal. The allied coalition made sure to get their intelligence correct and worked hard to disassemble the Iraqi defenses before sending the armed forces into real danger.
The current conflict involved Donald Trump thinking that Iran, a nation of 93 million people with a relatively healthy economy (at least at the national and regime level, which can sell a lot of petroleum), was going to put up the same kind of fight that Iraq did, then a nation of 18 million with old tech, or like Venezuela did, a nation of perhaps 30 million today, that has faced extended total economic collapse, hyper inflation, and a mass exodus of something like a quarter of the population over the past 6-10 years. There was virtually no planning, with initial action going off of intelligence of where Khomeini would be and just jumping at that.
We've got an administration run by a narcissist that has surrounded himself with sycophants and bottom feeders. He's pissed off every ally we have, acted prematurely as the aggressor with an assassination strike, and now doesn't have the resources to protect the strategic assets in the region let alone convince Iran that the conflict needs to end in our favor. Just a ridiculous number of unforced errors. A complete embarrassment.
"Only the best people..."
I mean, 1990 was 36 years ago and accompanied with a massive land invasion. At what point do these comparisons become meaningless?
[dead]
[dead]
[flagged]
Ridiculous to suggest any equivalence between 1990 Iraq and 2026 Iran, or even the F-15 in 1990 and the one in 2026.
Military technology moves faster than most people think.
Seriously. Makes me glad we attacked when we did. They could have bolstered their anti air defenses even more.
Are these bots or do americans really live in this whole other world?
Or maybe you didn't understand a clear sarcasm?
You're on HN in 2026 here, sarcasm must be clearly identified.
[flagged]
So how is this not flagged, whereas this other post lasted literally minutes before being flagged? https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47612053
75000+ palestinians killed, arguably one of the defining crimes of our age are not worth HN discussion (“politics”) but one F15E shot down in a war of choice is (apparently, “tech”)?
You don't see anything about Russias invasion either. 1.5 million casualties and counting.
that's exactly my perspective on it. it's not about the ukranian, sudanese, Syrian, Irani or Yemeni.
those lives seem to be way less worthy of press judging for the coverage the left want to put in Palestinian people.
it doesn't follow the principle of equal value on lives but a political agenda and mountains of useful trend followers
Unlike Ukraine, Yemen, Syria and Sudan, the United States has been involved in the Gaza war since Day 1.
It's not that the deaths are more valuable, it's that those are the civilian deaths the United States is most-culpable for.
Let's not confuse things. One thing is lives lost at a war, another thing is lives lost at a genocide.
One is victim if genocide. Other us someone who attempted genocide and was stopped by force.
I mean, there is differe between civilians killed by soldiers and ... literally soldiers who are there for the purpose of killing locals.
Russian army can stop the invasion any time they decide and individual men who are there were hired as aggressors.
[dead]
[flagged]
Hello psyop account, how are you doing?
>You can tell because they're all like "Russian gets shot in the ass by a drone LOL" with Metallica playing in the background, like they're not even trying.
Literally every war has combat footage coming out of it that has music overlayed into it. See /r/combatfootage.
Guidelines:
>Off-Topic: Most stories about politics, or crime, or sports, or celebrities, unless they're evidence of some interesting new phenomenon.
I guess this gets in as interesting new phenomenon?
> unless they're evidence of some interesting new phenomenon.
That' a cop-out.
So is a televised genocide.
Being the most technologically advanced aircraft in history, one could argue that's a tech novelty they got shut down by some obliterated, imprecise weaponry.
Being the most technologically advanced aircraft in 1969 ... a novelty indeed.
> Being the most technologically advanced aircraft in history...
More advanced than the F-117? The B-2? The SR-71? Nah.
Maybe you're confusing the F-15 and the F-35?
My mistake, yes I was. Some F-35 did get damaged recently, I assumed it would be another one since it made the top list of hackernews.
It stands peculiar this post wasn't flagged and removed as "politics".
I was being sarcastic, even if another F-35 was shot, why should it go through the strict guidelines.
And another mistake (sorry). The F-22 is more advanced even if it is older.
The F-35 was developed because the US didn't want to export the F-22 tech to other countries.
the marketing department of "Empire" runs deep, even on Hacker News..
[dead]
[dead]
[flagged]
[flagged]
[flagged]
[flagged]
[dead]
The obvious answer I am not allowed to say but it consists of two words and the second word is "money". Sorry but it's true.
And training AI. How else were they going to get real data to feed "AI-Weaponry".
Yeah an F-15 shootdown is about tech. Palestinians being killed is horrible, but that doesn't mean it fits here.
Military aviators train for this, being alone behind enemy lines (look up SERE school if you’re curious, one of the craziest training courses outside of special forces) and there is a special force just for aviator recovery behind enemy lines, US AirForce Pararescue. Hopefully they’ll get the aviators back quickly, the last thing our country needs is American hostages making this ridiculous war harder to stop.
TBH I went through SERE school (aircrew) and I questioned its value, since the training is in eastern Washington/northern Idaho area mountainous woodland environment and all the evasion they showed us relied on that kind of cover and "bushcraft"
And you know, Iraq, Afghanistan, and Iran are definitely not eastern Washington lol
Iran isn't just central Tehran. Look up the Zagros Mountains and the Alborz Mountains. Or just look at a picture of the northern Tehran skyline, it is at the foot of the Alborz, a huge mountain range. There's plenty of woodlands and forest too. Some parts of the Hyrcanian forests get over 50 inches of annual rainfall, which isn't Forks, WA, but it is substantial.
You're reinforcing parents point by highlighting the variety: at most, just 1 of the areas is a close match to the terrain at the training grounds.
Not really, if you're entering Iranian airspace from the Mediterranean, the Persian Gulf, or Europe, you're flying over either the Zagros Mountains or the Alborz Mountains. Unless you crash/eject in a city, you're almost certainly going to be in the mountains. Look at a map.
You'd get additional specific training for deployments and the skills are transferrable. But obviously they can't train everyone in every biome that we have, otherwise you'd spend a whole year just flying around to different areas of the country to train and on a 4-year contract it's just not going to work time-wise.
If you're doing SERE school you're probably not on a 4 year contract. Pilots have 10 year contracts.
some enlisted air crew go to SERE. loadmasters, airborne intelligence, and SMA (Special Mission Aviators).
As an added benefit, enlisted air crew have no restrictions on mustache length or on professional wear of the uniform.
Add Huey crew chiefs to this list
Eastern Washington has a lot of hot desert
Washington indeed has a giant desert but it's in the middle fwiw, the SERE school is in Spokane
Spokane is in the Eastern arid region of the state.
What an absolutely pointless thing to get pedantic about. Put "spokane washington" into Google images and tell me if that looks like a desert to you.
https://maps.app.goo.gl/Yud6EFprZeaVDaeQ6
This is the view outside of Fairchild AFB, which runs the training course in question.
Wikipedia reports that Spokane has a Mediterranean climate, as does Kohgiluyeh and Boyer-Ahmad province where this F-15 is reported to have been shot down.
It's sad how quickly this comment thread went from someone talking about their experience at SERE to... this.
On the contrary, as a European who only associates Washington State with the rainy Seatle I found the reality check rather enlightening.
WA has a crazy collection of microclimates. Ho oh rainforest, alpine at the various mountains, Yakima desert, mild and wet near Seattle, dry plains in the east of Cascades, etc.
Asperger’s spans the continents! It’s inspiring.
[flagged]
They're also wrong. The geographic center (around Ellensburg or so) is also in what is known as Eastern WA (east of the Cascades).
Spokane is Eastern Washington, the college in Cheney is literally called Eastern, its just not a desert.
Spokane is not desert. Even surrounding territory is more plains. Some desert military training happens at Yakima much further west.
Eastern WA is mostly open sagebrush (or farms) they were just in the wrong part of it.
Source: lived there.
far from pc but i grew up hunting along the snake and the old guys always called those hills "Bin Ladens" bc it looked like the pictures of where news reported he was hiding
Sounds like typical one-sized-fits-all, checkbox military nonsense. Perhaps there are better and/or climate-specific SERE courses in one or more services? Because if it's ineffective, it's a waste of time and money more so than usual and puts expensive-to-replace personnel at risk.
Seems like it's all about vacating the area and busting out the CSEL (or NGSR when materialized) personal SAR comms is the best way out, or it may well turn into a weeks(s) long, nonstop spy-shit ordeal getting out. Perhaps some forethought and packing with knowledge and specific local-appropriate items (and chunk of cash) would help more than MIL-STD Walmart camping aisle prepper bullshit.
> American hostages
Military personnel captured as prisoners of war are not hostages. Unlike embassy personnel held hostage during the 1979 revolution, it's unclear if military POWs have any value to leverage against the US, considering how its leader feels about about "people who get captured" and "they knew what they signed up for". We're only hearing about this so the administration can get ahead of the narrative instead of Iran. Otherwise, it's doing everything it can to hide information about the cost of war in terms of monetary cost and casualties.
The hostages here are the so-called "allies" in the Arab world who received no notice of the invasion and were sitting ducks for wide-scale regional retaliation from Iran due to them hosting US bases.
to have POW, you first need to have a W, but to have a W you need to go through appropriate legal channels which trump has specifically avoided to be able to launch this collection of war crimes assaulting foreign countries along israel and causing havoc on a global scale.
Given the war is illegal I don’t think they are POWs.
Yeah I guess they'd legally just be terrorists.
Do they train for a “no quarter“ conflict where injured or surrendered combatants are killed?
No, we actually train to be tortured and held if caught, but everyone knows the risks before you take off. Captured marines or soldiers have been killed in Iraq and Afghanistan, we’re clear eyed about it.
And lied to about the reasons of the war.
Now they even lie about it being a war, while they claim they have already won the war, that isn’t a war.
Every war since Korea, we’re very used to this.
The other wars were woke. This is not a woke war.
I wish I was joking.
I know you're not.
I've found that most of our population has almost no connection to the people that actually fight wars, and therefore have no idea what they think. With the exception of a few criminals, none of us desire to commit war crimes. None of us want to send rounds into civilian infrastructure, seeing regular people struggle to get food, fuel, and water in Iraq did not make me feel powerful and it was obvious it did not advance our goals on the ground.
The jingoistic commentary people hear from politicians and former military podcasters that don't fight anymore is repugnant, and this backsliding in the (at least attempt at) honorable execution of war is not going to bode well for our country. It's probably trite when we're double tapping girl's schools, but I want to think that purposely striking civilian infrastructure, universities, hospitals, water resources... this was all something "we" didn't do.
This is actively devaluing the meaning of being a Marine. Maybe this already happened in Mai Lai, maybe this was further chipped away by Abu Ghraib, maybe letting Eddie Gallagher off... etc etc. But this feels different in a way I've never felt before.
Why do it, then? I'm not trying to be inflammatory or ask loaded questions here, I'm genuinely curious (as someone who, as you note, has almost no connection to the Americans who fight in wars; I have friends who are vets, but have been out of the military for years), and I just don't understand.
I absolutely believe you when you say that none of y'all want to commit war crimes, fire on civilian infra, bomb schools, etc. And yet that's happening right now, in Iran, and the soldiers continue to follow orders and carry out this travesty. I get that refusing an order is not something any soldier will do lightly, but when a school gets hit in Iran, do the soldiers conducting that strike not know what they're attacking beforehand?
Even if they don't, do they never find out? Do they not see that some large N% of targets that have been hit have ended up being civilian targets? When they're ordered to fire on a new target, do they not question whether or not it's a civilian target, given past history?
I ask these questions from near-complete ignorance; I really do not know how this works, or what kind of information any officer or soldier has when they're about to follow the orders they've been given. But it just seems insane to me that people continue to follow these orders, assuming they know how many civilians have been killed through previous actions. I just cannot imagine being in their position, and actually trusting that my superior officers were ordering me to do things that will later turn out to be morally defensible. (If any of this war is morally defensible, which I don't think it is.)
I don't have a good answer for you. I expected the upper and middle officer corps to conduct themselves with honor and they aren't.
I'm going to bet that pilots aren't briefed to hit a school, they get a target package that says this is a legit target, an IRGC command post or something. There are multiple layers of detachment between the person picking coordinates, entering them into a JDAM, and the pilot releasing that weapon so who is ultimately responsible (and this is by design, everyone can tell themselves a story right now to sleep at night.)
But you do know what you hit, in the version of the military that I was in there would have been a detailed investigation into the chain of failures that led to striking a school with children in it. I'm sure it weighs heavily on the every person involved in that decision. Cold comfort for the parents of those kids, but something like that leaves a life long scar on the people responsible.
Thank you for the thoughtful response.
I guess it makes some amount of sense that information isn't always distributed in huge amounts of detail, outside of the specifics on what they need to do.
I hope that those detailed investigations are still happening.
And they have DOD lawyers (with backup from the DOJ) saying the whole thing, and specific targets, are legal. Along with that, much of the most Sr leadership (of both combat forces, and legal) have been fired and replaced with MAGA loyalists.
There have been so many crimes and zero accountability. I frankly wouldn't know where to start, but maybe a good example is "collateral murder", which Assange has been persecuted for revealing for the better part of the past two decades.
At least we're not pretending anymore.
> the soldiers continue to follow orders
We want them to. At the same time that we sit at our keyboards and philosophize about how soldiers should refuse to carry out unlawful orders, we [collectively] do not really want them spending all that much time pondering it. The most obvious cases, sure, but in general we want them to do what they are told, and do it quickly. That is why there are lawyers in the field to make fast judgements.
The better solution is to try and not routinely find ourselves in the position of the country being led by criminals.
> The better solution is to try and not routinely find ourselves in the position of the country being led by criminals.
I would really love if we could manage that, and soon.
It's My Lai, not Mai Lai FYI.
Thank you for expressing your humanistic thoughts, but do consider the history of the institution and the government.
What's different this time is that they haven't bothered with the PR.
[dead]
Care to elaborate on this?
"No stupid rules of engagement, no nation-building quagmire, no democracy-building exercise, no politically-correct wars. We fight to win,” Hegseth said."
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politic...
What’s the value of having a civilian SecDef if he blathers on like this?
It's a self-soothing performance of self-importance, like everything else this administration does.
This is not an administration run by adults who model consequences.
Everything happens to reassure the Commander in Chief - and the people behind him, like Miller and Vought - that they're exceptionally special and gifted people who can have anything they want and do anything they want, to anyone, without limits.
There's pretty clearly negative value in having civilian leader whose most notable accomplishments are being a TV opinion host, and quitting the Army because they decided he was too dangerous to be allowed to serve as a guard for a presidential inauguration.
To win what? Because it’s not a war and not a game. So what else can be won?
To understand this rhetoric, you have to understand how important American Football is to the majority of the voting American public. We love a team that hits hard and wins the trophy! The good guys winning! What’s better? Have you seen any of the Marvel movies? The objective good guys always win! Win win win
That’s why he uses such language
I live in a deeply rural area. Nobody is like this in regards to war. I wish I could put on blast the deep worry I see everyday. Perhaps there is a cultural difference between the rural and red cities? It's hard not to take note of drafting the entirety of your young family to go shoot guns and die even if it was 100 years ago.
Elections. I don't think anything else really matters to them (except power and money, of course).
What does this have to do with “Woke”?
This is just stupid, you cannot “fight to win” if you don't have a theory of victory.
And if you adopt Russian doctrines all you'll end up with is Russian military efficiency.
It’s not not woke, it’s wokeness of a different kind. They exclude those who disagree with their brand of orthodoxy, it seems like to me they’re firing anyone who says no to the ground invasion.
Maybe you shouldn't be.
As he said. Military members are pretty clear eyed about things.
... But conducted by the self proclaimed Department of War.
Interesting, I had interpreted their comment to be asking if they were trained to carry out a no-quarter order.
Unless I missed something, Only Hegseth was promising no quarter (ie war crimes)
We should be clear that Hegseth is not an officer in the US military, and this is clearly an illegal order. The fact that he has fired the JAGs who would tell him that is unsurprising, but does not change the facts. Any such killings would expose the individuals to a USMCJ Article 118 charge.
he what? this is on the record?
From 2024:
"In 2024’s The War on Warriors, Hegseth argues at length that US forces should ignore the Geneva conventions and other elements of international law governing the conduct of war."
“'What if we treated the enemy the way they treated us?” he asks. “Would that not be an incentive for the other side to reconsider their barbarism? Hey, Al Qaeda: if you surrender, we might spare your life. If you do not, we will rip your arms off and feed them to hogs.'”
He wrote a book in which he openly advocates for war crimes. Maybe, just maybe, it pays to believe him.
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2024/nov/25/pete-hegseth...
Yes, he said it in front of reporters at a Pentagon briefing.
https://www.war.gov/News/Transcripts/Transcript/Article/4434...
> Our response? We will keep pressing. We will keep pushing, keep advancing, no quarter, no mercy for our enemies.
https://www.war.gov/News/Transcripts/Transcript/Article/4434...
> Our response? We will keep pressing. We will keep pushing, keep advancing, no quarter, no mercy for our enemies.
March 13, 2026
He probably said "no quarter" because it sounds cool and doesn't really know what it means. The most ironic part is how he is an avowed Christian warrior and says "no mercy" when mercy figures pretty prominently in Christianity.
For what it's worth, he probably didn't know what he was saying.
(slop has been around longer than LLMs)
It’s the one constant about this administration: you’re always wondering ”is this incompetence by not knowing what they’re saying or incompetence where they know what they’re saying”
What is this worth?
Dark comedy mostly.
Hegseth is not in charge of the Iranian military.
Right but the reason we have rules against people declaring no quarter is to prevent a race to the bottom. It is absolutely reasonable to respond to a no quarter declaration in kind, which is... again... the entire reason we have prohibitions on it.
But he did publicly declare his intention to commit war crimes.
Actually even just declaring no quarter is itself a war crime.
Hes also liable for the death sentence, 18 U.S.C. § 2441 — War Crimes Act (1996) & 10 U.S.C. § 950t — Military Commissions Act (more relevent)
They won't face any US law. AIUI, they have been getting letters from the DOJ office of legal counsel that say it's legal. This effectively immunizes them (the DOJ can't turn around and charge you with a crime, if they advised you beforehand it was not a crime).
The best shot would be to turn them over to the ICC
> they have been getting letters from the DOJ office of legal counsel that say it's legal. This effectively immunizes them (the DOJ can't turn around and charge you with a crime, if they advised you beforehand it was not a crime).
This is not true.
OLC opinions are just that: opinions. They are non-binding and non-promissory. They are an important factor in any assessments as a norm, but definitely not dispositive and not legally binding.
The only real barrier is the pardon power, but I'm personally fine at this point with totally breaking the seal, trying and jailing every criminal in the administration(++), and consider the pardon power gone for good. Small price to pay.
> This effectively immunizes them (the DOJ can't turn around and charge you with a crime, if they advised you beforehand it was not a crime).
Where is the check or balance on this? The executive branch can apparently just launder itself wholesale of any crimes committed by its members.
Alas, the USA isn't signed up to the ICC.
Sure, but, if somehow they fell into ICC custody overseas...
Luckily Congress passed a law with bipartisan support to protect US service members from ICC custody (commonly referred to as The Hague Invasion Act).
On foreign soil, US law can’t protect them. They’ll never be able to leave the US to any country who would be willing to make them answer to the ICC.
Now wouldn’t that be sweet?
> the DOJ can't turn around and charge you with a crime, if they advised you beforehand it was not a crime
this sounds like the kind of rules we, as a society, decided to dispense with, so the DOJ can absolutely turn around.
We've already committed several war crimes.
In case anyone else doubted this, I will save you the time to look it up. Yup, it's sadly true.
https://www.commondreams.org/news/hegseth-no-quarter-interna...
Yep. And war crime seems to have lost all meaning in the US.
But, even if you dismiss the idea of international standards, this is clearly very bad for US soldiers (and sailors, airmen, etc). I wonder if they see that.
> But, even if you dismiss the idea of international standards, this is clearly very bad for US soldiers (and sailors, airmen, etc). I wonder if they see that.
Even if you dismiss the idea of international standards, a no-quarter declaration is against _US law_, specifically subject to the penalty of death with no other lawful penalty defined: https://www.govregs.com/uscode/title18_partI_chapter118_sect....
American hostages
Poor choice of words. Hostage taking is illegal, but any captured US aviators would be prisoners of war, whose detention is entirely legal as long as they're treated humanely.
It’s an illegal war. They are not pows.
Prisoner of war, not hostage.
edit: I'm baffled by the amount of downvotes pointing out the objectively correct terminology can get. Its not a matter of opinion, military personnel captured by the enemy are pow no matter their treatment. A hostage, by definition, has been abducted.
Not a Prisoner of War - a Prisoner of a limited military excursion.
Prisoner of a three day military operation.
It's more of a 'romp' than an 'excursion,' if you will.
I don't know what definition of "hostage" you're using, but practically speaking, a hostage is what you make of them.
I guess the down goes is because war has not been declared? Therefore they captured a what, war criminal, foreign terrorist?
> He was kidnapped from his warplane
That is assuming Iran holds itself to the Geneva conventions, which ... seems like an extremely risky bet to make.
We are expecting Iran to honour an International Convention when US and Israel have squarely shat on every convention's face, so to speak.
The person you’re replying to is very explicitly not expecting them to honor the International Convention…
The funny thing is that I am, even if that puts me in the naive minority in this thread.
As a matter of fact, if Iran comes out of the war having not committed war crimes they’ll have a huge worldwide moral and public image victory over the United States and Israel.
Iran already has won on this matter, which is a major concern considering it is an islamist dictatorship that recently killed thousands if not ten of thousands of its own population.
yet israel and the US both come out are infinitely worse in comparison, committing massive war crimes, lead by incompetent far-right extremists blinded by ideology and motivated by greed, personal gain and attempting to evade legal issues.
They already targetted civilian infrastructure, so they already commited war crime. They also threatened to attack universities wh8ch is war crime on itself (after attack on their universities).
How am I reading this? Wasn't the regime mowing down tens of thousands of its own citizens prior to this war? I mean, not a "war" crime, I guess, but it seems ludicrous to give them any "moral victories".
You forget that there's different moral codes in the world. There is yours, which is effectively Judeo-Christian and you judge Iran's islamist regime as reprehensible because of the amount of lives they destroyed. Brutally destroyed.
There is also "pride" as a moral code, where appearances of military superiority are what matters. At the start of the conflict the US and Israel appeared 100% invincible, and now they appear ... 99.9% invincible. So ... "victory for Iran" ... I guess.
In reality, of course, in response to "Israeli agression", Iran has severely damaged literally everyone who might have been on their side, with near-zero damage to Israel and US, while their own forces are dying in large numbers, while boasting of it. What an achievement! But that's where appearances matter. If they boast of it enough, maybe they can convince enough people ...
I’m not convinced that Iran has damaged their relationship to the gulf states any more than the US and Israel have damaged theirs. The US has clearly demonstrated that they are willing to use their bases in an allied state to start a war of at least questionable legality that has the entirety predicted outcome of massively damaging the allies economy, possibly for decades to come. All the gulf states will soon re-evaluate their security relationship with the US. On the side, the US has also severely damaged NATO, to the point that NATO states have closed their air space to US planes involved in the war. On top of that, some European states have blocked flights transporting weapons for Israel. Not to mention the fact that Iran and the rest of the world has been demonstrated again that negotiations or agreements with the US do not mean anything. China will look appealing as a guarantor or peace soon to a lot of people.
I believe the long term damage this has caused in immeasurable and the only way to remedy this would be that both Israel and the US find some way to investigate who and why started this war - and possibly prosecuting any war crime that may have occurred.
Also, the EU needs to grow a spine, fast.
But alas, I have no hope of that happening. We’re all worse off for that.
The damage to the reputation and relationships of the US are immense
Iran has for nearly fifty years pursued unilateral hostilities against the US and Israel, including funding numerous terrorist groups and militias to wage war on them. It can’t negotiate its way out of this quagmire because the IRGC’s core ideology and mission is hatred (and hostage-taking).
In addition to waging continuous offensive militia operations, it’s been cultivating a conventional and nuclear offensive option which it most definitely would use if it had it, because again, the IRGC’s reason for existence is to “resist” Israel and the US, by which they mean obliterate those nations. What Trump recently has been saying about Iran is exactly what Iran has been saying for decades about the US and Israel.
One of those militias went all Leroy Jenkins in 2023 and prematurely initiated the current hot war, which Iran is losing. In frustration, Iran has embarked on a terror campaign of bombing neutral neighbors to punish them for … friendly diplomacy with the US I guess, and bombing civilians in Israel. And annexing an international waterway.
What Trump and folks on this board don’t seem to realize is that war with Iran is more like fighting a bunch of lawyers. You hurt them kinetically and they make you feel like you hurt yourself, get all confused. They slaughter 35k of their own people and shut off the Internet; the US mixes up the boundaries of an IRGC naval base in a much more constrained horror and the UN starts strutting around.
Narratives do matter for winning wars and between Trump derangement syndrome and the IRGC’s natural cleverness at permanent victimhood, it’s the narrative that’s at risk in a war between great nations that, unfortunately, sadly has been perfectly inevitable for decades.
I doubt anyone actually thinks the Iranian regime is good in anyway. But I thought the whole points of MAGA was "No new wars".
And now there's a new war, without any real reason (other than something something Netanyahu and they don't like the US) against a country that is a much more sophisticated adversary than Afghanistan or Iraq.
"sadly has been perfectly inevitable for decades"
Surely by now we know nothing is inevitable? Especially over the range of decades.
It's not unilateral, the US have been deeply involved in Iran since the 50´s and the overthrow of the democratic government in order to allow the US companies to continue to steal Iran's oil.
Then of course they had to deal with Irak who invaded them using US weapons and intel. Including use of sarin gas, thanks to US intel.
The argument about democracy in Iran is hypocritical given that neither Trump or Israelis care about it at all. They just want weak client States.
The Iranians didn't wake up hating the USA one day and a little techouva would be healthy if we want this conflict to end.
So you're saying, as soon as a party does something serious against you, say taking your embassy staff hostage (just to select a random thing one might do), then ANY future and continued hostilities, no matter how immoral the means used, are justified, even 50+ years later? I mean, you're singing the praises of long-term revenge. Oh and the 1979 revolution was a socialist revolution that even had support from the KGB.
So that's great. Then, of course, anything the US does against Iran's islamist regime is justified according to you! Excellent news, that. Strange, I got a different impression from your tone.
P.S. you are now supposed to say that it merely means "you understand why" they act like this, not if it's justified. Even though you absolutely won't understand the US killing a few hundred Iranians in revenge.
I'm saying that violence between the two countries wasn't unilateral and that the US have a long history of aggression against Iran, culminating now. My post is quite clear.
Ending a cycle of violence also requires to accept where you did wrong (i.e "techouva"). The US have been bombing the world since 1943, with for the most part, little effect aside on the suffering of the civilians under fire.
The only intelligent move to stop the cycle of violence with Iran was the nuclear deal framework made by Obama. It was of course was terminated by Trump, which worked very well as the current war shows.
Bombing Iran during negociations, killing their supreme leader and negociators, commiting war crimes, won't clearly solve anything.
When I read such post, I feel that many people supporting the war in the US just have a sadistic instinct that needs to be expressed, whatever the consequences. Hurting (or, as the Trump aides say "fucking") other people won't fix the emptiness of your lives.
Trump’s bargaining position has been: stop raising foreign armies to attack Israel; stop trying to sneak into the nuclear club, because we know what you’re going to do.
Translated to human terms: stop threatening the US and its allies.
The US position is not sadism, it’s how every nation except Iran tolerates one another, live and let live.
Russia and the US— they competed strongly with one another during the Cold War but generally respected red lines. Russia withdrew its kinetic threat from Cuba, the US knew circa 1998 that expanding NATO through the old Warsaw Pact would make no friends in Moscow. Strong, rules-based brinksmanship all the way around.
Iran is just about ideological extremism. Sometimes there are rules, or used to be, but the IRGC signed up a bunch of unprofessional clowns to wage total war on its behalf and, at core, talks like “mutually assured destruction” would be a total “win”, provided Israel was on the other side. If either superpower exposed that kind of philosophy in the Cold War can you imagine the calamity? It’s inherently destabilizing.
Trump's position is to do what the Israelis ask him. Nothing else. Iran doesn't threaten the US. On the other hand, the US has multiple times helped Iran's enemies (Irak) commit atrocities[0] or enforced a coup to continue stealing its oil. As stated by Tulsi Gabbard, there was no imminent threat to the US before the war.
Few things:
- Please don't talk about “rules-based brinksmanship” when the US commits bombing and decapitation strikes during negotiations. Or when they send real estate developers to discuss nuclear programs[1].
- Iran had agreed to limit its enrichment and allow inspectors in to verify it. Of course, it was too much for Israelis who didn't want another competing power in the region. The end of the agreement led Iran to restart enriching its uranium at higher rates, having the (expected) complete opposite effect than what was wanted. Who's the clown here? Trump.
- The US' “ally”, Israel, currently has a far-right religious Zionist government that ticks all the boxes for ideological extremism. It also has a MAD doctrine regarding its illegal nukes. [2]
- Hezbollah was born after the Israeli occupation of Lebanon. While it was structured by Iran, its ranks are made of Lebanese citizens. Many non-Shia Lebanese will agree that it's the main defense against the invasion of their country, which is desired by the Zionist right to achieve their “greater Israel” project[3]. While Hezbollah is problematic now, its removal should be accompanied by a commitment by Israel not to invade its neighbors and to stop the illegal colonization of the West Bank.
In general, it's a recurrent strategy by Israel: favor frictions, violence, and fuel the most extremist of your opponents, to justify retaliation, and then allow you to extend your position. For instance, Israel was helping Gulf States to fund Hamas before the recent war started.[4] The US is an accomplice, as Israeli money heavily funds its politicians. It's not an ally.
[0]: https://www.sbs.com.au/news/article/cia-files-prove-america-...
[1]: https://www.armscontrol.org/blog/2026-03-11/us-negotiators-w...
[2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samson_Option
[3]: https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2026/2/26/what-is-greater-isr...
[4]: https://www.haaretz.com/middle-east-news/2020-02-24/ty-artic...
The United States is perfectly capable of performing atrocities without Israeli permission, and Israel is completely dependent on US funding and weaponry, not the other way around. And who's actually ever managed to put a leash on Trump?
I really think this sort of "Israel is in control" thing leans into conspiracy lala land at best, and certain very dangerous and bad territory at worst.
The last two operations in Iran were done on the instigation of Israel. The bunker bombing and the current war. The administration gladly admitted it.
And Israel is, through AIPAC, one of the largest donors in congress. Myriam Adelson, an Israeli billionaire and outspoken zionist, gave Trump $100 million for his campaign. Of course she is outright buying Trump, asking him to support the illegal colonization of the West Bank.
https://www.timesofisrael.com/miriam-adelson-gives-100-milli...
On top of that, evangelical christians, who tend to be radical zionists, are Trump's core voter base and fund directly Tsahal and Israel through donations. You can learn directly from the actors in this excellent israeli documentary:
https://youtu.be/gSmIQKyluw8
So yeah, not really a conspiration, it's all out in the open. It's also not just a foreign policy, Trump threatened to end universities' funding if they didn't forbid criticism of Israel and allowed the administration to monitor them. A large part of his aides and government members are also Jewish and zionist advocates, which of course steers the policy.
Jared Kushner even does real estate promotion in the illegal colonies, when he's not sent to fail negociations regarding nuclear enrichment
If you start with the view that Israel has a right to exist, like Kuwait has a right to exist, what common ground then is possible with the IRGC? Did Saddam Hussein think it was a winning strategy to lecture the world about Kuwaitis pulling the strings in the original Desert Storm?
The IRGC and Iranian leadership assume that since Israel is just one nation, and not a big one, that they really really want to annihilate, it should be no big deal for everyone else to accept. But that is a dangerous, even existential proposal on both sides, as the IRGC knows, partly because the US position worldwide is about projecting security for partners.
Iran actually occupies a mirror position regarding the Palestinians, who have fought and suffered greatly. So Iran strives to reverse the positions of the Israelis and Palestinians— not to raise all ships, but swap them— which isn’t a moral cause from an impartial perspective, it’s just picking a different winner.
The US and Israel sought peace through negotiations for decades regarding the Palestinians, while Iran has continually plotted and waged war, which it now has on its home soil. The US and Israel have genuinely sought to peacefully resolve the situation, while Iran has not, not in my lifetime.
Israelis didn't "sought peace through negotiations for decades regarding the Palestinians". They have a long history if violence and apartheid policies, since the beginning. Negociation attempt have been done under the pressure of the US, and Israelis commonly break ceasefires, and favor the most extremist of their opponents to keep the tension going.
The problem with Israel is that the initial colonization was mostly illegal and problematic. Now, time has passed and countries should recognize its existence, while Israel should also stop its plans of a "greater Israel", including invading and bombing all of its neighbors. And stop the illegal colonization of the West Bank, along with their policies and ideology treating Palestinians like animals.
Israel is a rogue state, with illegal nuclear weapons, that protects criminals from all over the world and refuses to extrade them and commits war crimes in the open. Your way of thinking, which it is a pure white dove in a sea of evil muslims won't solve anything : Israelis have to do techouva if they want peace.
Unfortunately, the current far-right government pursues a religious messianic plan, including the destruction of muslim holy sites to rebuild the temple, so they won't accept a lasting peace.
Iran is however not an existential threat to Israel, as long as it doesn't have a nuke. So the efforts should concentrate on this aspect, to which the Iranians were open to discuss...until the Israelis assassinated the negotiation team and the supreme leader that could have imposed a desescalation deal.
It's not naive to have adult expectations for adults
Prisoner exchanges are a pretty strong motivator for any group, even hardline ones. If the Taliban was up for exchanges I think the IRGC is pretty likely to want to keep prisoners for that too.
I would note ISIS put out some high res, professionally edited video of burning a (Jordanian?) pilot to death while inside a cage. Quite savage, but the propaganda effect is more profound than about anything else I've seen.
Yes, after that video it was clear that Daesh and everyone in their little caliphate would be hunted down. And it was, they were. They were attacked everywhere they tried to return to. From minor girls returning to the Netherlands to 45 year old men (trying to) return to South Africa, all were persecuted, and that one video had a lot to do with that happening. After that video, even muslim nations started hunting these people.
And yet, they are still around, made famous and split into separate groups, still actively fighting on multiple fronts all over Africa. And if the Iranian government falls for sure they will be coming back with a vengeance in the area.
Does the US have any prisoners to exchange? Wouldn't we need boots-on-the-ground to capture enemy combatants?
Israel probably has some prisoners that Iran might want released, is my thinking?
They're going back to the stone age, remember? The Geneva convention wasn't around then AFAICR.
The US doesn't hold itself to the conventions, why should the country it started a war of aggression with?
If you throw away your principles because you are fighting an unprincipled enemy, you are no better than them.
That's a lovely thing to say, but if your existence is being threatened by an aggressor, I wouldn't blame you for throwing out the rulebook.
In my view, if someone invades your territory and starts attacking you, you have no obligation to follow any sort of "principles" or "rules" when it comes to how you fight back. Anything you need to do to the attackers in order to defend yourself and your people is, by definition, morally defensible.
(Do note that I said "need". Doing arbitrary messed-up things that don't actually further the goal of driving back the attackers is not ok.)
FWIW, during the Iran-Iraq war (where Iraq invaded Iran), Iran used a bunch of pretty questionable tactics like suicide squads of child soldiers.
It’s such a shock to the system to realise that “unprincipled enemy” referenced here is the US.
And it seems interesting a lot of people seem to be completely oblivious to it.
They tried restraint and proportionality for decades and where did that get them? 47 years of non-stop aggression, espionage, sanctions and the mass deaths of Iranian civilians.
There is no if. We've already done that. So yes, we are no better than them. So answer the question. Why would Iran follow conventions it's enemy that started a war of aggression is not following?
Becaus two wrongs don't make right. If they are smart they will stick to the convention.
America has never played by the rules.
US exceptionalism is a prominent feature of every republican and democratic president since decades.
It's sad, because if US did, and led by example, it could've pulled serious weight internationally on plenty of matters.
Instead it can only do so by economic or military leverage, which, at the end of the day is not enough of a leverage to avoid confrontation.
What has Iran done to show it would not uphold Geneva conventions?
When they struck desalination plants in Bahrain would be an easy example. You can say that they are retaliatory strikes, but they are certainly against the Geneva Conventions.
Iran's use of cluster munitions to attack swaths of Israeli cities is also against the Geneva Convention (though I'd again point out that we started hitting civilian targets in Iran first).
Both sides have violated the conventions, but the US and Israel have violated them to a much greater degree (especially Israel and all their attacks on Lebanese civilians not to mention razing Gaza).
I have a LOT more trust in Iran following the Geneva conventions than I do the US.
Especially after the double-tap on civilians and first responders the US just did on that bridge. Or the threat for no quarters from the secretary of defense. Or the threats to destroy critical civilian infrastructure for water or power.
Or Hegseth running his mouth about exactly this issue...
Maybe Iran is more civilized than the Barbarians attacking them.
We have to wait and see if Iran is fighting a woke war.
Hegseth explicitly ordered to give the enemy “no quarter”.
Why wouldn't they?
First: count the responses to my thread of people suggesting Iran cannot/should not be held to the Geneva convention: 4,5 (I'm counting the Hegseth comment as 0.5)
The point is there are a great deal of people, even in the US, who advocate that it is unreasonable to hold people fighting the west in general and US in particular to the Geneva conventions. I don't know where this idea comes from, because morally it is of course indefensible, but there you go.
I would expect the number to be bigger in Iran. I would expect the number among IRGC extremists to be even higher than in Iran in general.
Second: war crimes have 2 interpretations. First as violations of the Rome treaty which require that the state where the warcrimes happen has signed the Rome treaty. Iran hasn't.
The second interpretation of warcrimes is that they are violations of the Geneva conventions, and the reaction would be that the UN security council intervenes. Well, the UNSC has preemptively declared they will not hold Iran to account for warcrimes (to be exact: France, Russia and China have declared they will veto). So at minimum you can say that Iranian warcrimes will not have any "official" consequences.
The world and the UN have decided that warcrimes "don't count". As in there will not be any consequences unless the government of the country where they happened implements those consequences.
Third: Iran has already kidnapped a US civilian (a reporter, Shelly Kittleson) and are holding her hostage. This is already a violation of the Geneva convention. They have also kidnapped hundreds of foreign nationals of other nations and are also holding them for ransom, which is also a violation of human rights, ie. a warcrime.
So those are my three reasons Iran won't hold itself to human rights standards.
France vetoed proposal about opening the straight by force. France and Europe in general dont want to dragged into this war.
Also, I dont see UN punishing Israel or American war crimes either ... so it makes sense to not apply "whatever goes" standard to aggressors and different one to the defender.
> Iran has already kidnapped a US civilian (a reporter, Shelly Kittleson) and are holding her hostage.
Expect there to be a lot of operatives of the US in Iran. Not to sound like a conspiracy theorist, but it wouldn't be the first time a CIA or something operative is caught and this is the cover.
In war the first victim is always the truth
Iranians have dignity. Something American top brass doesn’t even know the meaning of.
You mean the army shooting 40.000 protestors just 2 months ago including 1000+ children, then executed a child that won an international wrestling competition, now accusing everyone else of warcrimes?
I think I'll need some reeducation on this concept of "dignity" you speak. Could you explain further?
So how is bombing schools, dessalination plants and hospitals helping Iranians exactly? If that's what the US is really looking for?
Right. Go watch CNN. “Back to the Stone Age” will surely save so many of the lives spared.
Come on US media tell us the truth, you want to save people by killing them or to just kill them?
Did you never noticed how there's always a little Arab Spring to provoke whatever regime the US has decided to bomb next?
None of those numbers are verifiable. The opposition has every incentive to lie. And let's not forget there was a lot of armed agitators amongst those protesters. Mike Huckabee let the cat out of the bag with a tweet boasting of how a mossad agent walks beside every protester.
False. Khamenei himself acknowledged "thousands of people" had been killed during the protests: https://www.thetimes.com/world/middle-east/article/iran-youn...
You're confidently replying to a point that I did not make. Protesters were certainly killed, both peaceful ones and agitators. In addition, government claims hundreds of police officers died and places of worship were attacked and burned.
My point is there is simply no verifiable numbers because both the opposition, particularly diaspora groups backed by the regimes enemies, and the government have incentives to be inaccurate. So trying to use the death toll as a talking point is not a good idea.
It's completely naive to underestimate the role of Mossad and the United States in the unrest. The former through actual Iranian nationals in their employ, and the latter in engineering the dollar shortage that led to the unrest in the first place (Scott Besant bragged about this).
Reprisals are legally permitted to a limited extent if you're a victim of war crimes, as Iran is.
...but we aren't at war, according to the President and his secretary of Defense (war).
what a fucking mess.
It’s a “well, actually” and counter to the HN guidelines
There's a significant difference between a hostage and a prisoner of war, and in this context that distinction seems highly relevant.
Only for someone breaking the guideline of "Assume good faith".
I didn’t downvote you, but a terse “well actually it’s prisoner of war” doesn’t really add to the conversation. Imagine doing that in person, you’d annoy everyone around you. If you explained why it’s distinct and what that might mean for downed crew I think it wouldn’t have been down voted
No, they wouldn't annoy everyone around them, that's just your subjective projection. I, for one, found it an important distinction that highlights how easy it is to skew a narrative towards a more sympathetic one. It saw it as having similar value to those Instagram posts juxtaposing headlines reporting on "dead Palestinians" vs "killed Israeli victims".
> making this ridiculous war harder to stop
If the US military would like this war to stop they could not fight it, that would be pretty easy I think. Probably not without consequences, but that would show actual courage. Whereas dropping bombs on civilian from afar shows zero.
Relevant: This is a very interesting read:
https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/5150259-u-s-air-force-su...
If they landed anywhere near a town they are probably captured. The kuwait video from the f15 that was hit with friendly fire was crazy. Like 6 suvs worth of locals immediately surrounded this guy and they were threatening to beat him with a galvanized pipe.
Seems like a good time to dust off Trump's policy on POWs
“He’s not a war hero ... I like people who weren’t captured.”
US FEMA has been working on hand of god teleportation for this exact situation. We need to search the waffle houses first thing
Wouldn’t it be wiser and more considerate to your fellow soldiers to pull your side arm and go out like a man. Unless you’re able to nose dive into the ground to minimize the chances of useful parts/intel being recovered by the enemy?
Lookong forward to you going out like a man when retiring so you’re not a burden on society.
I’d be the last to burden anyone else.
There’s a lot of speculation about how this was achieved, but little mention of the likely weapon system that was used: https://israel-alma.org/the-growing-air-defense-capabilities...
The SA-67 is essentially a hybrid surface-to-air missile and loitering drone that operates like an airborne mine. It’s a pretty innovative weapon: instead of relying on a fast, highly detectable rocket motor, it uses a small gas turbine and passive infrared seeker to silently loiter in a combat zone and then ambush aircraft without ever triggering their traditional radar warning receivers.
Iran purchased the Verba:
"Iran Secretly Purchased Verba MANPADS From Russia for $589 Million" - https://militarnyi.com/en/news/iran-secretly-purchased-verba...
and they have the Misagh-3 that has an interesting laser system to avoid and ignore decoy flares. - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Misagh-3
https://youtu.be/XKxfSlJ-HdQ
But it seems they are pretty pissed off with the Chinese, since they spent a few hundred million on their defense systems, that turned to be a complete failure. This was also after the HQ-9B failed to adequately protect high-value targets in Pakistan during India Operation Sindoor,
"Chinese HQ-9B again in spotlight after reports of failure of Iranian air defence system amid US-Israel strikes" - https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/defence/chinese-hq...
Reminds me of https://dunerts.wiki.gg/wiki/Anti-Air_Mine
Early 2000s RTS games (Starcraft 1, Warcraft 3, CnC franchise) continue to amaze me in how well their seemingly comical "game physics" model the intrinsic dynamics of real world conflicts, almost prophetically.
I don't believe the SA-67 is the most-likely weapon used, here. Given that it's turbojet powered, that missile is almost certainly subsonic and better suited for taking out prop-driven drones like the Predator. Even at sea level, the F-15E would probably outrun it at low cruise speed.
You're definitely right that passive seekers are playing a huge role here, though. Many people online (and on HN) bought into the air dominance shtick just because major radar sites were taken offline. It was always the road mobile and TELAR vehicles that would be a threat.
To unpoison y'alls priors, I want to remind HN that in the Kosovo air campaign, the Yugoslavs took out a nighthawk (F117) and an F16. They claimed more nighthawks that limped home.
The F117 is a very stealthy plane, given its geometry (flat panels). Yet a 1960s radar with essentially no digital equipment took it out, largely using human intelligence and guerrilla tactics.
Iran has modern digital electronics (to improve the signal to noise ratio, merge different data sources, etc) and modern electronics. They are also master guerrilla fighters and have, great, native missile technology.
Iranian airspace is contested at best. We certainly do not have air superiority over it.
Thank you! I find it generally distasteful how often the media seems to memory hole the Yugoslav Wars. We've already seen this in 2022 with many pundits claiming that the war in Ukraine is the 'first armed military conflict in Europe since WW2' - which is just blatantly false in this context.
[flagged]
[dead]
I hope the aviators are OK, and also hope whoever they were bombing are also OK.
I do wonder if Iran finds them first, will they treat them better than the US treated survivors of the ship sunk by a US torpedo in the Indiana Ocean?
I find it hard to have any sympathy for the American pilots that are dropping bombs on schoolgirls.
I don't believe the U.S military was involved with that school massacre. Reports have it that it was some Israeli missile. The U.S would sell weapons knowing full well it could happen but would never (knowingly) do such a thing.
All that said, not sure there should be any sympathy for soldiers bombing any country on the pretext of some "preventive" war.
It was extremely likely a tomahawk missile which Israel do not use. It was almost certainly the US. There are many many journalists who have written about it
[flagged]
Do you support the general rhetorical tactic of taking a single example and expanding it to the entirety of a group?
If so, I assume you're also upset about the bad hombres crossing the US southern border. After all, they are killers and rapists, right?
You’re generalising from some criminals to an entire civilian population. The parent generalized from military to military. There’s a slight difference in the two.
Also, remember that it was the US who declared “no quarter”, not the Iranians.
> You’re generalising...
Yep
> The parent generalized
Yep
Yes, please ignore the rest of those clauses.
The crew of the IRIS Dena were warned twice by the US to abandon ship according to a report from one of the sailor’s father. They refused.
Not sure if it’s possible to treat enemies better than that. And I doubt the Iranians will treat a US pilot well. Look at how they treat their own citizens.
The ship was an unarmed vessel on its way to a goodwill visit to Sri Lanka and coming from an international maritime exercise hosted by India, which the United States also attended and participated in. The US torpedoed it, and when it sank, the US did not apparently attempt to rescue any of the Dena's crew. Fortunately, Sri Lanka showed up and saved 30 people.
Mind you, the details of war are not always clear. The US says that the ship was armed, and it also says that they did make an effort to rescue the crew. The US does not explain why it failed to actually rescue anybody, of course.
The US is busy shooting “drug boats” with no evidence, that is who they are now
I believe the phrase you're reaching for is "carrying out extra-judicial executions of civilians alleged to have been smuggling drugs."
Or shorter.. NAZIS!
I thought the people claiming they might be fishing boats with no fishing gear, 55gallon drums, in specially designed hulls with 6 engines, hauling ass out of known drug ports were just joking.
Guess we'll never know, since instead of arresting and prosecuting them under the law, we blew them up.
Yeah, why check right? Not like we need evidence or any investigation…
I saw some people leaving a known drug house yesterday, but fortunately I gunned down the whole family, no questions asked!
[flagged]
https://www.npr.org/2026/01/27/g-s1-107510/drug-boat-strikes...
Want to try again?
>Oh, it doesn’t exist because you haven’t seen it? Hmm, good analytical skills.
This is about what is legal, and about what the law says. It is about establishing a protocol for lawful conduct. Can you explain why you think you have the moral high ground? Or keep with the poorly researched attacks, those are fun too
If you think a warship is ever 'unarmed' I have a bridge to sell you.
Sadly no, they also blew up the bridge. 8 dead, 100 injured. Blowing up civilian infrastructure is also a war crime.
Since when is a warship's bridge "civilian infrastructure"?
ship used for naval exercise uses different software and payload (non-explosive). additionally, that ship also bring navy band performing in host parade days prior.
If the source below is correct, the commander of the Dena ordered his troops to stay on the ship despite the warnings, there was a bit of a mutiny and the survivors are those who rejected those orders and jumped off.
https://www.iranintl.com/en/202603071125
OK if I come to your car, declare you’re my enemy, and tell you to get out before I toss a Molotov at you, does that mean I can’t be tried for murder later if you refuse?
This was a sneak attack outside of an established war zone, for an illegal war, so don’t try to conflate this as an attack on America’s enemies. The USA made them their enemies themselves.
[flagged]
They were in international waters. This was literally a war crime according to international law. Even the killing of the Supreme leader was against international law.
Not that I am supporting the war, against what statue is killing khamenei? You are targeting a military leader in an arm conflict. Seems clear cut
The entire attack was illegal under international law: https://law.stanford.edu/2026/03/03/stanfords-allen-weiner-o...
https://www.newser.com/story/384710/legality-of-khameneis-ki...
His daughter, son-in-law, and grandchildren were civilians. Intentionally targeting civilians is a war crime. Even if they were not targeted directly, an attack is illegal if: it fails to minimize civilian harm, or the civilian casualties are disproportionate to the military advantage
International law is very clear on this point.
A law only has value if it can be enforced. Who's going to enforce this international law exactly?
We can still decide if a thing is just even if no justice will be enforced.
The way the war is going, Iran themselves.
I don't believe you can minimize civilian damage more than that, if a target is always among civilians. You can only push so much, like the pager attack was probably the most minimizing one, but obviously and unfortunately civilians still got caught.
For the international law part, interesting debate i think, where the state acts in self-defense if it has sustained an “armed attack” by its adversary;. Obviously this is very broad, but i think you can easily argue the last 40 year of fire exchanges as a continued armed attack.
US already has the technology to target a single seat in a car with a missile that has no explosives, solely kinetics (swords really).
The sword missile is really impressive but you’re not really targeting a single car seat with that.
That doesn't seem like the most trustworthy source.
>Established in May 2017 and funded by Saudi Arabia,[1][2][3][4][5][6] it actively promotes former Crown Prince Reza Pahlavi as the next ruler of Iran.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran_International
If anything that seems like it would lean American in its bias. Saudi are our allies as is the family of the former Shah.
That was exactly my point. The Saud regime also hate Iran for being Shia.
America helped Israel kill THOUSANDS of children, and America just killed 150 school girls in Iran. America is a war criminal, plain and simple.
Not sure how anyone can believe this while, as another commenter points out, the US is proudly and unilaterally murdering speedboat users in the Caribbean without any due process.
Can you cite something to support this. Quite keen to read.
The US Secretary of Defense is the one declaring that no quarter will be given.
You don’t have to project your own shortcomings to other people.
> Not sure if it’s possible to treat enemies better than that.
If you can't imagine how, that says a lot about you.
You left out 'unarmed'.
[flagged]
Unarmed like the 30k *children* Israel/US slaughtered in Gaza.
> Israel/US
The US?
Yes, the US.
If you are stabbing someone on the ground and I am standing next to you, pointing a gun at anyone who comes close and tries to help, and when your current knife breaks I hand you another one to use, I am an active participant in your crime. If it weren't for me, someone would have got you, or you wouldn't have done it in the first place due to caution since no one is there to protect you.
US took that role with Israel, and was an activate participant in Israel's genocide of the indigenous people of Palestine.
"They killed unarmed civilians so that means we can kill unarmed soldiers!"
Are you seriously trying to say this war of aggression on Iran is about democracy for their people? That's not what the US does. What the US does is lip service to democracy while destroying it around the world for capitalist interests.
No I’m not "seriously trying to say" anything you say.
I am saying: This regime murdered 45,000 unarmed civilians simply for protesting.
By the way, today they executed an 18-year-old, also unarmed.
It looks like this figure is growing by the hour. By the time I finished writing this comment they may already be 100.000
How many do you think were killed?
How can I know? I don't trust either side.
But talking about 20k killed, next week 30k, now 45k... doesn't seem serious at all.
you understand how time is required to count people that were killed? check Iranian human rights org’s numbers http://hengaw.net
Are they still counting now? Because they may be mistaking them for the victims of the US and Israel, which are killing civilians by the thousands too.
protestors are still being executed daily
Not sure if you're talking about Iran or the US now
this just shows how disconnected from reality you are.
Well, that depends on which reality you're referring to, of course.
So, more whataboutism? Is this your m.o. here?
[flagged]
Lmao everytime that number is posted it's multiplied by 3. I even read 150 000 dead last week
not sure what you find funny about children being massively killed at an unprecedented rate by an army that deems itself the most ethical or why you conflate children killed with total estimated death.
in september 2025 the number was at least ~20000, for the obvious reason that we do not the actual toll and that it is without a doubt much more. and let's forget the injured and permanently disabled, the consequences of disease, lack of food and clean water, living in permanent fear, being traumatized and so on.
this is not a laughing matter.
https://onu.delegfrance.org/the-conflict-in-gaza-has-been-pa...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Effect_of_the_Gaza_war_on_chil...
I've heard 40,000 since it happened.
But sounds like you're saying it decreased since last week.
Do they come from non .il domain name?
If you have independent numbers feel free to share them, otherwise it's straight up propaganda from either Israel or the US and I trust none of these two given the context
I heard it from Iranians.
What number suits you best?
The "50,000 murdered protesters" is blatant atrocity propaganda to launder the actual mass murder of civilians and failed illegal regime change war by the United States and Israel. Nothing more. It is a lie told with the blackest of intentions.
"Who cares if we murdered 170 schools girls? The evil regime murdered 50 gorillian civilians so it's okay when we do it!"
this just says that you believe the Iranian regime and don’t believe the western democracies, nothing else.
there are names of people killed, and videos of hangings, and videos of basij forces shooting at people on the streets, easy to find. there are videos of Iranians celebrating the bombing of regime symbols – saying all of its "atrocity propaganda" doesn’t make it not be true.
> there are names of people killed
No, there are not. You're telling me there's 30,000 names somewhere of people killed. There aren't and it's ridiculous to claim that without a source.
check the other reply, liar
It is certain that armed gangs were activated and many people (up to a couple thousand) were killed in chaotic riots. There's video evidence of armed gangs in the streets.
The idea that tens of thousands of peaceful protestors were killed solely by the government, the same government that was decapitated just weeks later by a foreign war of aggression, and yet not a hint of mass uprising afterwards? Utterly preposterous, and I would be embarrassed to even entertain that narrative.
It's so obviously part of a cynical propaganda campaign to justify the actual unilateral mass murder of civilians by the Trump and Netanyahu regimes.
have you lived under oppresive regime? i have. its clear you have no idea what you are talking about
Google "human rights in Iran" if you think killing of protesters is a lie. Clearly you are here to spread agenda.
For any non-bigots that want to see truth, even if it doesn’t align with hating on Americans, Jews and the West. Iran based account exposing human rights abuses by the Islamic regime in Teheran https://www.instagram.com/hengaw_english/
and non-Meta link https://hengaw.net/en
Why would an organization allegedly dedicated to uncovering "human rights" abuses have an empty contact page? Where are people supposed to report? Oh right, because they get all their "reports" from the US/Israeli government.
Your blind trust of random blogs by anonymous organizations is part of the problem, not the solution.
respected people from german kurdish and iranian community share these reports, i do not trust random blogs. you can easily see yourself security forces shooting at protesters - it’s you who seems to be blind
Please share some of these names and in which circles they are respected. Reza Pahlavi types?
anyone with a brain can google “hengaw credibility” and see what organizations rely on its reports. I will not give you, an iranian agent, any more attention
So are you saying no one was killed during the protests in January?
Nope, and you should read the rest of the thread before replying with gish-gallop.
If the number of deaths in the protests is above zero, how many were killed?
Again, you can answer your own question by reading the tiny thread, instead of responding with even more gish-gallop. Or is "read primary thread for context" not part of your AI tool set, Mr. New Single-Purpose Account That Only Posts Pro-Israel Propaganda On HackerNews In Violation of its TOU?
If you're suggesting that the US submarine should have rescued the survivors - with respect I think you don't understand how submarines work. They have no capability to perform rescue operations. They have no way to handle mass numbers of injuries, there's normally just one corpsman (basically a medic) on board. Even if they want to do a rescue operation they have no place to put them. Subs barely have room for their own crew; typically 2 or even 3 sailors share the same bed.
Subs in WW2 rescued survivors all the time until the US bombed a rescue operation and ended the gentleman's agreement.
https://www.beachesofnormandy.com/didyouknow/Did_you_know_wh...
There was zero threat to that American submarine, they fired on an unarmed ship that the US Navy had just held ceremonial activities with literally days prior. Absolutely disgusting behaviour but we can't expect anything less from the Americans unfortunately.
Modern subs don't run on the surface routinely like WWII subs did. Practically all they could do would be float some life boats up, but they were probably >10 nm away, so it wouldn't have been in position to deliver them promptly.
They should not have sunk the ship in the first place.
[flagged]
[flagged]
Of course I'm serious, why would my age affect how I feel about a soldier dying invading another country? But you are right that probably in the big context of things a POW is better for negotiating an ealier cease fire, which would ultimately be the better outcome.
[flagged]
> You think enemy soldiers are all evil?
If they are invading your country when you haven't invaded theirs, absolutely. An illegal war of aggression makes all the participants on the attacking side morally bad, yes.
Those pilots are dealing death and destruction to people and the infrastructure of the attacked country on a daily basis, which they sneak-attacked in the middle of what the victim country thought were diplomatic negotiations, for the second time. Do those pilots not deserve a lot of bad things happening to them in return?
A teenager? Have you heard the way American politicians have been talking about this war. They've been liberally using the word "evil" and talking about bombing nations "into the Stone Age"
[flagged]
I think you would be surprised!
The Hormuz issue proves that the west never had an ability to economically sanction Iran, au contraire Iran can actually sanction us - and they are.
This is what real sanctions look like. The west broke the deal, attacked like terrorists, and are now being sanctioned.
Correction - Israel and the US broke the deal, and now the rest of us in the west are also being sanctioned
who do you call "the west", please leave us out of the nonsense from israel and the usa, we have nothing to do with this madness and refuse to be a part of it.
I'm disappointed the UK didn't tell trump to fuck off like Spain did when it came to using bases on their territory
That would require Starmer having anything resembling a spine.
"The West", don't lump us all in.
[flagged]
I hope they pay you well to post propaganda, you sound like a deeply unhappy person.
> Iran can actually sanction us
Who's us?
> This is what real sanctions look like
You mean raising the price of oil and gas for the worlds largest producer of both oil and gas?
> attacked like terrorists
Attacked the country who took 'protection money' and used it to build up enough conventional munitions to make stopping their program prohibitively costly.
The west could easily start to sink ships and stop global trade. It would likely be the start of WWIII.
That's not what a sanction is. Iran has been subjected to sanctions for a number of decades.
Which they will remember. The lumped west may now get sanctioned for the decades to come.
List of aviation shootdowns and accidents during the 2026 Iran war:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_aviation_shootdowns_an...
Iran: 40, Israel: 18, US: 36, Others: 7
It's a bit weird counting drones in the same list as expensive fighter jets (and other expensive planes).
MQ-9s are ~$30 million USD and are strike capable.
Sure. But looking at all of the downed Israeli crafts, they are all $2-5m drones (all 18 of them).
For perspective: Patriot missiles cost $4m each.
The two(2) H450s are in that unit cost range. The others and the Heron variants range to $40 million. A not insignificant number of Iranian aircraft(such as the US-produced F-5s and C-130s acquired before 1979's Revolution) are low unit costs comparably to the UAVs("drones") lost here.
Attrition compared to US materiel(not material - although that too greatly burdens cost to the US) depletion such as the aforementioned Patriot does not favor the US for sustained operations in theater(let alone should a second theater contingency operation occur).
I wasn't comparing to Iran, I was just saying that putting an F-35 and a $2m drone on the same list and same count was funny.
As for the $40m number: I also saw this number, but I don't think it's correct. E.g. Germany recently bought 140 of them for $165m. Ref: https://www.i24news.tv/en/news/israel/defense/1649255166-ger...
It's not just about cost - a $2m drone and a $200m drone can both be sacrificed if cost/benefit analysis merits it.
You don't sacrifice pilots, ever.
That’s because Patriots are typically upped, now downed.
One crew member rescued, other is still MIA and being actively searched for https://www.axios.com/2026/04/03/iran-us-fighter-shot-down
Non-walled article reporting the rescue:
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/american-fighter-jet-f15e-downe...
And CENTCOM's lying about it.
https://x.com/CENTCOM/status/2039805134704660622
No, that tweet is from 20 hours ago, and is about a separate incident which happened two days ago over Qeshm Island in the Strait of Hormuz.
The current F-15 crash incident happened today near the city of Lali, in Iran’s Khuzestan Province.
The US military is in the middle of a top-level political purge; both honesty and competence as an institution will be below normal levels for the forseeable future, and honesty about sensitive operations during wartime is never much even as a baseline.
What’s the buzz like amongst military right now? Is moral low? High?
It’s been fascinating to see my Father (Marine and Army veteran) and my brother (soon be a commissioned Air Force officer) who usually are very aligned politically start develop the first rift I’ve ever seen regarding this war.
All true. So we should expect it, but we still shouldn't normalize it.
[flagged]
> Not a popular election where people vote to put new people in charge, which necessarily means removing the old people in charge.
More than a year after they took office and in the middle of a war?
I think they're talking about https://www.cbsnews.com/news/hegseth-ousts-army-chief-of-sta...
> Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth has asked Army Chief of Staff Gen. Randy George to step down and take immediate retirement, sources familiar with the decision told CBS News...
> Two other Army officers were removed from their roles, according to three sources familiar with the matter: Gen. David Hodne, who led the Army's Transformation and Training Command, and Maj. Gen. William Green, who headed the Army's Chaplain Corps...
> Hegseth has fired more than a dozen senior military officers, including Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Gen. C.Q. Brown, Chief of Naval Operations Adm. Lisa Franchetti, the Air Force Vice Chief of Staff Gen. James Slife and the head of the Defense Intelligence Agency Lt. Gen. Jeffrey Kruse.
> headed the Army's Chaplain Corps
Why this guy? Makes me speculate that it is entirely a political purge where they are trying to groom the military leadership to be entirely filled with loyalists rather than professional soldiers. As a veteran I find this very disheartening.
And of course the first thing the next administration will be obliged to do is fire this cadre and build another, which will fuel the grievances and set up the following cycle. Sigh.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Purge
I am not from the US, so I don't really care about how it does its things.
I definitely don't expect political purges on bureaucracy in my country of residence after elections, and I would consider it an extremely bad sign.
Typically the new party replaces the top levels; this is expected. Director of something, secretary of this and that, minister of something else, etc.
The actual bureacrats doing day to day work typically are not political agents. Getting rid of them for political reasons indicate loss of know-how, tacit knowledge, and competence, in the name of blind loyalty.
This was also true of the US. It’s expected to replace the Secretary of Defense and a variety of subordinate secretaries and undersecretaries like the Secretary of the Army with political leaders affiliated with the President’s party. Military officers at the highest level, such as the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs or the Chiefs of Staff of the respective branches, are somewhat political, but they are expected to be professionals chosen for merit. And below that level, it has historically been very frowned upon for political leadership to directly involve itself in the selection and promotion of flag officers beyond setting criteria and expectations.
That tweet is from yesterday.
Iran tweets about taking down an American jet basically daily. By their count we are down 40 f-35s, 4 aircraft carriers and thousands of MQ-9s.
And they have not edited it or taken it down... why?
Because almost all of the people inside Iran have been disconnected for the past 35 days [1]. And believe it or not, they are texting these news live to all mobile phones on a daily basis as well. Some regime supporters believe it, because the want to believe it, they need to believe it. Just in the past 24 hours I have received 5 different messages from different organizations claiming victory and damage to US / Israel assets.
Just for a quick laugh, look at the official (Iranian) president's letter to the American people published yesterday [2]. The font changes between the paragraphs!
[1] https://mastodon.social/@netblocks/116339631989805542
[2] https://x.com/drpezeshkian/status/2039418009052119190?s=20
It’s so bizarre, they’re using “fancy” formatting with em dashes but there are extra full stops inserted randomly throughout.
> That tweet is from yesterday.
That's when the shootdown happened, yes.
> Iran tweets about taking down an American jet basically daily.
Sure. We have two sets of demonstrable liars here. See, for example, the E-3 Sentry that got blown up; it took leaked photos for that to be admitted.
And don't get me started on the several times in the last few months we've "obliterated" Iran's nuclear capacity and missiles and whatnot only to be told it's time to do it again.
The claim being addressed is a shootdown over Qeshm island, which is the biggest island just west of the strait of Hormuz. The current CSAR operations are happening somewhere in the Khuzestan province. Probably somewhere within the 150 km radius of [1] based on online footage of the C-130 flying over.
[1] 31.941606, 50.311765
"We"
Very cool that you have a side hustle as a US fighter jet pilot!
It's known as the Air National Guard. Work for United during the week, and fly F16's one weekend a month.
Hate to say it and sound so "conspiracy-like", but I no longer can trust what the current US administration is saying. Ever since the path of a hurricane was redrawn with a sharpie, it's been... unusual.
Your comment is a perfect setup for the cynicism olympics where people rush to say you could never trust the govt.
You should never trust this administration. The US government in general has a spotty history, but this administration does nothing trustworthy.
I think the problem is that in previous administrations at least they had some skill in lying in ways that were not so constantly contradicting one another.
Regardless of whether it's a "perfect setup" or not, the facts speak for themselves.
Most competent governments don't say things that are outright wrong. They may use double speak, or not comment on a topic. But this government (and unfortunately it's this specific adminstration/president) has acted time and again in a way that both of us know very well.
Has there been a time where (after later facts came out) they were wrong?
Nukes in Iraq?
That was what the gov’t was saying was true - which was a lie, and was later proven to be a lie.
Which reinforces my point?
Do you have some reasons for hope for the cynics in the crowd?
Not really. Just that trust ain't binary and the govt is made of people. I don't like this admin but this too shall pass. Cultivate your garden. Electing bad people has consequences.
None of what's happening today could have happened without everything that came before it.
The blue team carries plenty of blame for not fielding better candidates. If nobody is buying your bullshit, it's a little weak to blame the customer.
And all of the us electorate carries plenty of blame for letting our government get so massive and out of control over time. We've let this beast metastasize and grow, and now were stuck with it.
Red team could have sane candidate, but they did not. They spent a lot of money amd effort into making this happen.
They are 100% at fault.
The American people are ultimately to blame for it, they've got the government they deserve, which is actively dismantling the US empire day by day. The American people voted for Trump instead of Kamala, and that is rather damning of the state of the American people, far more so than however damning it may also be for the Democratic party.
Yes. Absolutely.
As we all know, in this day and age, you need to REALLY sell your story, and have the media behind you. Competence is tertiary.
> Approval of Trump among Republicans has slipped to a second-term low of 84%, down from 92% last March. At the same time, an all-time high 16% of Republicans disapprove. This shift can be attributed, at least in part, to declining support among non-MAGA Republicans, as approval dropped 11 points in the last year among this group (70% in March 2025 to 59% today). Virtually all MAGA Republicans continue to approve of Trump, with 98% approving a year ago and 97% now.
> https://www.foxnews.com/politics/fox-news-poll-voters-oppose...
March 20th poll
Or the bootlicker olympics for those who want everyone else to ignore the constant lies because they think bigger, more powerful government is utopian.
That has been (rightly) said every year there has been a current US administration.
It is not a conspiracy theory if it's true.
And no, it's not "cynicism Olympics", it's observation.
Right on cue!
I wouldn't be so pleased with myself over such "You will get wet in a rainstorm." style predictions.
truths from different angles that are at odds with one another produce mistrust and thoughts of conspiracy. We have more of that now than we have ever had, ever. It doesn't take Nostradamus to point to the trend.
tl;dr : Gee, where did this mistrust in the current government come from? I'd point but I don't have that many hands.
Impossible. Iran's army was already demolished weeks ago, and there's "nothing left". What did they take it down with, bb guns?
Same as what happened to that Ford aircraft carrier, some fire incident in the kitchen that was. I doubt aircrafts have a kitchen yet, but toilets could catch fire, right ?
Since their military capacity is certainly completely demolished, they probably took it down by throwing rocks
The whole thing is impressively disorganised going back to not having a clear objective or plan for the war.
They took a page from the US administration playbook and manifested a victory into existence.
Average comments sentiment when an American is caught having killed a clerk during a robbery: hope they fry him on the chair
Average comments sentiment when an American is caught while bombing bridges and elementary schools: poor thing hope they treat him well
Many people are very detached from the suffering of others
I'm sure many Japanese watching the Pearl Harbor movie didn't want the American pilots to survive after nuking 2 cities either.
Really struggling to make sense of this comment, is it just me?
The military propaganda in the US is so strong that it doesn't matter how many innocent lives US soldiers take, even the staunchest US liberals will thank the troops because "just following orders" or "poverty draft".
"Thank you for your service!"
The key difference (which I am sure you are aware of) is that the victims in your second scenario are foreign brown people. The comments would be very much like your first scenario if this was about Russians attacking even military targets in Ukraine for example.
American sentiment seems fine with killing invading Russians. I don't think it's a skin color thing that much.
The article says this is the first jet that was shot down by enemy fire this war, but this confuses me. Was the F35 that was downed a while back friendly fire or something? Are F35s not fighter jets?
The F35 was able to make an emergency landing in a gulf country. This one actually went down in Iran.
I’m not sure a plane can be landed when the crew ejected.
Assuming you're both referring to the events of 19 March, they did not eject from the F-35. I know of no event during this war where an F-35 crew ejected.
It can, that's part of why these newer planes cost billions of dollars per unit. Assuming the plane is still controllable though. Usually in that case you wouldn't eject, but its technically possible. There was a case where a US pilot ejected on accident and their plane landed itself.
> emergency landing
https://preview.redd.it/f35-i-shot-down-in-iran-v0-0gdyroc4o....
I think it's ok to say that it crashed into the ground but the pilot survived.
With 'emergency landing' people assume it was just a rough landing whereas the plane here is completely and utterly broken.
I don't know if you noticed but that's not a US F-35 (whole image is probably fake tbh) and the reddit post is from 2025.
As an aviator, that right there counts as an emergency landing. A hard one.
They limped it back home, they didn’t ditch a very sensitive airframe over enemy territory, I’d call that a win and the pilot deserves a medal for that.
You should at least share an image of f35...
Source of that image though.. ?
An AI prompt in June 2025.
That one was damaged and managed to land safely, iirc. Depends on your definition of "shot down" I guess, but the pilot didn't eject, so...
We have always been at war with Eastasia
I thought the IR video of that showed it made the missile detonate before the missile hit, maybe shrapnel hit the jet
Then again idk the jet exhaust becomes more significant not sure if afterburner or damage
https://www.reddit.com/r/CombatFootage/comments/1ry6ma2/f35_...
That's how anti-aircraft missiles always work.
In that video it seems like something shoots at the missile is what I'm saying from the F35
Someone said maybe a form of DIRCM
The missiles have what’s effectively a flak shotgun shell at the tip, when they’re pointed at an object and close by it shoots flak in a tight cone towards the front.
Flak spreads the damage better and does more kinetic damage than trying to ram a plane with a missile and hoping the concussion from a the resulting explosion damages something.
You're talking about a single "dash" on the frame before it goes all white. First question, if it were a laser, would be what exactly are you seeing there? A laser from the side is invisible, there'd need to be dust there, or the air would need to have turned into plasma. I don't think either makes that much sense. Second question/problem would be… it would have failed/be malfunctioning because —
— pretty much all AA munition works by exploding in close proximity to the target and showering it in shrapnel. So this might even have "helped" the missle/shell against malfunction in its fuse. And considering that this is designed to work like that, and it's likely not the greatest quality work on the Iranian side, it's also possible that the thing is already exploding and just ejected some piece of intentional shrapnel (or unintentionally itself) early, ahead of the actual detonation.
Or the Iranians edited that "dash" into that one frame, it's not exactly like it's a reputable source and it's in their interest to confuse things. Maybe they want the US to believe that the countermeasures are malfunctioning and helping their attacks, so they turn it off…
Yeah I was also thinking the the dash might be the missile itself
The single exhaust plume does become multiple on the F35 suggesting damage
Almost like a seeking flak shell. I had no idea.
I think an A-10 is also down (pilot ejected and safe). I'm surprised that they decided to fly an A-10 into Iran. I mean it's a solid plane that can sustain some AD fire, but at the same time it usually operates within the height that MANPADs can reach.
Considering the number of friendly fire incidents these moronic planes cause, Iran would probably be better off leaving them be.
All CAS can cause friendly fire, but that doesn't remove the need for CAS.
The A-10 flies slower and closer than our fighter jets which means they have more time to assess the situation before taking action.
The A-10 will be cited in every future American CAS program as the reason FLIR is built-in. Deserved or not, the aircraft earned it's reputation.
Second one in 24hrs…and that’s with their “anti-air defenses destroyed”, per our Commander in Chief
Why didn't Iran use its capability to take down enemy jets for an entire month?
Iran doesn't have to shoot down a single jet to win this war. Just move military hardware into caves. Sacrifice civilian infrastructure as the only viable bombing target. Wait it out until American domestic pressure from perceived war crimes ends the war. They can't afford to fight a land war or garrison over the entire country.
The fact that Israel has leveled much of the 140 square miles of gaza over the past 3 years and still fails to remove Hamas from power. No chance against 636,372 square miles and 93 million people. Worse odds than Vietnam. There isn't even a defined victory condition.
> There isn't even a defined victory condition.
It's even worse if you consider what rational options the mullahs have. Yes, they are a murderous dictatorship and enemies of US - no question about that. But they did nothing to provoke this particular attack and they still got bombed.
Backing off without first inflicting severe pain is just not an option in this situation. It would be an invitation to get bombed at will.
they were making a nuke, plenty of details there - and no one wants another NK situation in the world.
Btw, Iran with conventional missiles struck its Arab neighbors.
After Trump leaves office the next President will still hate Iran irregardless of political party.
North Korea, famous for attacking with nukes. Once again the only nation that has ever used nukes on another nation is the United States. If anything it is the United States that should be disarmed because there is already precedent that they will use them. Everyone else developed the bomb because of the United States having it and having a monopoly on destroying any city with a single bomb.
This is weak logic - you know darn well how difficult and costly the battle of the pacific would have been on both sides without the Nukes.
Iran is disliked by all their Arab neighbors besides Qatar.
Is NK really a success? Are they doing well? You plan to hedge long run the world needs another poorly developed pariah state with 90 million people doing suboptimal?
Iranian leadership was fine btw dying for Martyrdom. So let’s give a strongly theological government happy with Martyrdom a nuke. Because they won’t care about the consequences.
You might know technology but you are clueless about the world. Every Iranian not in Iran hates Iran.
Wow, "perceived war crimes", what an interesting way of saying war crimes.
Real and perceived. The lay public aren't generally students of international law.
[dead]
> Sacrifice civilian infrastructure as the only viable bombing target.
I'm imagining the air crew going "Huh, there are no clear actual targets to bomb. Hey, Cleetus, command won't be happy about us not bombing anything at all, retarget on that school over there, let's get this over with and go home."
They are thinking on a longer timeline than a month. They kept some anti-air missiles in reserve for this phase of the war, where they aren't trying to defend Iran's airspace. They just need to hide and wait for opportunities to occasionally hurt the US, Israel and the other Gulf states.
Maybe they've been taking down jets the entire time and you've simply been lied to and the situation on the ground is different than what you believe.
CENTCOM tweeted that no shootdown occurred only for Iran to show the wreckage and one of the ejection seats. CENTCOM said Iran didn't shoot down the F-35, but it apparently crashed in Saudi Arabia and we sent out a Chinook to run search patterns to find it.
CENTCOM claimed a single Kuwait (ghost of Kuwait?) shot down three different F-15s by accident, but those planes were close enough to Iran that they could have been targeted by Iran (which seems more likely than the massive chain of mistakes required for the Kuwaiti shootdown to happen).
CENTCOM also only talks about US planes shot down and excludes Israeli F-15 that have been hit. CENTCOM also doesn't count all the very expensive drones that have been shot down, but their total value is at least a half-billion dollars.
Finally, CENTCOM is straight-up lying about air superiority. They claimed they'd switched to gravity bombs, but people instantly noticed that all the planes going up were using long-range JASSM stand-off missiles so they don't have to actually go very far inside Iran and can keep their planes in a safer section of the country. CENTCOM loaded up a B-52 with JDAMs and took a couple pictures, but all the pictures after that photo-op still show super-expensive JASSM (costing as much as $1.6M each).
If our planes never enter their airspace, there's nothing for them to shoot down. I'd note they've also shot down a couple of JASSM missiles which is interesting itself as the radar cross-section of a JASSM is believed to be pretty close to an F-35.
Iran is currently using bongo trucks with an IRST and a couple missiles that can even loiter in the air if there's no target. Being electro-optically guided means they are passive and the human element makes them a lot less likely to miss due to chaff.
These little trucks can hide ANYWHERE and because they aren't a massive multi-vehicle setup like a Patriot or S-300, they should be able to relocate often and quickly (they might even be able to stay mobile while in operation). This mobility combined, ability to hide as a normal truck, and completely passive sensors make them almost impossible to find and destroy.
Downvoters, care to explain?
Seriously, it's been sitting on this for entire month and now, all of a sudden, rolled out antiaircraft defense? What's going on?
If you want a real explanation, this is how defensive wars against an overwhelming opponent are fought. Iran knows that they can't build an iron-clad air defense perimeter, there still isn't a reliable answer against stealth aircraft and cruise missiles. They never had a chance of shooting down every plane that enters their airspace, and that isn't their goal.
Instead, they will fight this war by absorbing blow after blow, hiding their capabilities and striking back when it is advantageous.
All Iran needs to do to win is:
1) Outlast the US air campaign - note this only requires protecting enough of their defensive capabilities to remain difficult. It does not require shooting down every US aircraft that enters their borders. It does not require shooting down most aircraft that enter their borders.
2) Prevent free shipping in the Strait of Hormuz.
That's it. They just need to apply economic pain as domestic and international opposition to the unprovoked attack grows.
I'd argue there is a 3) show other gulf nations that the US can't defend them. They are doing a pretty reasonable job of that right now too considering the infra that is being destroyed daily. The real question is what are their goals and what do they stand to gain? A new list may be:
1) Stay in power. They really were pretty destabilized before this. This war may actually be propping up their government because hitting a bully, despite what the movies say, just gives them more power. Reporting from inside the country is sparse, but it seems like the few stories coming out aren't showing the same level of internal unrest that was there a month ago. This objective seems on track.
2) Increase their influence in the region. This is likely happening by the minute mainly by the fact that the US is losing influence in the region the longer this goes on. The US's loss is Iran's gain. I suspect that actual negotiations are happening in secret between Iran and gulf nations that will have long term consequences. I don't know that this objective is on track, it will take years to see, but if I were betting long term I would bet that Iran in 5-10 years will have much more influence in the region than they had a month ago.
3) Harm the US and Israel. Spain is getting almost hostile and we have a lot of US assets there. Pretty much every country on the planet is turning their back on the US openly. The most 'help' the US has gotten is basing from the UK and, of course, gulf nations supporting strikes. Israel is going to loose military aid for decades and potentially more after this administration leaves. This objective seems on track too.
I honestly don't know how Iran could get a better outcome than what is happening right now. By the end of this they will look rational compared to the US, the rhetoric of the last 50 years will look vindicated giving them increased influence and access in the region and a new generation of extremists will have been created. This has the makings of becoming one of the worst blunders in military history.
I guess it's possible that Russia and/or China delivered some hardware to the Iranians. Doesn't seem far fetched given the low international support for this "excursion". Both countries benefit from a US quagmire.
Air defense is not static. Even fixed launchers can be moved, and reacting to how your enemy is operating is an important part of air defense tactics. The famous F-117 shootdown happened because the air defense operators carefully planned around how the US was using its aircraft. If most Iranian air defenses were destroyed in the first few days, it'd make more sense for them to hold whatever was still available for the sort of situation where they had much higher chances of scoring a kill than just throwing it out there to get destroyed immediately and accomplish nothing.
~15/16 MQ-9 Reapers have been shot down inside Iran. Not jets but still combat(strike and reconnaissance) aircraft.
I just looked it up. Those are turboprop (slower) but have a high ceiling of 50k feet. So Iran did have something better than stingers left. Maybe they just got lucky this time.
I didn't downvote, but your post sounds like you're implying some kind of tomfoolery, deception, or other hidden reasons. There are very likely none, it just takes time to adapt to a specific enemy, probability slowly increases while you get more attempts, and then after some time (t) the first shootdown is "properly" successful. And note how this was preceded by that half-successful shootdown where the plane made an emergency landing. And they shot down drones.
You sound like they roll an antiaircraft cannon out of the hangar and immediately successfully down a plane. That's not how that works. The AA was probably there from the beginning, just not successful.
We don't know what downed it yet, so it's hard to say. Iran is hiding and rationing their offensive munitions, we know that, so it's not surprising when the number of drone and missile attacks spikes after weeks of bombing. That's part of the plan. But the ability to take down a US fighter jet is not something they are rationing- it's likely at the edge of their capabilities and they got lucky. If they could be knocking down more, they would be.
Because it obviously doesn't have the capability. Similar to how the US has no capability to "win" from the air only.
Maybe it was friendly fire but I did not see that in the news yet.
It's not entirely impossible that someone smuggled in some Chinese or Russian kit in the last month. It would certainly be an interesting development. I wouldn't be too surprised if there are some sympathetic people in the Pakistani military prone to misplacing things.
Iran aims to make this a drawn out and expensive adventure for the US in hopes that it will deter a next time. They are playing the long game and they know Trump is not.
Speculation.
1. Iran was retarded and didn't preemptively strike US staging who had local overmatch and first mover advantage. Nothing to do but weather hits, chip away at regional basing and wait until US+Israel operation tempo goes down. Can't sustain surge sorties forever, especially with regional logistics wrecked. US pilots tired now, on stims, making mistakes.
2. Iran not remain retarded, was hide and bide, waited for US to get complement, gathering data / building tactics to squeeze out surface-air without getting glassed. Regardless, Iranian capability seems much less degraded than claimed. Who knows how many of the 20k+ targets hit was basically just drawing down highend munition inventory, which now forces flying closer on lower end munitions.
At the end of the day, Iranian mosaic forces are chilling in underground bunkers waiting for US+co to make mistakes. Consider Iraq, a much smaller country by every metric ate 5x more sorties from more carriers and sustained regional air campaign and fell because they hedged on centralized IADs. Granted most Iranian hits are precision munitions (more efficient per sortie), but we simply should not expect Iran doctrine built on distributed survivability to be remotely defeated relative to effort expended.
Also the US has been mostly using cruise missiles, which don't require to get close to the targets. Now that those ammunitions are gone, they have to take more risks and use gliding bombs with GPS kits, which have a much shorter range.
Probably because their air defenses were too busy getting shot to shit.
There was a lot of Iranian AA losses in the opening phase of this war. US went town on anything that looked remotely like AA to secure the sky for themselves, and operated with ever-increasing impunity since.
Between advanced ISR, stealth, ECM and stand-off munitions, US has a lot of tools to make the lives of AA crews into a living hell.
It's unclear what happened here exactly. It might be a "straggler" SAM that wasn't destroyed in the strikes, might be US going too aggressively and putting reduced survivability airframes within an area that wasn't sufficiently cleared, might be an Iranian adaptation not unlike the "SAMbushes" seen in Ukraine.
I don't see it as a sign that Iran is somehow reconstituting its AA capabilities though.
> It's unclear what happened here exactly.
It really isn't. A huge portion of Iran's air defenses are designed for road-mobility and pop-up attacks instead of long-term point defense, encompassing hundreds of launchers total: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_equipment_of_the_Islam...
Military strategists long warned that air campaigns flying over South Iran would have to contend with passively-guided SAMs and MANPADS on their way to Tehran. There are hundreds of road-accessible caves in the Zagros range that cannot be inspected via satellite. They inherently present a risk to overflights unless they are occupied on the ground first; it's common knowledge why Kohgiluyeh and Fars are so dangerous.
Considered that this is the first jet shot down in the entire war? "High mobility SAMs" alone completely fails to explain it.
They had high mobility SAMs for the entire war, with nothing to show for it. Something else must have happened there.
Not the first jet hit, and definitely not the first aircraft downed. The F-35 incident was widely suspected to be a Qaem 118 missile, which fits the bill for road mobile multispectral SAM perfectly. More than a dozen drones were downed too, and even the rescue helicopters are evading air defenses according to CENTCOM.
> They had high mobility SAMs for the entire war, with nothing to show for it.
This is certainly something to show for it. Iran's air defenses are not like Israel's or Qatar's, they don't have the money or security to build expensive anti-ballistic layers for air defense. These smaller, road-mobile systems are intended to exploit an overextending enemy, and for that purpose they're apparently working quite well.
I wouldn't count 2-3 downed jets across many thousands of sorties "working quite well", no.
I don't think a single USAF officer is seeing the silver lining while the Iran conflict continues to escalate.
These people are professionals, they go to school to study REDFOR tactics and get court-martialed when their missions go sideways. They are not looking at the SEAD situation of southern Iran with uncertainty as to how this happened. You are the only one that has voiced that confusion.
apparently, Iran is claiming that the search and rescue helicopter has also been hit by a projectile.
It wouldn't surprise me to see a for loop.
I see a ton of bickering, however, I simply have to ask the question: how can anyone justify the United States of America and Israel attacking ANY country? It isn't our job, nor is it Israel's, to try and be the world police. People are dying, and because of a certain corpse-to-be controlling MY country, the world is beginning to suffer and it is going to get so much worse. Some economists are saying gas rationing will begin happening within the next 9-15 months. Iran has NO incentive to be diplomatic. On top of that, invisible damage that nobody is reporting about is being done...damage that could last years or possibly decades to very small, yet super important parts of the world supply chain that powers everything from fertilizer to pharmaceuticals. There is not a single person in the world that should be supporting this war. I don't care what your beliefs are. The results WILL affect you, and you won't get a bailout.
If you're asking in good faith, Israel isn't attacking Iran to play world police. Israel has been under constant attack from Iran-backed proxies. As for why Iran backs these proxies, the answer boils down to pure fanaticism. For a fanatic-led state to possess nukes is a dangerous situation and it's worth it for Israel to try and prevent it.
As for why America is involved in a conflict between Israel and Iran, it's because we have a Republican administration and a big segment of Republicans (Christian Evangelicals) want the US to ensure Israel as a state survives (also for purely fanatical reasons).
> For a fanatic-led state to possess nukes is a dangerous situation and it may be worth it to try and prevent it.
So, when are we bombing Israel to prevent the world being held hostage by nuke-wielding religious fanatics?
Israel has been under attacks by Iran backed proxies which all happen to have been attacked by Israel first.
1982, Israel invades Lebanon. Iran backs Hezbollah, which triggers its first killing of Israelis in 1983.
There would have been reasons to back the creation of Hamas long before 1982 but the revolution in Iran only took place in 1979, so through the decades of Palestinian oppression, massacres and occupation, Iran was aligned, so it started with a support for Lebanese resistance. Then much later the backing of Palestinian resistance, then Yemen via the Houthis.
It is true there has been constant funding, and of an increasing number of proxy groups, but Israel's invasion was the trigger. Backing nations, and paramilitary groups is pretty common: see U.S backing Ukraine regular army, and private mercenaries.
FWIW israel did the same to iran also via proxy, for decades too.
and the starting point of all this is the US coup in Iran that eventually lead to the islamists seizing power in Iran.
right iran is the fanatical country here...
Many people ignoring that Saudi Arabia, now a major ally or at least erstwhile enemy of Iran, would LOVE to see the fall of the Iranian regime.
Oil is the last remaining 'strategic commodity' everyone (including China) needs to keep a balance of power.
Many people missing the actual game here.
This is the flag of the Houthis [1], they are sponsored by Iran, as are the likes of Hezbollah, and Hamas. They have similar language in their charters.
How is that not casus belli?
1 - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sarkha
US first started bombing Yemen in 2002. That flag was adopted by Yemen in 2014
That slogan has been around since 2002. The U.S. carried out a targeted strike against a leader of Al-Qaeda in Yemen, an enemy of the Houthi movement. Using U.S. foreign policy to somehow excuse a flag calling for "death to America, death to Israel, curse on the Jews" is a moral failure.
Why would that be any casus belli?
Do you think threats and missiles from an adversary are insufficient cause for war?
Yes. They didn't attack the US. We attacked them with no casus belli. Operation Epstein Fuckup.
Article 51 recognizes states' rights to individual or collective self-defense. Israel has a plausible self-defense claim based on the Iranian regime's proxy attacks against it, and its explicit mission of destroying it. If we accept that premise, then by extension Israel's allies also have a right to act in its defense.
There could also be separate arguments that the Iranian plot to assassinate Trump gives the US casus belli.
Hm, I wonder which country overthrew the Iranian government in the 50s and replaced it with a dictatorship…
How is that relevant? There’s no exception to self defense for countries we once meddled with.
> gas rationing will begin happening within the next 9-15 months
It really depends where in the world you are. There are places that will begin rationing in the next few weeks if not sooner.
There are places that has already begun.
https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2026/3/9/bangladesh-shuts-uni...
you may have missed that there are places where shortages have already happened and rationing is already underway.
Clueless? Iran has been attacking many countries, including US and Israel, for 47 years. It's not a secret.
Out of interest, what sequence of actions by which country in particular led to the modern Iranian regime?
The 1979 Islamic Revolution was staged by Iranians, in response to the despotism of the Pahlavi dynasty, founded in 1925 by Iranians.
It is a disease of the Western mind - and particularly Western academia - to deny agency to others, especially people in the Middle East, as you're doing here with your painfully unsubtle attempt to link US support for the Pahlavis in 1956 to the 1979 Islamic Revolution 23 years later. Worth noting that the Pahlavi dynasty started out as autocratic as it ended, well before the US ever showed up.
This is a lazy reverse Orientalism, where people in the Middle East are othered and cast as a perennial victim incapable of taking any role in, or responsibility for, what happens in their own countries. It's disempowering racism in academic garb.
Iranians caused the Islamic Revolution and only the Iranians can undo it. I wish them the best of luck in doing so.
> claim that US support for the Pahlavis in 1956
“Support”. Hah. The word you’re ham-fistedly avoiding there is “coup”. You got the year wrong as well. The US and UK self-admittedly engineered it to support their national interests.
If you believe not one but two superpowers can’t engineer a coup in a financially poor but resource rich nation then I’ve got a bridge to sell you.
Except we're not talking about the Pahlavi dynasty, we're talking about the Islamic Republic. You're trying to draw some direct causal link from the '56 coup to the '79 revolution, just because that's the conclusion your preconceptions demand, facts be damned.
Why stop there? France engineered and supported an anti-British coup in the underdeveloped but resource rich American colonies in the late 18th century, setting in motion the train of events that led to the Islamic Revolution!
And the Polish General Kosciusko fought valiantly for the Americans, on account of the partitions of Poland. Were it not for those partitions, he'd have been at home! So it is the Austrian, Prussian, and Russian Empires - the partitioning powers of 18th century Poland-Lithuania - to blame for the Islamic Revolution!
But why did Austria desire to get involved in the partitions of Poland, and what long game was it playing vis-a-vis the Shiite scholars of then-Persia...
Hold up, we need a corkboard and some pins. Where's Pepe Silvia in all of this? Who has the Jack Ruby?
You can draw the bowstring all the way to Mars if you want to, but the only people to blame for the monstrous regime of Iran are the people who put that regime in place, and that certainly wasn't the Americans. No amount of "well this encouraged that, which caused blowback to this, leading to that" Substack-level motivated reasoning is going to change that fact.
The gay kids being executed by Iran are not cursing the name of America, or Empress Maria Theresa of Austria, they're cursing the ghouls who are hanging them, who are their countrymen.
> but the only people to blame for the monstrous regime of Iran are the people who put that regime in place, and that certainly wasn't the Americans
Let’s put it this way: if we where to stack rank all the countries that where directly involved in the creation of the modern Iranian regime, Iran would be first and America would be second.
This isn’t some theory, it’s a pretty clear/succinct cause and effect.
It’s not clever, patriotic or even a good take to ignore that and hide behind “well it’s their fault for having a regime change orchestrated by us that installed an unpopular authoritarian monarch who curtained freedoms because he would oppose Russian interests and support western ones, ultimately leading to someone worse taking power after decades of human rights abuse supported by the west in return for continued alignment”.
Yes, ultimately the person who pulls the trigger is responsible, but the person who gave them the gun and told them where to shoot is also responsible.
That's quite a shift from your earlier post that US conduct "led to" the Islamic Republic, and a more measured and reasonable take. But in as far as the US had a secondary role in recent Iranian affairs, it was a very distant second to the Iranians themselves. It does the Iranians no favours to edit them out of their own history.
The thing is, it's very easy to get caught up in this kind of rhetoric and lose a lot of perspective. This is the kind of logical chain that leads people to end up deciding that Germany had "legitimate grievances" about the Treaty of Versailles and end up in some pretty dark places. Not saying that's you in the slightest, just noting the problems with that rhetorical style. It's fast, somewhat lazy, and greatly lacking in perspective.
If there's something I think we can agree on, the US role in '53 (corrected date) is nothing to be proud of, any more than *points generally towards the Strait of Hormuz* whatever the hell this is.
Iran has actually never directly killed any US citizens. This misconception arises because its allies in Lebanon have done so. But the US and Israel were occupying the bottom third of Lebanon so I would hardly call that an attack.
There was also the hostage crisis but that was done by student protestors rather than the Iranian government.
Clueless? The US has been interfering in Iran (stuff like removing democratically elected prime minister) since 1953, at least.
The 1953 coup was ugly realpolitik, but the Islamic Republic's hostility began in 1979 (hostage crisis, embassy takeover, fatwas against the West). Iran has been the initiator of most modern conflict.
So you don't think 1953 had anything to do with 1979? It just kind of happened out of the blue?
It contributed, but downright accusing the US for 1979 ignores Iranian agency, the Shah's own policy failures, economic/social pressures, and the ideological revolutionaries.
I think you need to learn more about the history of U.S./Iran relations over the past 75 years. There was a pretty good episode of NPR Throughline a couple weeks back that gets into the CIA bullshit and then 1979 onwards. Iran has not been a good actor, but we aren’t exactly saints either. It’s an ugly situation all around.
Sure, and how did they get the Shah, again? You're maybe starting to get closer to enlightenment.
Ok, the Shah didn’t just randomly happen. The U.S. and U.K. helped put him back in power, so American interference is part of the chain that led to 1979... apparently largely due to geopolitical and crude oil reasons.... huh. Enlightened.
you seem to have all the data but failing to sort them out to see the direct causal link between the point of origin and the current situation.
also I would argue that we should not confuse Iran and the islamists ruling the country. as a reminder the Iranian people suffered thousands if not tens of thousands death recently during violent repression of social unrest. so it seems the Iranian people may disagree with the choices of the people in power. at least until the US joined the israel led war crimes against Iran.
The hostility began in 1953 - too many Iranians hated shah and seen monarchy as oppressors put in by CIA. Even anti islamist Iranians were writing about it. And yes, monarchy was a vialent dictatorship.
Like yes, goverment put in by america wont be hostile to america. But its opponents will blame america for that goverment, because well, they are to blamr. And also, once it fails, all the suppressed anger goes out. And some more, because now america is well positioned to be generic scapegoat even for stuff it had not done.
It is pretty obvious that the current war was started by Israel and USA.
I somewhat understand Israel's agenda and objective, even if evil and selfish depending on the point of view (or selfish, for Netanyahu to avoid legal scrutiny while acting as prime minister).
I don't understand the USA attacking here at all. With rising prices I think Trump should pay compensation to the rest of the world for his decision here. This is now similar to the build-up to Vietnam though - I don't see Trump being able to withdraw, without looking incompetent, so he is now committed to the war, similar to why Putin can not stop his invasion of Ukraine. Two criminals, one thought.
60% enriched uranium for radical Islamists who supply terrorists throughout the world and want to eradicate the US? A terrorist regime that wants to nuke one of the closest US allies...
The white house staff have been pretty clear and consistent in the reasons.
GTFO
1. Iran is clearly not suicidal 2. what do you think would be the best way to motivate them to get a bomb? maybe attack them? 3. they don't support terrorism "all over the world." they support shia militant groups in their region, for very good reason. WE ARE THE TERRORISTS
With how many countries Iran started direct war with, even with this religious rulers in power?
With how many countries Israel started direct war with? With how many countries USA started direct war with? (thousand of miles away and contents apart)
> The white house staff have been pretty clear and consistent in the reasons.
They absolutely have not! What are you talking about?
Also, I thought Iran nuclear program has already been "obliterated" last year?
They really, truly, have not.
We did it because Israel was going to anyway.
We didn't do it for regime change, but then we did, oh wait we want to negotiate, but Israel keeps killing the new people in charge.
We did it to keep Iran from getting nukes, oh wait, there's no clear plan to get the material out and they've never said they're going to go get it.
We now are saying we'll negotiate for the exact same restrictions the JCPOA had, which we could have done without the war in the first place.
We totally don't need the strait opened up, we're super independent, but also really want them to open the strait.
Other countries should open the strait, not the US or Israel that started the war without the buy-in of other countries.
And finally, this is an illegal war for the US. Let's not play word games with the War Powers Act - this is a full-scale war, against a "worthy adversary" that 100% will not end in 60 days and one in which we don't control the terms of its end. Iran posed no imminent threat to the United States. Other than the most crazed warmongers like Lindsey Graham, it seems to me that the members of Congress who have been briefed in classified settings are in bipartisan agreement that this was a Bad Idea and that further involvement is a Worse Idea.
This is a colossal strategic screw-up, to use the most polite understated terms possible.
Thank you! It's so frustrating to see seemingly educated people on HN who are either in complete denial of reality or shilling for Trump.
Trump thinks he did a huge favour to the entire world. He even expressed disappointment no country accepted to give him a little hand when he asked for help.
It is not obvious at all unless you don't understand Iran's objectives and its attacks on Israel (a country over 1,000 miles away) for the past several decades.
When has Iran attacked the USA?
All reporting I’ve seen on Israel mention destruction of Iran as long time dream of Bibi and it distracts from his legal and political troubles and unites country behind him - war has 90 plus percent approval among Jews and about 25 percent among Arabs who don’t vote for his coalition anyways, so political win for him. For modern GOP, “the cruelty is the point” can be used to explain most of his policy decisions, the book and original essay make the argument that making “others” suffer is uniting factor for GOP since Trump took the reins (in spite of many conflicting reasons Rubio, Trump and Hegseth have given to justify this war including setting stage for apocalypse foretold in Revelations to please fundamentalist Christian voter bloc) Many GOP voters have backed Trump in interviews even after being hurt by his tariff regime, immigration crackdowns, DOGE cutbacks, threats to annex territory, the only thing that appears to move the needle a little in GOP approval has been the recent run up in gasoline prices. One case in point - Farmers got hurt in first term by Trump tariffs, overwhelming supported Trump three elections in a row, and after second term tariffs hurt them, still support Trump, one would think if one farmer said I’m off the Trump train that reporters would be all over it. There is no rational thought process going on here beyond first order effects.
> how can anyone justify the United States of America and Israel attacking ANY country?
Every military action will have an on-paper "justification". It's kind of irrelevant frankly. But to cut bullshit, it really isn't that complicated.
Venezuela is an extremely oil rich country. Countries in the middle-east region, including Iran are very oil rich.
And that's in large part why US (by this point firmly decaying petrostate propped by petrodollar) is constantly there "meddling" and ensuring all the oil is continuously bought using US dollars.
That is wholly sufficient to explain things.
Every other cartoonish-evil justification "Iran wants to build nukes to bomb US, etc" is largely bullshit (why, for example, Iran doesn't want to nuke.... say Germany or France? hmmm.....)
Correct.
Just add Saudi Arabia / Iran Sunni-Shia hatred and you've got war.
[flagged]
[flagged]
List the number of attacks on America by Iran. Now list the number of attacks from our "allies" like the Saudis or Israel.
Words don't matter as much as actions and the biggest attacks on the US by countries in the ME were done by Israel and Saudi Arabia.
Saying "Death to America" doesn't give us the right to bomb them. They've been saying that for a long time now and yet haven't posed serious threat to the US mainland. Trump says a lot of crazy shit as well, would that give other countries the right to bomb the US?
I've gone over this before; but they do not even chant "death to america". It's a deliberate mis-translation to stoke tensions between Iran and the US.
I wonder why they're saying that?.
Don't be intentionally obtuse. They've been saying this for over four decades and have spent at least tens of billions of dollars in their quest to make it happen. Besides attacking Israel.
Can’t be a surprise to anyone that is even superficially familiar with Iran-US relationships, prior to the Ayatollah’s return in the 70s
So when you ask the IRGC and the ayatollahs why they hate the US, Israel, and the West, they say it's because of history from 1957? I'm thinking it has more to do with their interpretation of their religion.
You remember Qasim Solemani? The guy Trump bragged on national television about how he blew up?
That guy collaborated with US forces, led a 2001 uprising against the Taliban in Herat, effectively liberating the town before US army had to make contact with the enemy. Do you understand what leading a local uprising against the Taliban in 2001 meant?
Iran was the first ME country to sympathize and hold candle vigils after the fucking Saudi’s (the guys Trump rolls out the red carpet for, btw) blew up the towers, things were ready to normalize - and then Bush says they are part of the axis of evil with Iraq (which Iranians had a war shortly before that) and North Korea.
Iraquís started chanting “death to America” after we murdered 1 million of their fellow citizens.
They hate us not only because they are religious freaks, but also because we fuck with their country non-stop. We just go around blowing shit up, or enforcing regime change (Iran-Contra?). It’s unsurprising lots of them hate our guts - I would too.
Ps. LATAM is the same, btw - we fucked with their governments non-stop, the only ones that like us are the rich fucks that want to use the military to further amass fortunes.
If they were serious they could have you know actually done something to the US all this time. Like closing this straight. Or at the very least extorting it.
Or they could have not enriched uranium.
Saying things and even spending to try to make it happen doesn't mean they were even close to being able to actually do it. Under Obama we had an agreement which had rigorous inspection details to prevent them developing nuclear weapons. Trump tore that all up in his first term.
They were violating the agreement. That is why it was torn up.
Why is the burden on us to disprove what they tell us they want to do and are taking actions to accomplish? When someone says they're trying to kill you and is actively working to make that happen, it is prudent to believe them.
Be afraid, be very afraid.
As an aside: Iran is one of the youngest nations on earth. The government threatening is one thing. Most of the younger Iranians were sympathetic to the West. It was only a matter of time before the regime would be gone or at least soften. But when you bomb a country that generally tends to cause a rally-round-the flag effect (see Britain in WWII, for example). So we've probably blown our chance at rapprochement for quite a while. The regime can tell it's citizens "see, we warned you about America, the Great Satan! "
This talk of the "rally-round-the-flag" effect is uninformed speculation since very little is exiting the country. Would they also have rallied around the flag if these same actions were taken when the initial protests occurred? It's not at all clear that the Iranians would ever be able to throw off their tyrannical government without outside help.
There is no rapprochement with people whose goal is to kill you and who don't mind so much if they die while trying.
Well, there certainly isn't any chance if you assume that everyone in Iran wants to kill you. But when you realize that it's only a small minority of people who were saying this then you start to ask: what about the majority of the people who were either sympathetic to the West or even just apathetic? Their government saying "Death to America" is like Trump saying "We're going to bomb them back to the stone age!" - most of us don't agree with Trump and we don't want any part of "bombing them back to the stone age". Same in Iran: most Iranians didn't agree with "death to America". But when you give them reason to agree with that sentiment it makes it harder for anything to actually change.
> Their government saying "Death to America" is like Trump saying "We're going to bomb them back to the stone age!"
The only way these things are alike is not useful. It's true that they both said things. But everyone understands that, even though Trump is a reckless idiot, he is saying bellicose things during a military offensive; not that he plans to annihilate Iran with nuclear weapons.
The people in charge of Iran who are acquiring nuclear weapons actually intend to use them. Besides the nuclear weapons, the quantity of conventional weapons they are stockpiling is an existential threat to Israel.
I'm going to give the Iranians credit for understanding that the intention of the US is to mitigate the threat that its autocracy poses to other countries. But it doesn't really matter. They can't be allowed to develop nuclear weapons or pose an existential threat to Israel. Neither of those aims was going to be accomplished waiting for some sort of sea change effected by an unarmed citizenry oppressed by a ruthless regime.
Pakistan has nukes already. They hate Israel. They harbored bin laden. Somehow we don't care about any of that. They just got a slap on the wrist I guess. Iran gets the beating stick though.
Yes, puzzling. What might the difference be? Oh, Pakistan isn't devoted to "Death to America" and they're not actually firing rockets at Israel and killing Israelis.
[flagged]
Yes. So weird that the prime minister of a country would prefer to see the attacks against the country stopped. And that that aspiration would be shared by the country's ally.
I’m still trying to understand how Oct 7 happened, across what is probably one of most closely monitored borders in the world.
It just doesn’t make any sense, from the guys that had Hezbollah using their explosive pagers for years.
And on which sound stage were the moon landings staged?
I don’t trust that we landed on the moon because Neil Armstrong says we did, but because it is confirmed by innumerable other informed people and verifiable factors.
If there is anyone worth approaching with a double dose of skepticism is this Israeli Prime Minister in bed with religious extremists, who failed his primary mandate and is self-dealing with a consummated conman like Trump
Right someone saying they want to kill you and building an arsenal is not sufficient, the missiles have to be flying towards you, you have to let them pull the trigger before you can respond.
I don’t know why you’re being voted down for stating plain facts.
If you know someone in town that regularly threatens you and your friends with death[1] and you see them buying a gun, you do something about it before they also get the bullets.
Before replying please read this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_latency
Iran has been steadily decreasing their “breakout time” to levels that Israel and the US considered unacceptable. Timelines too short to police with diplomacy.
They forced the hand of the Western world, they and their supporters are crying crocodile tears.
“We were just innocently enriching near weapons grade Uranium in underground facilities hardened against attack and inspection! Calm down bro!”
[1] To stretch the analogy further: they regularly hand out knives to their cousins, all of whom have stabbed your friend in a dark alley once or twice, to the point that your friend has to wear body armor at all times.
The JCPOA kept Iran from developing nuclear weapons. It was only the abrogation of this agreement by Trump which led Iran to resume enrichment of uranium.
I feel for the pilot and his family. This is more bad news. No good can come from this war.
Although Iran is a tenacious nation, the United States is weakening. The United States of the past would not have made such a mistake.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1999_F-117A_shootdown
The made the same mistakes in Iraq and Afghanistan
Iraq and Afghanistan were mistakes.
But this is next level. When it started I thought Iran would be crushed. Ignorant, silly me.
There is every chance the USA will have to stop its attacks before achieving any goals.
An education, thus is, that I could do without.
In New Zealand we will probably run out of diesel soon.
This is so stupid, so sadistic and cruel
Only one of the combatants is shooting at civilian shipping
Both are shooting at civilians
Only one of the combatants is bombing girls schools.
This is the dumbest, most pointless military conflict in American history. There is nothing plausible to win, but we can conceivably lose everything. A pyric victory is among the most favorable outcomes. We are led by corrupt imbeciles. I can only hope the outcome includes regime change for the U.S.
"We've had vicious kings, and we've had idiot kings, but I don't think we've ever been cursed with a vicious idiot for a king!"
> This is the dumbest, most pointless military conflict in American history.
You've picked a high bar there.
But people have stopped talking about the Epstein files. Win for the dear leader.
[dead]
Wall Street Journal: https://www.wsj.com/livecoverage/iran-war-news-2026?mod=WSJ_...
"U.S. Conducting Rescue Operation After Jet Went Down Over Iran"
If the pilots are recovered we probably won't hear about it from either side for hours. Iran will want to get them a mile underground before they send out the B-rolls. If recovered by the US, they will want them out of theater before anyone knows better so they can't be targeted.
One pilot rescued. Only one seat spotted suggesting other one didnt make it.
CNN is reporting this confirmed by three US sources
https://www.cnn.com/2026/04/03/politics/us-fighter-jet-iran
Let's hope Iran doesn't follow the "no quarter, no mercy" policy laid out by US Secretary of War Pete Hegseth. For the unfamiliar, it means executing survivors and surrendering combatants. Aka war crimes.
[flagged]
Secretary of War thank you, no dead naming glorious leaders very fine people
Can we just call him "Secretary of Death Piss-Drunk Pete Kegstand"?
In America you get jailed for quoting the US president
[dead]
[flagged]
I think the Great Leap Forward famine killed a lot more, but I guess it wasn’t a massacre: just super weird and bad leadership from Mao.
this is ridiculous misinformation propagated by an outlet that has no actual journalists on the payroll btw
What is the source of your claim?
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/oct/31/concern-over-u...
Your link does not reference the "40,000" number regarding the purported massacre at all. Your claim is that the number is "misinformation."
This is The Guardian's investigation into Iran International. Which is the outlet that made up that number
You're making a character attack on the source but not proving the claim wrong.
It's not just a character attack to point out that a glorified blog post pulled that number out of thin air.
It would be silly to ask someone to prove that a made up number is made up. How can I provide evidence for lack of evidence. A more reasonable starting point would be to bring up what evidence does exist for the 40k number and then evaluate that.
If you want to continue believing it, that's your prerogative. I don't have a dog in this fight. I'm just doing my part to counter misinformation from biased sources.
FWIW, the Human Rights Activists in Iran (Virginia-based NGO) puts the figure at 6,488
It is a character attack to call into question the validity of the source in general.
You did not provide evidence for your claim. You offered something else entirely. In the future it would be better to provide what is being requested instead of a distraction.
I don't have strong beliefs on this, I just wanted a conclusive source. You did not provide one.
Reread my comment. I didn't say it wasn't a character attack. I said it was more than that.
Okay let's start here: could you provide a good source for the 40k claim?
You made the claim it's misinformation, support your claim (as you hold the burden of proof for your own claim given it's contrary to the status quo). You haven't tried that hard, you might as well give it a real shot.
I have clearly supported my claim. I doubt you even took the time to read the investigation done by The Guardian.
You have made zero attempt to support yours. The onus of evidence is on the person that initially claimed the 40k number.
>I doubt you even took the time to read the investigation done by The Guardian.
It did not address your claim at all.
>The onus of evidence is on the person that initially claimed the 40k number.
No, that is not how the burden of proof works. It is not in the context of all things said in all time. You said it was false in this conversation, you support that assertion.
>You have made zero attempt to support yours.
I don't have a claim.
You don't seem to understand the terms I'm using here so this is probably not productive to continue.
You're just being silly.
If someone makes a claim like "Mongolia just killed 562 students", we shouldn't be asking the person who points out that number is baseless to prove that it's baseless. We should ask the initial person to back up their claim.
> You did not provide evidence for your claim.
I don't think that Iran International did either, so calling their methodology into question is fair play.
The context is this conversation lol
[flagged]
[flagged]
War was not the only option to respond to the crime.
FWIW I'd agree your question wasn't what-about-ism.
You don't have to forget anything, just contextualize it. The United States already tried installing a puppet government in Iran and it went terribly. They were so unpopular that the CIA set up state-sponsored torture rings to quell dissent: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SAVAK
Going back to the old way foments instability that jeopardizes the Gulf States, with precisely zero upsides to anyone that isn't a net oil exporter (namely, the US and Russia). If this was about protecting against genocide then the US would be invading Sudan and Gaza, not Iran. The death toll has nothing to do with how American leadership sees this conflict, and it has been like that for over half of a century.
When China or Russia manage to produce air defence that is truly a risk for US/Nato, it will truly change the power dynamics.
Also reported at https://theaviationist.com/2026/04/03/iran-f-15e-debris/
C-130s and helicopters flying low over Iran right after they shot down an F-15 in the same spot is wild. Whatever I think of the war idiocy, that's brave.
It's breaking news...meaning it may be inaccurate. CENTCOM certainly is saying it's false [0]. But there are enough signs of it being genuine, to be concerning at this stage.
Flying low over Iran at this point is planned, expensive "standoff" munitions were planned to give way to more accurate and less expensive munitions once air superiority was reached - which U.S. has been claiming has happened for a while now.
[0] https://x.com/CENTCOM/status/2039805134704660622
> CENTCOM certainly is saying it's false…
Any time this administration cries "fake news" is probably a tell.
> Flying low over Iran at this point is planned…
But with C-130s and helos, in an area that just shot down a F-15? That's risky. One of the videos shows the C-130 deploying flares.
You do have a point. F-18 narrowly missed a MANPAD recently too
The other way around.
Update: https://www.nbcnews.com/news/military/us-fighter-jet-went-ir...
> An F-15 fighter jet pilot has been rescued alive by the U.S. military after their aircraft went down over Iran, a U.S. official said Friday.
> White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt said President Donald Trump had been briefed on the incident — the latest dramatic development in the war, now more than a month old.
CENTCOM lied.
The government would never lie: the "damaged" plane was already accounted for, just in the ground, in enemy territory.
The use of "a" instead of "the" pilot suggests more than 1 personnel on the plane, considering F15's carry 2 people (unless it's some magical F15 I haven't heard of), it means there's still 1 guy missing out there.
Or he (I assume) could also have been found dead, and is not being mentioned before his family is notified of the sacrifice Donald Trump made of his life.
F-15 A and C are single seaters. C is actually the most common variant the USAF has.
The one shot down was an E though so two people.
One less to bomb schools with girls.
I feel that the current war is by far the most closest to showing to people that this war is waged by the rich. Because they are the primary ones to benefit right now (if we ignore Netanyahu, but Netanyahu's war goals "make sense", e. g. this is done for expansion and/or control; Trump's involvement makes no real sense, except for benefitting some with insider trading and making other cronies rich).
> but Netanyahu's war goals "make sense", e. g. this is done for expansion and/or control;
Oh, I thought it was to stop the Iranians having nuclear weapons "in the next few weeks".
it shows that the US is occupied by the rich people and regular people have absolutely zero say
Good. Americans need to pay a very severe price for the evil they have unleased on the world. Anything less, and this lunacy will happen again in the future.
https://www.axios.com/2026/04/03/iran-us-fighter-shot-down
cough and an A10
If true I can’t imagine it will play well even among Trumps base. When was the last time a US fighter jet was shot down? 1999 during the intervention in the balkans?
Looks like yes. Last jet shot down was a warthog in Iraq 2003. Last fighter jets shot down were a nighthawk and falcon in 1999.
Another warthog went down today.
Let’s see. Most people underestimate how strong Trump’s approval is with his base. Before you read further, ask yourself what Trump’s approval rating is with his base.
> Approval of Trump among Republicans has slipped to a second-term low of 84%, down from 92% last March. At the same time, an all-time high 16% of Republicans disapprove. This shift can be attributed, at least in part, to declining support among non-MAGA Republicans, as approval dropped 11 points in the last year among this group (70% in March 2025 to 59% today). Virtually all MAGA Republicans continue to approve of Trump, with 98% approving a year ago and 97% now.
> https://www.foxnews.com/politics/fox-news-poll-voters-oppose...
Genuine question: is Fox News a credible, unbiased source for these figures in particular?
Their poll is, and this is not the only poll I picked. CNN has multiple polls listed on its site, and this is the first I found which gives the party breakdown.
You overestimate the base.
The war machine is already rewriting this as Iranian hostility.
The base is incapable of seeing this as a failure of their cult leader.
Instead they'll see it as the very rationale and justification of the war.
If they were ambivalent about it before, now they'll scream bloody murder for even more off-the-leash barbarism from the US and Israel.
Why are you helping them galvanize? Let them come up with their own raison d'etre.
Honestly it seems like the only thing Trump's base cares about is the price of gasoline. They don't give a shit about what's actually happening in the war.
From the MAGA folks I know, they don't even care about the price of gasoline. That was when Biden was president. Now they have excuses. All they really seem to care about is whatever they're currently told to care about by the administration.
Trump has a loyal hardcore, but he is absolutely bleeding supporters around the edges. If you follow the US right many of them are pledging to vote democrat in the midterms as a protest.
I noticed a wave of that right as trump declared war (declared conflict, whatever), people going "I voted for no new wars," but I noticed on /r/conservative that the takes quickly gave way to sudden concern about Iran's nuclear capability as the propaganda mills got their fodder in order.
So many hidden comments there
r/Conservative is, IMO, almost 100% guaranteed to be majority bots and the most hardcore admin apologists. They're a permanent safe space and often will delete even their own members' posts if they directly criticize the Leader.
Its only value is to see the desired responses from Fox News and the far-right media.
r/flairedusersonly needs mod permission to even post threads and they revoke that permission happily too. They are the party of free speech remember. Everything is "outside users" to them, everybody is a liberal in disguise.
Who moderates /r/conservative? Whenever I drop into old subreddits these days the whole place feels very astro-turfed. High chance that it's modded by zionists, they have a lot of money and a lot of different organisations that hire full time people to "fight disinformation".
The Myth of the All-Powerful Israel Lobby
https://www.thefp.com/p/coleman-hughes-the-myth-of-the-all-p...
Not an argument.
Between
- ADL
- StandWithUs
- AIPAC
- Zionist Organization of America
- Foundation to Combat Anti-Semitism
- Act.IL / RiseAPP
- Israel Hub
and more, there's enough resources to get Their People into moderator positions at /r/conservative.
Those Zionists are everywhere.
They didn't make it into the Jewish Council of Australia: https://www.jewishcouncil.com.au/who-we-are
... but there's certainly no shortage of Zionist pressure and lobby groups wanting leverage and influence.
Yes, I've noticed.
There is only one reason for us to give a damn about Israel other than religious fervor, and it's their technology and intelligence apparatus. They only care about us because we give them a lot of money and weapons, and apparently will follow them into their Leeroy Jenkins war and do the heavy lifting.
They're committing a genocide and now are ethnically cleansing Lebanon of Muslims under the cover of the Iran War. Their government is not worthy of support.
That subreddit literally requires asking mods for permission to post threads and the flair that permits posting can and does often get revoked too. Its a "whitelist" subreddit so its astroturfed or filtered by definition.
Trump leads a personality cult not a traditional political base. There are some who have stopped supporting him because they thought he aligned with their political views but 35% or so of the US population still support him despite his 180 degree turn on two of his foundational election promises: to keep the US out of foreign wars and to bust open an international pedophile ring run for elites.
Had also promised to end the war in Ukraine. In two weeks.
Via the NYT: Mohammad Ghalibaf, the speaker of Iran’s Parliament and a key government figure overseeing the war, took to social media to mock the Trump administration as U.S. forces searched for a missing American airman from a downed fighter plane. “This brilliant no-strategy war they started has now been downgraded from ‘regime change’ to ‘Hey! Can anyone find our pilots? Please?’”he said in a post on X. “Wow. What incredible progress. Absolute geniuses.”
Oh well, it was bound to happen. We need to get the Hell out of there.
The only way Trump can save face is by doubling down, which is what Iran is waiting for.
On cue, trump is making threats again
> A particular concern, they said, was threats made by the US to Iran’s energy infrastructure. “International law protects from attack objects indispensable to the survival of civilians, and the attacks threatened by Trump, if implemented, could entail war crimes.”
I am not going to lie, I am beyond disgusted at the United States.
And the "it's Trump" card doesn't work, Americans defend this travesty of an old non functioning constitution.
It was a pretty solid setup when everyone wanted it to succeed. We will get a few more safeties put in place via statute after this experience, of course, but what really needs to happen is meaningful improvements to the Constitution. We know enough now to spot plenty of weak points which could be addressed. When I'm feeling particularly spicy I think a Constitutional Convention would be seriously awesome. But then I think of the possible outcomes and I'm not so sure. Were the majority of the population acting in good faith, I'd feel better about it.
The bulk of our politicians are fully corrupt, and you believe there could be a positive outcome for rewriting the constitution?
I thought I made it clear that I don't generally think that would be a good idea. I think it would be interesting, which I sometimes think might be worth the risk. Certainly discontent with the status quo is a broadly held sentiment not at all unique to the current right wing.
There is no easy way out of this mess. There has to be some faith in the overall good will of the people, but if Russia and other societies are any indicator in a modern world, it will take the US getting a lot shittier, with more people dying in protests, more people losing their careers and their homes, and the middle class in breadlines.
We need a different voting system, we need the structure of Congress gutted, and we need a far less powerful presidency.
That Kuwaiti F-18 pilot is a bit far from home.
Both crew members have been rescued from within Iranian territory by United State special forces.
https://www.axios.com/2026/04/05/iran-f15-crew-member-rescue...
The scale of American air dominance is best demonstrated by how much of a news this event is. In 1999 the scandal was that Serbs managed to shoot down a stealthy plane with then-30 year old Soviet SAM. Now being able to shoot down a nonstealthy one having most modern Russian SAMs in existence is news worthy of being on every screen for 24 hours and collecting 1000+ comments on HN.
Warplanes are disposable. They are built to be shot down. If they aren't, they are not being used intensely enough or are just wrong tools for the job - a warplane that flies a mission and always comes back is like a test that never fails.
At what point is congress gonna grow a spine and retake their power? Every day the goalposts just get moved a little farther.
If you believe, like I do, that there are a lot of parallels between the US of today and the Rome of yesteryear, you might find the answer by reading Tacitus.
It turns out, long after Rome had become an Empire and was only a Republic in name only, most Senators still thought of it as a Republic and that this extraordinary state of affairs with the Senate just being a glorified rubber stamp body would soon come to an end and that, they will very soon restore the Senate to its former rightful place, just as soon as this current very limited crises was over.
As it turns out, they were never able to do that again.
It’s so interesting to me that nearly all of the Founding Fathers had read Tacitus and were keenly aware of this and explicitly tried to design a system to prevent that from happening. To their credit, their system lasted a good while.
> To their credit, their system lasted a good while.
If we accept your thesis that the US republic is over, it only lasted around half as long as the Roman republic you are saying the "Founding Fathers" were trying to improve upon.
Republicans in congress support it. It is not about congress not having abstract spine.
It is about republican congressmen actively supporting all of this.
Plot twist: The Dem leadership (Schumer, Jeffries, et al) also supports this.
That's why their main complaints have been procedural: "Why didn't you come to us first with your plans?". And why they slow-walked the vote on a war powers act.
The dems have no power against a unified GOP front, and they already look pretty weak on issues like this. They are trying to figure out how they can mollify their base while attracting enough centrist voters to retake Congress later this year. I don't care for the dem leadership but I feel a little sympathy for them. Catering to their loudest supporters is a pretty big reason they are the minority party right now.
Where trumps Republican Party have spent the last 10 years not catering from their loudest supporters?
Either the majority of Americans want this war, in which case the Dems have to be quiet, or they don’t, in which case the dems should be making it the number one issue.
Sadly I suspect the answer is not in the side of the Hollywood version of post ww2 America.
Now is the time to insert the “are we the bad guys” meme.
> Catering to their loudest supporters is a pretty big reason they are the minority party right now.
By "loudest supporters" - are you referring to the donor class? Money is speech, after all.
The Democratic party has an identity crisis: it's failing to balance special interests and their traditional constituents - post-Goldwater/ southern-strategy. Instead of activating their base, they seem to be courting the political center that has been hollowed out by Maga and polarization, incidentally matching the desires of their donors who abhor any kind of populist leftist politics, including anything in instituted by FDR.
> By "loudest supporters" - are you referring to the donor class?
No, I don't believe so. I'm talking about the people who convinced them that culture wars were the right way to do battle with a conservative opponent despite that being automatically an uphill battle. The dem leadership focused on issues that polled well with a small group of loud people on a crusade, and largely ignored bread & butter issues that resonate with people less politically inclined. But centrist votes are counted just the same as partisan ones, and more plentiful.
> The dem leadership focused on issues that polled well with a small group of loud people on a crusade
Which dem leadership? The only crusade I remember was Kamala Harris going on a national tour with Liz Cheney and brightly signaling her rightward shift. Somehow, "Republicans for Kamala" failed to save her campaign in the swing-states.
The donor class are the ones who want culture wars, because their continued donations are contingent on the party ignoring the economic woes of the working class. What can the Democratic party stand for if it doesn't protect workers and unions? Identity politics.
This is vague and talking point-y
> people who convinced them that culture wars were the right way to do battle
Who are they exactly?
> The dem leadership focused on issues that polled well with a small group of loud people on a crusade, and largely ignored bread & butter issues that resonate with people less politically inclined
Which issues, specifically?
> centrist votes
You think there’s some huge swath people who’d vote Dem if it wasn’t for their pesky (and incredibly mild) protective stance towards trans people, for example?
Honestly curious which sources do you get your political news from mainly?
Sorry, your analysis is completely wrong
> The dems have no power against a unified GOP front
They absolutely do. The war powers act is “bi partisan” And they can protest the war strongly on moral and budgetary grounds for starters. The war is incredibly unpopular with the Dem base and even independents. Opposing it is a layup. (But, like I said, the truth is Dem leadership wants the war)
> and they already look pretty weak on issues like this.
Fighting (whether winning or losing) shows strength not weakness and is what voters react to. Standing down is exactly NOT what they should do. C’mon, man!
> They are trying to figure out how they can mollify their base while attracting enough centrist voters to retake Congress later this year
Like I said the war is UNPOPULAR so OPPOSE it. Winning stat.
> year. I don't care for the dem leadership but I feel a little sympathy for them
NO! They’re “blundering” when they don’t have to. (But see points about Schumer wanting the war)
> Catering to their loudest supporters is a pretty big reason they are the minority party right now.
Also a backwards take. They’re a minority party because they’d rather lose and maintain power than oppose the capitalists who own them.
> Catering to their loudest supporters
Name one instance of this actually happening. I'll wait.
I'm pretty sure that before they made it a central topic, most Americans didn't care about transgenderism, which after all affects a very tiny population. Especially compared to other issues, such as paid maternal leave, for instance.
I assume you are aware that "they" are the Republicans? The Harris campaign avoided talking about it whenever possible, while Republican groups spent $200 million on anti-trans ads.
Why restrict it to the Harris' campaign? Democrats made it an important issue during Biden's administration, and even nominated a transgender secretary of health.
Yes and they celebrated him as the "first female four-star officer of the USPHSCC" despite the fact that he is male. As if this is somehow an achievement for women.
And bonus, they don't have to go on record voting for all the things they support but know are immensely unpopular.
How can you tell the difference?
On this subject, they won't, because they mostly want this war too. Most members of both parties have taken AIPAC money. Most of them are also glad somebody is finally attacking Iran, especially without them having to sign their name on a use of force authorization or declaration of war.
Best case scenario is when they lose the majority
I think they have 60 days from when hostilities begin, right?
No. This war has been illegal from day one. The 60 window without prior authorization only applies if the US is attacked. The US was not attacked.
Approximately never. We are in a situation where Congress is unusually beholden to their constituents for once, because those people care deeply about Donald Trump. So this is what they want; not just the war, but everything -- they want all the power to rest with Trump.
I think you're mistaken about who congress is beholden to at this particular point in time...
The war has record low approval ratings, even among Trump's base.
I’m just hoping Schumer doesn’t advocate for merging with IDF, if the GOP loses the majority
Joe and Eileen Bailey[1] support the war, which is why Schumer is staying tight-lipped.
1. https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2007/03/19/imaginary-frie...
I’m shocked, let me tell you
The US Army becoming Israel’s strike force, at the hands of rapist, what a time to be alive
> The war has record low approval ratings, even among Trump's base.
The war does, Trump does not. He maintains very strong support among the base, and that is the part keeping the GOP politicians in line. It is why some of them just resign instead of enduring the threats from his supporters.
It's the special interest groups. Specifically Israel's lobbying efforts. No need to try to obfuscate it at this point.
If everyone is somewhat implicated in Epstein files, then everyone is afraid of Putin / Netanyahu who might pull up the files. It's funny how they are so scared to face justice, but also interesting how American law enforcement became so corrupt.
Protecting pedos on such a scale?
There's a very strange problem with this whole thing where, of course, whatever these powerful people have done behind closed doors that is illegal and exploitative and harmful is terrible and they should be put to justice.
However, if the direction of the country is being seriously altered via blackmail, IMO that is many orders of magnitude worse than anything they could have done. Like we are currently bombing yet another middle eastern country for no clear reason.
I would personally be open to some kind of Epstein jubilee where we absolve everyone involved in order to nullify the blackmail.
Like it's not great, it's terrible for the victims and for justice, but at the moment we are getting terrible from both ends, could we at least reduce it to one end?
That creates a far worse problem down the line because they will just do it again, more publicly.
Really the rot set in with the pardons of Nixon and Oliver North.
Can you justify that assertion? How would they do it again, more publicly?
It's not like a blackmail ring is that easy to set up, it seems to have taken a lot of heavy lifting to get this one going.
When people see what others have gotten away with, they become emboldened themselves.
If their actions have made this level of blackmail possible, then said actions are the worse thing because that's what made this scale of blackmail possible.
Their actions are the foundation for everything that came after.
You don’t need a jubilee. At this point Trump could release a video of himself eating a crying baby and his supporters simply will ignore it.
We always talk about what these powerful people "have done", as if it's all over. Surely Epstein's death did not bring about the end of billionaire sex trafficking? Someone stepped in. These guys are still raping people on private planes and private islands
But why are we focusing on the raping, and not on what the American government is doing that has no clear rational motive without “Israel has captured the government” and a very clear rational motive with “Israel has captured the government”?
If the American government continues to perform actions that are blatantly against the interests of America and Americans, the impact of that on Americans is going to be (and may be already) massively massively worse than the person to person level crimes we are focusing on.
Does it just feel so bad thinking about it that a lot of people have a hard time even going there mentally? I really don’t get it.
I can't shake the feeling that Trump's continual needling of Europe is intended the destroy NATO. And this is a desire of Putin's.
I know it's conspiratorial, and I hate that, but it's one of the only things that makes any of the actions of the US in the last year make any semblance of sense.
I don't like to think that, but it remains, for me, a valid scenario.
not the first, won't be the last
I'm an American and a patriot and the way I want to see this end is with Pete Hegseth and others from this nightmare administration delivered to the Hague, in chains.
Sadly Hague is only for people from small and non powerful countries.
One of them is already wearing orange
Is this not just FAFO?
Any rescue operation is technically 'boots on the ground'
LLM won’t help.
Maybe they shouldn't be attacking Iran? Duhhhhhh.
I'll probably get downvoted for this but whatever. I was in 9th grade and the 2003 invasion of Iraq was just getting underway. We had a substitute teacher in my chemistry class and he was telling stories about being a pilot during the first war. This other kid in the class kept asking questions and pretending like he was really interested in this guy's stories. This dude is bragging like he was a big shot pilot and whatever. And then my classmate asked the teacher how many people he murdered and how many of them were kids our age. This dude got pissed and started arguing and justifying the shit, but then just shut up about it for the rest of the time he was subbing. It was great. It's always good to remember that war crimes don't happen if the people choose not to carry them out. The people in charge are responsible too, but the ordinary military members who follow those orders are disgusting.
So anyway, I hope this pilot is having a bad time. He made a poor series of decisions and now is dealing with the consequences.
The world will never be lacking men willing to do the bidding of other men, so long as they get paid they don't even need to get brainwashed into it.
What would happen if you organized a No Kings rally in Iran?
As a matter of facts there are frequent massive gatherings in the streets of Iran's, against the U.S. and the U.S military has been bombing those protests. It doesn't make the news of course, as it would be admitting the exact opposite of a regime change is taking place in Iran.
The current US administration would up the choppers-ante, and warthog the anti-current no king [trump] protesters. The Iranians would probably provide tea, biscuits and free medical.
Imagine ejecting from your plane over Iran because Israel told Trump to do the things he said he wouldn't do.
What a waste of life and energy.
[dead]
[flagged]
[dead]
the last time US wanted some country to reset back to Stone Age the same thing happened. turn out those aircrafts are not undefeatable at all.
It's pretty normal for planes to go down in a war. They've flown 5000+ sorties, it's a pretty huge accomplishment this is the first one lost over Iran. Especially considering all of the last decade's speculation about how tough attacking Iran would be.
You'll never be able to fully suppress all of their manpads. Even if you destroy the bulk of their air defence network.
First to go down in Iran, but a surprising amount of attritions thus far
- 3x F-15 friendly fire
- 2x KC-130 refuel mid air collision (1 loss, 1 damaged)
- 1x F-35 damaged
- 1x AEWACs base strike
- 3x KC-130 base strike (same)
- 1x F-15 (this one)
2-3 a week is not great for the greatest military, more than half attributable to Iran.
With 300+ US casualties, that's ~10/day, a fatality every ~2 days. No boots on the ground (that we know of, sure there are some elite ops in the country)
You must not have read about all the hype Iran had before the war and before 2024 especially. The US airforce/navy has performed extremely well. In Desert Storm they lost far, far more aircraft and that only lasted 1.5 months (Iran is 1 month in). Even the ballistic missile strikes against Israel haven't been exceptionally notable, considering Iran is going full-bore and has thousands of ballistic/cruise missiles and drones. They should be able to do much more to regional military bases.
The main issues with this war are strategic questions and people mocking the presidents inconsistent communication. But otherwise for an air campaign this has been about as good as one could expect - within the limits of what an air-only campaign can do.
> The main issues with this war are strategic questions
That's an exceptionally nice way of saying we invaded a country for no valid military reason, starting a war of aggression.
We're no better than Russia now, with their invasion of Ukraine.
> ... and people mocking the presidents inconsistent communication.
Well-deserved mockery. He continues to lie about what's happening, every other sentence.
Iran's regime is an radical Islamic theocracy that has "Death to America" as a matter of policy, supports every other radical Islamist militia in the entire Middle East region, and tried to build nukes after being told, repeatedly, not to build nukes.
I don't know about you, but the idea of a radical Islamic theocracy and a well known source of Middle East instability having nukes doesn't sit well with me. As far as reasons to invade countries go, this alone would make for a damn good one.
If a button existed that magically turned Iran into a secular-ish democracy(-ish) like Turkey then, yes, I would expect the President of the United States to press it.
No such button exists, and it's increasingly clear that this war will leave the entire world far worse off while further entrenching the current Iranian regime.
"Far worse off" how exactly? "Entrenching" how exactly?
Iranian regime wasn't doing that well even when it wasn't actively bombed. And "rally around the flag" only goes so far in a country that has been killing protestors by the thousands.
I don't see this war ruining Iran's regime overnight as is. But if it comes up with a sustained effort to pressure Iran, or a ground operation to topple the regime directly, it well might.
> "Far worse off" how exactly? "Entrenching" how exactly?
Hardliners and the IRGC have significantly more power than before, and however few moderates that remain have much less political capital and are at much greater risk of being purged.
If Iran doesn't win significant concessions tayt the sucker-punch attacks will never be repeated again[1], they are guaranteed to sprint towards the minimum viable nuke.
1. Bibi will refuse, obviously, and Americas capacity to leash him is questionable.
"Moderates" in Iran were consecutively dismantled and purged for decades. A country that has moderates providing a meaningful counterbalance to hardliners doesn't kill protestors by thousands.
Pre-war, the situation was bad enough that dropping bombs on Iran's key decision-makers might have actually made the government more moderate on average. Not that it matters much. "More moderate" in context of Iran's government isn't anywhere near "moderate" either way.
The "Nothing ventured, nothing lost" attitude would make a lot more sense if the region would go back to the status quo ante after the "excursion."
Here's an idea I heard put forth because Iran is asking for a great power guarantee against future incidents like this.
Have China the guarantor, build military bases, and put them under their nuclear deterrence umbrella. Iran can be assured they won't be bombed, the West can be assured they won't have nukes. (in theory, I largely assume the CCP will not aid in their construction or let them have nukes under such an arrangement).
Thing is, all the little countries are looking at what happened to Ukraine (who gave up their nukes), Iran (who has not gotten them yet), and North Korea (who has them). Their looking and thinking, if I had nukes, I probably wouldn't be the target of regime change.
Why would China agree to that? It's an insane proposition for them. "You have to put bases in a country where you have no strategic reason to do so, and in addition, you agree that if that country is attacked then you have to nuke the US, guaranteeing your own destruction."
Half-price oil?
So Iran would sell its main natural resource at half-price forever to pay for China to keep bases on its territory? That also doesn’t seem plausible.
Realistically there is no amount that Iran would be willing to pay and that China would be willing to accept for China to essentially agree to be responsible for the defense of Iran. It’s a non-starter.
They want a base in the Middle East and they have many reasons to be there, oil being one of them, they actually get it from there. As Trump says (today), the US does not have any need for their oil, so in that sense China has more reason to be there.
Mutually Assured Destruction has worked for 75 years, China is aggressively expanding their stockpiles. Would the US or Israel risk a war with China over Iran if they get the assurances from the Chinese they will keep Iran on a tight leash?
> Why would China agree to that?
Ultimately the aim to displace the US as the world hegemon. Having bases across the world is what hegemons do.
the big difference with Iran is the strait of hormuz. It doesn't matter how "well" it goes if it stays closed and torpedos the global economy
> inconsistent communication
I feel like "inconsistent communication" is putting it lightly, with trump going back and forth between "we won", "we'll take the oil", and "whatever we'll leave" often within the same day.
Does it matter? US is a net oil exporter, and not exactly starved for Gulf oil. And every day the strait stays closed is a day other Gulf states have a very pressing reason to conflict with Iran. As if Iran didn't give enough of those to the entire region.
Iran isn't somehow able to exert infinite economic pressure forever. They can play the chaos monkey, but how much does it helps them? Threats only work on those who cave in to them.
It does matter because oil is a global commodity, the fact that the US is a net exporter doesn't stop the prices from going up and other follow-on impacts to the global economy.
It means that US isn't hit the hardest. There's no "we have to end the war this month or our country grinds down to a halt". Just the slow grind of economic pressure that, I remind, affects more countries than just the US - and many of them far stronger.
US leadership can just say "this isn't enough to deter us" and proceed with the rest of the war however they want.
The Iranian regime is betting that they can outlast Donald Trump on this front. Trump's War is very unpopular and they don't care what the Iranian people think or suffer through.
> US is a net oil exporter, and not exactly starved for Gulf oil
I suggest not taking anything Trump says as the truth: https://xcancel.com/chrismartenson/status/203952370406177223...
Holy shit, thats really saying the quiet part loud.
“Does it matter?”
Yes, Who cares about the rest of the world?
Nations shutting down, businesses shutting down, and all because the elected leader of America got involved in a war to avoid accusations of pedophilia.
And lest we forget, this is the nuclear superpower. Thank god there is no conspiracy theory about Nukes being useful so far. I have more faith that the administration will bend towards conspiracies than away from them.
I don't see Iran trying, and failing, to hold the world economy hostage as a reason to go against "no negotiations with terrorists".
If oil hits $200/barrel and inflation is double digits, people will have different priorities.
> They should be able to do much more to regional military bases.
I don't see why they couldn't. The obvious strategy for Iran right now is to use cluster munitions and Shahed waves to expend as many interceptors as possible before sending in the high-throw unitary (or nuclear) warheads. It makes sense that we saw the smaller MRBMs first since they're the cheapest minimum-viable threat.
> this has been about as good as one could expect - within the limits of what an air-only campaign can do.
We're deep in the missile age. Air campaigns like this sucked during the Scud hunt, and it triple-sucks now that America has to contend with drone warfare. The limits of an air-only campaign have been constricting for the past three decades, and the death toll can only climb if the air war fails.
I wouldn't draw comparisons to Desert Storm, 36 years ago and a differently composed US military, along with all the ISR advancements since then.
> They should be able to do much more to regional military bases.
Could, they are not going all out, but they do keep striking gulf states on the regular
> people mocking the presidents inconsistent communication.
Asking questions, we the people deserve some clarity instead of half a dozen changing reasons and being told we already won, but still need to win, and that we'll be done in a few weeks a few times now. We the people have to pay for this, we deserve answers, especially what's the plan for when the shooting stops?
Israel, or at least Bibi, seems to be the only one who is very clear about the goals and intentions.
Pretty much.
US military is performing quite well. US political leadership is the questionable part of this war.
It would sure be nice if White House gave a reason to believe that there's an actual plan for dismantling Iran's regime, or Iran's influence, that goes beyond "wing it".
And that’s exactly why sharing a video might lead to prison sentence somewhere?
List is outdated, an A-10 has now been shot down.
https://apnews.com/article/iran-us-israel-trump-lebanon-apri...
Rumors of two AWACS destroyed on the ground.
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47563815
$700 per plane, might be $1B considering the shortage of parts.
Most of those sorties haven't been in Iranian air space. That's the entire point of standoff munitions.
The only ones I'm seeing act like there should be no expectation of losing aircraft in a war are social media figures who always want to bloviate about something.
why is this not showing at top of HN search sorted by date?
https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=false&qu...
It's in the front page now. It's how I found it.
1. search time settings, use 24h
2. the query string, "F-15" (capitalization is still important)
[dupe] Earlier: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47626347
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47627182
dang moved the comment from those threads to here, so the discussion is empty. I'm not sure if the press coverage has more info. (My guess is that they are quite similar.)
Yep, fair, this one probably just on front page at present. At the time of commenting, one of those two links was flagged, and this one was also freshly flagged, so the Earlier one was still active and available is all. Things change.
[dead]
previous conversation at https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47626347
Why is the US there again? Open up a straight that was open?
Not expecting a reply.
Israel
Sweet AIPAC money
The opinion in https://acoup.blog/2026/03/25/miscellanea-the-war-in-iran/ is interesting here.
Read the section titled 'The Gamble' if you want that opinion, but the tl;dr is that our 2025 strike against Iran ceded our ability to claim dis-involvement in Israeli strikes, and so Israel was able to draw us into this war whether we wanted to or not.
To distract from the Epstein files.
[flagged]
Are you AI?
Spelunking
[flagged]
It's not the voter. It's the system.
The constitution is old and not democratic.
Russia, Turkey, Phillipines, Belarus, Nicaragua, etc, etc.
Presidential republics are a disaster waiting the right people to break them.
And how, pray tell, does an american voter vote against using the most lethal military in the world?
like so https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Killing_of_Muammar_Gaddafi
Vote against liars who promise peace. Or demand representatives impeach them.
> Vote against liars who promise peace.
By voting for a party that refuses to promise this?
> Or demand representatives impeach them.
We both know this will do nothing.
> By voting for a party that refuses to promise this?
Vote for the party least likely to actually start wars. Regardless of their words.
> We both know this will do nothing.
Pardon my imprecise language. I meant impeach, convict, and remove from power.
[flagged]
Time to put on your big boy pants and take some personal responsibility. The American people voted for this, they wanted this.
> The American people voted for this, they wanted this.
Less than half of the people who bothered to vote actually picked the guy.
I even believe that a non-trivial number of those folks actually believed their own rhetoric about America first, no wars, etc. But their commitment to one man is stronger than their commitment to ideals, and so here we are.
[flagged]
While criticism of Israel should not be conflated with antisemitism, the concept of a "Zionist Occupation Government," without question, originates from neo-nazi conspiracy theories. Take that shit elsewhere.
At this point Israelis (and the bulk of Israel-backing jews around the world) only have themselves to blame for the resurgence of neo-nazi conspiracy theories.
>antisemitic conspiracy theory that claims that Jews secretly control the U.S. government.
Anyway, this just seems to be fact, and not a conspiracy theory? Besides for the "secretly" part.
blaming jews for antisemitism – lovely stuff!
switch the jews to any other nation and hate towards them and see how bigoted that sounds.
your hate is visible.
I think at this point it's entirely fair to hate the state of Israel and anyone who supports it existence. Not because of blood libels, but over a century of Zionist aggression.
There's no need for just about anyone to live in Israel, it's a choice. It's okay to hate people for the choices they make.
[flagged]
This is a clear violation of site guidelines.
>You are a bigot
Not at all.
>A bigot is a person who is obstinately, unreasonably, or unfairly attached to their own beliefs, prejudices, or opinions, particularly regarding race, religion, or politics
It's not in any way unfair to despise people who still support Israel after nearly a century of crimes against humanity.
That'd be a fair criticism if I subscribed to some traditional antisemitic views, but I don't really have any inherent problem with the jewish people. I just want the destruction of the state of Israel and any who would support it, it's purely coincidental that this includes most jewish people.
“i just want the destruction of a 9 millon people country (btw including the 2 million arabs? what about druze, samaritans, circasians?)” hate consumes you, you totally are a bigot
Do you think those 2 million arabs would be particularly upset if the Israeli state ceased to exist?
>hate consumes you
I hate a legal structure and it's supporters. Yeah. Aren't I a bad person.
Totally, it’s their home. Israeli Arabs also have way higher standard of life than all of other Arab countries – including LGBT rights, passport strength etc. etc.
Destruction of Israel is not about "legal structure", and btw we’ll prevail and people like you are the reason Israel needs to exist. We saw what happens when jews don’t have a national home.
>Israeli Arabs also have way higher standard of life than all of other Arab countries
That's just a lie. A plenty of Khaleejis live in socialist paradise
Right, including all the women and the LGBT people. Penalties include severe punishments such as the death penalty, floggings, imprisonment, and fines.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LGBTQ_rights_in_Saudi_Arabia
Lie is everything you type out.
And Israel keeps millions of Palestinians in large concentration camps.
It's hard to imagine what sort of sick mind would consider the Saudi treatment of minorities to be worse. It's abhorrent, but it doesn't come anywhere close to how Israel treats people.
Besides, the whole concept of "Israeli arabs" is a bit hilarious. How are those different from other Palestinian arabs? Is it just that Israeli state considers them more acceptable than other arabs based on some arbitrary standards not grounded on physical reality?
They are different from other palestinian arabs in that they hold israeli citizenship. Not sure how this can be hilarious.
Why don’t you say billions of palestinians in concentration camps? The type of concentration camps with hundred thousand euro luxury cars https://www.facebook.com/LUXURYAUTOMOBILECO/ and corrupt politicians living in mansions. You have no idea what you’re talking about, you never been to Palestine or Israel and you drown in your hateful lies
>hold israeli citizenship
Something arbitrarily bestowed upon them by recent European invaders that secretly built nuclear weapons to secure their claim to stolen land.
>Why don’t you say billions of palestinians in concentration camps? The type of concentration camps with hundred thousand euro luxury cars https://www.facebook.com/LUXURYAUTOMOBILECO/ and corrupt politicians living in mansions. You have no idea what you’re talking about, you never been to Palestine or Israel and you drown in your hateful lies
I've visited my family in Israel on several occasions in the past. I don't do that anymore though.
Palestinians are prisoners, they have to ask Israel for permission to leave. They are kept in large camps, even if some drive Maybachs.
im sure you are lying and shame on you comparing people driving maybachs to concentration camps in which millions of jews perished. people from west bank can travel via jordan no problem and so could gazans through egypt. lies and hate as in all the rest of the comments
do you hate Russians? do you hate Syrians/Alawites? Do you hate Turks and Iraqis for what they do to Kurds? Do you hate Japanese for what they did in WWII? Do you hate Americans for Vietnam / Afganistan / Iraq? Do you hate Chinese for Tibet, Xinjiang? Do you hate the British for Bengal Famine? France for Algeria? Pakistan for Bangladesh? Saudis for Yemen? Myanmar for Rohinja? Serbs for Kosovo?
No. You hate on Jews.
All of these conflicts have significantly more deaths than Arab/Israeli conflict. All of them are much more clear cut than Israel that defends itself since 1948 and Jews that defend themselves from hate crimes against civilians since 1920s.
Everyone should hate Israel. It's a terrorist state built on ethnic cleansing and genocide. It's executed so many crimes against humanity since its inception that it's impossible to track them all."The jews" aren't a nation, there's a nation that claims to represent all jews and it's up to the jews (and only the jews) to push back on that.
I will repeat this question - do you hate Russians? do you hate Syrians/Alawites? Do you hate Turks and Iraqis for what they do to Kurds? Do you hate Japanese for what they did in WWII? Do you hate Americans for Vietnam / Afganistan / Iraq? Do you hate Chinese for Tibet, Xinjiang? Do you hate the British for Bengal Famine? France for Algeria? Pakistan for Bangladesh? Saudis for Yemen? Myanmar for Rohinja? Serbs for Kosovo? No. You hate on Jews. All of these conflicts have significantly more deaths than Arab/Israeli conflict. All of them are much more clear cut than Israel that defends itself since 1948 and Jews that defend themselves from hate crimes against civilians since 1920s.
>do you hate Russians?
Shoot every single Russian who supports the war.
>You hate on Jews
Israel is actively a bad actor, many of the ones you listed are not.
>All of them are much more clear cut than Israel that defends itself since 1948
It's dishonest to suggest that Israel was in any way defending itself in 1948, given that it's very creation was an act of aggression.
Despite a plenty of opportunities, Israel has never taken a step back to reset that. Because of that, Israel remains the aggressor.
Yitzhak Rabin perhaps tried and was rewarded with two bullets for his efforts. The Jewish supremacist who killed him is widely celebrated as a hero in Israel.
Oh, and when Rabin was killed it was the fourth assassination attempt by jewish supremacists that year. Now those same people run the country.
I disengage, no need to argue with psychopaths. I am sure you never held a gun or would shoot anyone, keyboard warrior.
If anyone reads his comments I strongly recommend verifying everything he says as it îs factually incorrect, but is based on russian style firehose of falsehood mixing in couple of sensible statements (like the fact that Rabin was killed by an extremist).
you are lying and probably someone pays you to
Says the person posting Israeli propaganda all over every thread.
The enemy of my enemy is my friend
[flagged]
Perhaps they're a US taxpayer wondering why a $150+ million strike fighter was just written off?
[flagged]
[flagged]
[flagged]
[flagged]
[flagged]
[flagged]
[flagged]
It's called Operation Epic Fuckup for a reason.
Operation Epic Fail.
[flagged]
Yep. It's just a lie.
[flagged]
Getting shot down shows... extreme capability? HOW?
Iran had one of the largest and most extensive integrated air defense networks in the world. US has been bombing Iran from day 0 of this war. Those are the air losses they took.
Being able to counter air defenses to this degree and operate with this level of impunity is a major SEAD/DEAD win.
[flagged]
[flagged]
[flagged]
Given that 8 hours after your comment mainstream news sites are still reporting on ongoing SAR ops for the 2nd F-15 crewmember, it's likely those stories were false or confounded recovery of an A-10 pilot (also downed, separate incident) today.
<https://www.theguardian.com/world/live/2026/apr/04/middle-ea...> (Live updates at The Guardian, as of 15 minutes prior to my own comment.)
Yeah i was wrong on that one, I think the X noise at the time as about the A-10 pilot that had been rescued.
What makes them credible? Not doubting, just curious.
[flagged]
[flagged]
When the first-tier hostile leadership structure was eliminated in the first day of the war, and only after a month do the surviving enemies finally manage to damage a plane so severely that it can't return to a friendly base to land, is "quite useless" an adequate and accurate description of the technology used to prosecute that war?
It's useful in saving the pilot's life. With less advanced tecnologies, more pilots would have been shoot down. It's useful in targeted attacks, but they have proved themself uneffective (at least for now) as the new leadership is alined with the objective of the replaced one. It's close to useless when it comes to making the war cost-effective, which start being a relevant metric when the conflict start lasting too long. Of course the US has a bigger economy, so all the news about cheaper systems damaging or destroying quite expensive ones may still lead to a US victory, but a costly one for sure
As the Soviet Union made us learn, you don’t need a big military victory to make your enemy spend themselves into defeat.
When you decapitate a well organised military, all you achieve is installing a new enemy you know little about you can’t predict their actions and that now know they are fighting for their own survival.
Not the best place to be.
Americans seem to underestimate everyone else.
Whether you have specific leadership or not doesn't matter much to (a) having to adapt to the enemy and learn what works, and (b) probability just doing its thing, more chances and so on, and (c) US leadership descending the oceans of stupidity all the way to the Mariana trench.
> US leadership descending the oceans of stupidity all the way to the Mariana trench.
And they voted for this not only once, but twice.
A month after the president claims total air superiority over Iran and complete destruction of their anti air capabilities.
It reminds me of a Age of Empires campaign I played at a LAN from a long while back, where the game went on for 20 hours and ended in a stalemate between an atomic age player and a very primitive age player. The atomic player had total control of the map, they were carpet bombing the entire thing with nuclear weapons. But they could only create them so fast while the primitive player was running around on horses, just surviving enough to prevent the other player from winning. The only reason the game ended was because I tripped over the power cord to one of the computers.
To me, that's what modern warfare looks like.
Ah, you mean Empire Earth. I loved that game, it had a great soundtrack.
Sounds like it indeed. The balance was... interesting, a single tank could not win against a dozen cavemen.
Weapons are designed with an opponent in mind, and guarded against the expected threat models from that opponent. Everything breaks down when the opponent does not what you want them to.
I don't see how a single tank could win against 12 cavemen, but I digress. It's a video game.
Empire earth slapped so hard. Both 1 and 2. Honestly now that I’m thinking about it, going to set aside some time this weekend and play it again!
Right right Empire Earth! My memory is a little fuzzy it must have been 20 years ago.
I don't remember Age of Empires having an atomic age?
It was probably Rise of Nations or one of the other similar games.
If I had to guess I think they meant empire earth instead.
> If this conflict continues we're going to see a lot of US assets in fragments.
Yep, Iran recently destroyed a high tech radar plane ("AWACS") at a base in Saudi Arabia: https://www.nbcnews.com/world/iran/iran-war-attack-us-base-s...
It's only "high tech" to the aforementioned cavemen. To everyone else it's a 707 you can't even get spare tires for any more, equipped with some truly obsolete technology aboard. I mean it has a mechanical waveguide for crying out loud.
> equipped with some truly obsolete technology aboard.
So I guess the US won't have any issues replacing it at a cheaper cost (as far as I understood that one cost $500 million, give or take).
The prototype E-7 cost $2 billion. It's a 737 with some radios.
"On 22 March 2019, the UK Defence Secretary announced a $1.98 billion contract to purchase five Boeing E-7 Wedgetails"
Prototype price isn't really that meaningful
(Also it's a 767 not a 737, that was the E-3 I think.)
You must be thinking of a different boondoggle, the E-767, which is the obsolete radar package from the E-3 bolted to a 767. The E-7 is a 737.
Ah right, it's a bit confusing between the bunch of these.
Nonetheless the price tag was only $400M/ea E-7 for the UK in 2019 (usual later price shenanigans not included)
[flagged]
OP sentences have issues, but I understood what they meant.
I don't even know why I clicked on this thread. It's like reading a thread on economics or other topics where we tech folk think our success at pushing around bits makes us instant expert on anything we ponder.
Most of the responses here are either demonstrating a heavy bias, an utter lack of background knowledge or both.
[flagged]
We're still trying to make TDS a thing, huh?
[flagged]
Iran, who armed itself to the teeth, shoots down a 30-yr-old fighter jet. Crew expected to have survived.
Acceptable win ratio for the U.S. (whom many of you despise).
Nice try downplaying the Iranian capabilities.
Which capabilities are those? I haven't seen them yet.
We all can see. Why can't you? Hint - "Hypersonics". Now go see.
> Acceptable win ratio for the U.S. (whom many of you despise).
No. Many people despise the trump administration, not the US.
Shhh, don't interrupt their persecution complex
Don't worry. It's ok. Just think ... Top Gun Maverick.
There were thousands of iranian jets shot down but the worlds go crazy when a single us jetzt was shot down
At this point why not make it millions? Millions of Iranian jets have been shot down! It sounds better.
US jets are massively more expensive and supposed to represent the state of the art. While the models used by Iran are considered to be museum pieces by any country that can afford more modern ones.
Much more relevant to the current conflict is that it invalidates the claim that Iran's air defense capabilities are gone.
Iran doesn't have thousands of jets dumbass
Your English is good, but the (probably smartphone keyboard) typo revealed you :-).
The United States will never understand that while they are a technologically advanced army, they will consistently get smoked by countries with a far more rudimentary arsenal. It's been happening in every war since Vietnam.
The US could probably steamroll Russia in a week, because both countries will try to deploy the latest tech they have, and the US blows Russia out of the water. But in Iran, Iraq, Afghanistan, Somalia ... etc, their stealth jets and raptors stand no chance with weapons so old that those new systems didn't even account for.
US is not a technologically advanced army just the most expensive one. Centralized systems are not technologically advanced systems. Iran's distributed architecture makes it technically advanced than US not to mention hypersonics which is a technology US doesn't have.
The US rescored both crew from this aircraft while Iran's distributed architecture was dedicated to finding them within it's own country.
Losing 2 Black Hawks & 1 C-130 and others. Why are you deliberately trying to hide the details.
And what has it to do with distributed architectures. You must not be good at what you do.
The 'superior' distributed architecture you hyped failed to capture even one of the two individuals in their territory, and failed to a non-distributed centralized world spanning synchronized architecture. I was simply pointing out your superior model failed. The model you hyped has no military benefit, it only serves to act as 'terror cells'. In this case lobing missiles at civilian shipping/civilian infrastructure in neighboring countries.
The important information was the US was able to rescue their people, loss of equipment doesn't matter. When we removed Bin Laden we lost an helicopter. Equipment loses that don't degrade our capabilities don't matter to the US.
There were ZERO American casualties in an operation in Iran, where the USA basically setup their own airfield, and Iranian forces tried to engage.
>"The US could probably steamroll Russia in a week"
I did not know Donald posts in here
Idiots watch Iron Man come flying and think US can steamroll Russia.
Iran alone is beating the shit out of US. Thinking it can steamroll Russia is not even funny. Some serious epidemic of Hollywood syndrome permeates the US.