I think the article downplays the element that the attack probably achieved its goal which was not to actually hit something at Diego Garcia, but to show that thing 2500 miles from Iran are potentially targetable by Iran. That starts conversations like the one here and in other fora about whether or not Iran would limit themselves to military targets (Russia doesn't as an example) and if not how could Europe and its East Asian allies protect literally everything with their finite supply of defensive units.
I heard the same about the number and location of French nuclear war heads, or their exact red lines. If you tell the enemy your limit they're gonna sit exactly on it.
Attacks on Israel clearly show that Iran - just like Russia - sees the civilian population as a legitimate target. Question of tactics remains, of course.
Except it would be very weird goal to achieve because it's only give more reasons to bomb whole country into oblivion and justify deployment of ground troops.
They’re at war. The US and Israel are bombing everything anyway.
Strategically, Diego Garcia is a forward operating base for irreplaceable B-52 and B-2 bombers. Placing them at risk on the ground seems like a reckless call, more likely the US pulls those resources back to the US.
I’m not rooting for Iran, but since the US has who they have making the calls, Iran has obvious strategic cards to play - escalation benefits them.
Could be. But won't be. The flying time to target is mere minutes, and taking the plane from zero (not even crew inside) to air takes much longer than that.
Why would Iran end up further isolated due to this war, and out of escalation? (your sentence is slightly ambiguous so I assume that you are referring to it.) If it successfully asserts control over the Strait as it seems to presently be doing, it should be able to negotiate a peace favorable to itself. Even with the status quo, I don't know how that figures into things, but the US has temporarily lifted sanctions on Iranian oil.
I don't follow the news very well, but from what I know the claim that you make isn't very obviously true but needs some evidence for it to stand.
I think this is the elephant in the roomt - in terms of quantifiable goals, Iran is winning this thing. I think they're going to want to punish the US and Israel to an extent where they will be reluctant to feel this particular sting again, and they want to assert their ability to control the strait. And it's working! They're clearly demonstrating that the US cannot simply decide when this is over and dictate terms, because Iran can pinch off an important vein of global commerce and probably sustain that pressure for far longer than it can be tolerated by other economies.
They've already gotten one concession in terms of this temporary sanctions relief, even as Trump frames it as a domestic emergency measure and repeatedly declares total victory each day of the conflict. They also got him to back off on targeting their power plants by promising to retaliate in kind against the power infrastructure of US aligned states in range.
I think the US has the ability to beat Iran in a fight, but it does not have the preparation or the resolve to do so at this time, because this is some halfcocked nonsense plan with amorphous goals that they thought would be over in a week.
maybe they aren't as worried about that as they should be. maybe america isn't as worried about that as it should be.
but, what are you saying? it would be weird for iran to act in a way that might provoke escalation? you mean in the totally unprovoked war israel/america launched against them?
I don't know which country you're from, but in most countries, "our troops may get bombed if we join this war" is a very strong public argument against joining the war.
Just look at Trump's latest attempt to enlist his "allies" into sending warships to the Strait of Hormuz, and what a resounding success it was.
Maintaining peace is not the same as restoring peace. Perhaps the American executive should have extrapolated the consequences of their actions using a model of the real world and not the fever dream they seem to be in. I am all for the Europeans standing their ground and not letting themselves get dragged into a conflagration not of their desiring nor of their making.
Trump and co are finding out that FAFO goes both ways. Much to the cost of all of us, Americans, Iranians, Europeans and the rest of us.
When the Nazi regime proliferated, do you think the allies considered it of their own desire or their own making? Should they have prevented themselves from getting dragged into WW2? Or was it good they allowed themselves to get dragged into WW2 and disarm the Nazi regime?
Suppose the Allies just moved away and made "lebensraum" for the Nazi regime, would you have called it "standing their ground and not letting themselves get dragged into a conflagration not of their desiring nor of their making" ??
I think most people would understand a different course of action when reading "standing ground"...
Of course there are costs that come with peace, and if we postpone those costs for too long, the average expenditure can rise compared to timely intervention.
I'm explaining why a European holds this position, Iran approaching nuclear weapons capability, approaching ICBM launch capability, approaching re-entry vehicle capability is the "lebensraum" we shouldn't tolerate.
Watching from the sidelines disapprovingly, while benefiting in this sense from the US/Israeli mission objectives, and even being "willing to go as far as" effectively posing in a security theater role (since a single shot fired would imply abortion of the mission), wasting tax payer money on symbolic gestures, is what I protested.
But it matters little now, European countries are starting to turn around and think a little deeper than the b-hurt mentioned earlier.
So you are embarrassed that your leaders don't want their soldiers to die in a war started by another country without providing any semblance of justification?
...I'm just glad that European politicians take their soldiers' lives more seriously than the court of public opinions. Well, at least some of them. That's the mark of being an adult.
Why would wanting to die for a war caused by America and Israel be a "show of strength", that'd instead be a show of being fucking chumps esp after America continually insulted and threatened them. I do think Europe has a potential good role they can commit, and that would be in solving the major nuclear threat in the Middle East: to make public and decommission or transfer in safe keeping all the illegal nukes Israel has.
Not really. Because no one in Europe wants to bomb Iran into oblivion, if for no other reason but the fact that the Europeans (and Turkey) would face another massive refugee crisis.
The only people wanting to continue this war are the U.S. and Israel (and maybe Saudi Arabia?) and even Trump is clearly looking for an off ramp.
This is most likely a way for Iran to tell Europe to do what they can to end this otherwise they will drag Europe into this mess as well.
> * This seems to reveal previously-unknown range of Iranian ballistic missiles and, if true, could touch basically all of Europe?
The Wikipedia article has said they had missiles that can range 4300km since 2019 (as in the article was updated in 2019) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Shahab-5&oldid=91... . If Wikipedia has known about it for 7 years, surely military planners were already aware.
US intelligence had assessed that this was possible a long time ago. It was one of the motivations behind the installation of long-range missile defense capabilities in Poland and Czechia in the late 2000s. Obama killed that program to appease Russia.
Of course, there is a significant gap between Iran possessing the capability, having the temperament to use it, and actually doing so.
> This seems to reveal previously-unknown range of Iranian ballistic missiles and, if true, could touch basically all of Europe
True but they have also literally launched multiple orbital satellites from iran on iranian rockets. Eg. The Noor 2 spy satellite and before that the Noor 1 series https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noor_2_(satellite)
These are in orbit to this day. They regularly post images it takes of US military bases. Essentially it’s similar to how sputnik was a demonstration of icbm capability. Iran can launch a first generation ICBM right now. Pointless if they use a conventional payload (too small payload to be cost effective militarily) and a non manoeuvrable warhead (would just be intercepted) and so these aren’t used militarily but essentially everyone acting shocked they can hit 4000km range was not paying attention.
I think one of the problems we are having right now is that we have leaders who actively believed the downplaying of Irans military capabilities. It’s one thing for the common civilian to think the enemies missiles are made of cardboard and tanks of paper but it’s another when the leader of a nation believes it. Now here we are with a war that’s stalemated and no way out.
It's a message toward the west don't think you're safe further away. Iran is pushing the west out of west Asia. Time will tell what USIS and EU will do to combat this.
There's a reason most regional powers also invested in a space program as well as a civilian uncles program. The name of the game is dual-use technologies.
The Biden admin also warned about Iran-NK collaboration on building these kinds of capabilities [0]
Iran repeatedly stated that they will not attack any country's assets if they do not assist the US/Israel. Most European countries have refused to take part, the UK decided to help so this seems like a very easy situation to have avoided.
To me this is like the Doolittle Raid on Tokyo during WWII. The tactical result isn't important, the range of the strike is, and that it happened at all. Japan thought it was immune from air attack on the home islands in 1942, and the raid shocked them.
Iran is showing the world (especially Europe), that it's more vulnerable than it thinks. Europe has more skin in the game than just the price of oil and nitrogen. Also think about what would happen if Iran is able to recreate something like the Cuban missile crisis now that we've moved a bunch of our military assets to the middle east.
The fact that it was unsuccessful does not make it any less worrying. Iran was a regional problem before the war, but this new escalation shows they’re a threat to the entire world. They might have previously had a chance at a Vietnam or perhaps a Korea-style stalemate
Accusing Iran of "lashing out" and being "reckless" by attacking US bases while the US and Israel literally murder school children, bomb hospitals and assassinate state leaders is rich.
It didn't have to be this way but they decided this to turn into a fight of survival for Iran and destroy any option for a peaceful resolution. Now they are going to pay the price.
Unfortunately this is more interesting than a failed Diego Garcia attack — the late Ayatollah had a self-imposed range limit on the strikes or tests they would carry out. By using IRBMs in this fashion, it’s clear the new regime no longer feels bound by that restriction..
Which is notable since it’s about the same distance from Southern Iran to Diego Garcia (3,800km) as it is from Northern Iran to London.
considering that there were already provocations about "unsuccessful attacks on Turkey", I have doubts that this attack was also Iran's
the "notable distance/unexpectedly high range" quoted everywhere seems like a nice war justification: "see, they do have rockets that can threaten us!"
I still doubt that this enemy of the West, once more, is invented, created and sustained. Trillion dollar armies against a deserted country without allies should be a few days attack from earth and space, while neutralising the country abroad. This is not a modern war, this is a soft fight with goals to destabilise fossil energy and mainly to feed the media with a daily event. The same holds for Russia/Ukraine and in the past Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria whatever.
As NATO has thus far neglected to get involved, this seems like an incredibly dumb move by Iran. Making Europe feel threatened will not turn things in their favor.
588 comments
* I think this is the longest-range use of a ballistic missile in anger, possibly ever?
* This seems to reveal previously-unknown range of Iranian ballistic missiles and, if true, could touch basically all of Europe?
>
to show that thing 2500 miles from Iran are potentially targetableIran has had IRBMs for some time. Demonstration doesn’t hurt. But demonstrating failure doesn’t particularly help either.
> whether or not Iran would limit themselves to military targets
This question has long been answered
And yes, hitting offices with American financial institutions or hotels with American soldiers in them is fine.
Strategically, Diego Garcia is a forward operating base for irreplaceable B-52 and B-2 bombers. Placing them at risk on the ground seems like a reckless call, more likely the US pulls those resources back to the US.
I’m not rooting for Iran, but since the US has who they have making the calls, Iran has obvious strategic cards to play - escalation benefits them.
your conclusion: US will pull those resources back?
I don't follow the news very well, but from what I know the claim that you make isn't very obviously true but needs some evidence for it to stand.
They've already gotten one concession in terms of this temporary sanctions relief, even as Trump frames it as a domestic emergency measure and repeatedly declares total victory each day of the conflict. They also got him to back off on targeting their power plants by promising to retaliate in kind against the power infrastructure of US aligned states in range.
I think the US has the ability to beat Iran in a fight, but it does not have the preparation or the resolve to do so at this time, because this is some halfcocked nonsense plan with amorphous goals that they thought would be over in a week.
but, what are you saying? it would be weird for iran to act in a way that might provoke escalation? you mean in the totally unprovoked war israel/america launched against them?
Just look at Trump's latest attempt to enlist his "allies" into sending warships to the Strait of Hormuz, and what a resounding success it was.
Trump and co are finding out that FAFO goes both ways. Much to the cost of all of us, Americans, Iranians, Europeans and the rest of us.
Suppose the Allies just moved away and made "lebensraum" for the Nazi regime, would you have called it "standing their ground and not letting themselves get dragged into a conflagration not of their desiring nor of their making" ??
I think most people would understand a different course of action when reading "standing ground"...
Of course there are costs that come with peace, and if we postpone those costs for too long, the average expenditure can rise compared to timely intervention.
Watching from the sidelines disapprovingly, while benefiting in this sense from the US/Israeli mission objectives, and even being "willing to go as far as" effectively posing in a security theater role (since a single shot fired would imply abortion of the mission), wasting tax payer money on symbolic gestures, is what I protested.
But it matters little now, European countries are starting to turn around and think a little deeper than the b-hurt mentioned earlier.
...I'm just glad that European politicians take their soldiers' lives more seriously than the court of public opinions. Well, at least some of them. That's the mark of being an adult.
The only people wanting to continue this war are the U.S. and Israel (and maybe Saudi Arabia?) and even Trump is clearly looking for an off ramp.
This is most likely a way for Iran to tell Europe to do what they can to end this otherwise they will drag Europe into this mess as well.
> * This seems to reveal previously-unknown range of Iranian ballistic missiles and, if true, could touch basically all of Europe?
The Wikipedia article has said they had missiles that can range 4300km since 2019 (as in the article was updated in 2019) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Shahab-5&oldid=91... . If Wikipedia has known about it for 7 years, surely military planners were already aware.
Of course, there is a significant gap between Iran possessing the capability, having the temperament to use it, and actually doing so.
> This seems to reveal previously-unknown range of Iranian ballistic missiles and, if true, could touch basically all of Europe
True but they have also literally launched multiple orbital satellites from iran on iranian rockets. Eg. The Noor 2 spy satellite and before that the Noor 1 series https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noor_2_(satellite)
These are in orbit to this day. They regularly post images it takes of US military bases. Essentially it’s similar to how sputnik was a demonstration of icbm capability. Iran can launch a first generation ICBM right now. Pointless if they use a conventional payload (too small payload to be cost effective militarily) and a non manoeuvrable warhead (would just be intercepted) and so these aren’t used militarily but essentially everyone acting shocked they can hit 4000km range was not paying attention.
I think one of the problems we are having right now is that we have leaders who actively believed the downplaying of Irans military capabilities. It’s one thing for the common civilian to think the enemies missiles are made of cardboard and tanks of paper but it’s another when the leader of a nation believes it. Now here we are with a war that’s stalemated and no way out.
> previously-unknown
It was implied by Iran's space program.
There's a reason most regional powers also invested in a space program as well as a civilian uncles program. The name of the game is dual-use technologies.
The Biden admin also warned about Iran-NK collaboration on building these kinds of capabilities [0]
[0] - https://www.janes.com/osint-insights/defence-news/us-officia...
Iran is showing the world (especially Europe), that it's more vulnerable than it thinks. Europe has more skin in the game than just the price of oil and nitrogen. Also think about what would happen if Iran is able to recreate something like the Cuban missile crisis now that we've moved a bunch of our military assets to the middle east.
It didn't have to be this way but they decided this to turn into a fight of survival for Iran and destroy any option for a peaceful resolution. Now they are going to pay the price.
Which is notable since it’s about the same distance from Southern Iran to Diego Garcia (3,800km) as it is from Northern Iran to London.
the "notable distance/unexpectedly high range" quoted everywhere seems like a nice war justification: "see, they do have rockets that can threaten us!"
https://labourheartlands.com/the-four-thousand-kilometre-mir...
That’s a lot of traffic
> see a swift end to the conflict
I'll tell you a swifter method: rest of the world attack the US efforts and send them home. Then lock up the presidumb [sic] somewhere.
They stirred the hornets' nest. Now the rest of the world are getting stung, slowly dragging into an all-out war.
The rest of us could really use a regime change now--and it's not in Iran.
Had something actually struck within the ADIZ there would have been massive implications. My guess is they intentionally failed as a warning shot.
This isn’t a random act and its quite the signal if you know what it means, Iran knows what it did here.