| |
| ▲ | JumpCrisscross a day ago | parent | next [-] | | > This has been Iran's strategy Modelling Iran as a monolith seems to lead to errors more than it simplifies analysis. It's absolutely possible that nine parts of their mosaic [1] didn't want to open a new front and one went YOLO. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mosaic_defence_strategy | |
| ▲ | t-3 a day ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | France has been the most bellicose in rhetoric among European states, and they've given assistance to the Saudis in their conflict with Yemen. Given that Iran seems to view all these conflicts as different parts of a broader geopolitical and regional struggle, choosing to target France makes some sense. In the context of France's current political troubles it makes less sense to meddle and invite backlash, but perhaps they think that they will have the sympathy of the protesters and large immigrant community in France. | | |
| ▲ | spwa4 a day ago | parent [-] | | List of countries Iran has attacked: Israel, UAE, Kuwait, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Azerbeidjan, Bahrain, Iraq, Jordan, Greece, Oman, Syria, Azerbaijan, Turkey and of course US forces. Of course, they targeted civilians in all of the above countries. And if you include attacks on ships, the list goes all the way from China to Paraguay and has dozens of entries. Essentially all civilian as well, meaning their attacks against actual military ships were a minority of their attacks. Of those, perhaps Israel and maybe Qatar can be considered defensive actions. And perhaps the attack on Greece was accidental (really aiming for a US ship in the Mediterranean) If you made a full list of everything Iran has the physical ability to hit and compared to the list they did hit, the only missing countries would be Afghanistan, Turkmenistan, Pakistan and Armenia. I must say, it also seems to me unlikely in the extreme the French immigrant community, or anywhere in Europe, would significantly be on Iran's side. First, they're largely economic migrants, suffering due to Iran's actions. Second, they're largely from countries Iran attacked. Third, they're Sunni, not exactly Iran's traditional allies. Fourth: they're not making any money of Iran. So ... maybe it's just me but I don't think rhetoric is the problem here. | | |
| ▲ | phainopepla2 a day ago | parent | next [-] | | This comment makes it seem as if all these other countries were just standing around peacefully and Iran decided to attack them for no reason. The majority of those countries host US bases, many of which were used to stage attacks on Iran, and all of which are fair targets in a war started by the US (and Israel). It's also extremely puzzling, to say the least, why you would say that "perhaps" their attacks on Israel could be considered defensive, when Israel is one of the two that started this last war. | | |
| ▲ | constantius a day ago | parent [-] | | Exactly. France also has very few migrants from the countries 'Iran attacked': they're largely from North African and Francophone African countries. A lot of inconsistencies and half facts in that comment. |
| |
| ▲ | t-3 a day ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | > Of course, they targeted civilians in all of the above countries. I haven't dug into it deeply, but I was under the impression that most of the Iranian targets were US bases and US-owned oil fields/energy infrastructure, with relatively few domestic civilian interests harmed. Am I mistaken? I doubt the public in any country cares much about Iran's blockade, given that the US has "counter-blockaded" and claimed ownership and control of the stait. Iran was attacked first, then sneak attacked during negotiations, and has maintained a coherent and consistent policy during negotiations. Common people are sympathetic and view them as the underdog. > Third, they're Sunni, not exactly Iran's traditional allies. Muslims are far less divided than Western policy-makers imagine IMO, most have solidarity WRT Palestine and broader Middle Eastern geopolitics regardless of sectarian affiliation. Iran has been mostly successful in tying their struggle to the issue of Israel/Palestine, especially with the recently-interested younger people in western countries who have less reflexive reaction against Iran. | | |
| ▲ | jst1fthsdys a day ago | parent [-] | | The US started to host US military personnel in civilian hotels after Iran targeted US bases and they weren't safe to stay there. So, in essence, the US used the civilians as human shields. | | |
| ▲ | spwa4 13 hours ago | parent [-] | | First, in many places (UAE for example, also Iraq, Saudi Arabia, Israel) they definitely did aim at civilians. For example, they aimed at civilian airport terminals in Israel and Saudi Arabia. And for the military targets, it's just as accurate to say that Iran just doesn't have the technology to actually reliably aim for military forces and still fired at everything they could find, and this increased by a lot after it became clear almost none of their attacks on military targets actually landed. The result was explosives delivered in people's bedrooms. From the published results, only 3 rockets/drones, out of tens of thousands, actually hit their targets. And one of those was ... people died so we don't criticize. But let's just say that the commander of those soldiers who died made a very suboptimal decision (hours) before they died. The hits on civilians are despite those military bases targeted being hundreds of kilometers away from the civilians who died. One issue was that they used the same drones Russia is firing at Ukraine (some were Russian-made, even) and flew as low as possible, without avoiding highrise buildings on the flight path. They even hit civilians in Iran. And can I just add: THIS you consider the US using human shields, but Iran putting a school of minority children on a military base without so much as a sign isn't using human shields? WTF. | | |
| ▲ | jst1fthsdys 6 hours ago | parent [-] | | Israel and the KSA have been shipping arms via their so called civilian airports. > none of their attacks on military targets actually landed. That they bothered to tell you about. They devastated the US bases so much the US can't operate out of them. You have to be a fool if you think only 3 rockets hit their targets. I'm not going to bother addressing the other parts. You are just repeating some mixture of incoherent propaganda. |
|
|
| |
| ▲ | bulbar 19 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | > Of those, perhaps Israel and maybe Qatar can be considered defensive actions. The regime started a proxy war against Israel decades ago, financing Hisbollah and eventually also Hamas, both with the official goal of destroying Israel. Before the regime came into power, Iran had good relations to Israel. So no, there's nothing 'defensive' when it comes to Iran's actions. | | |
| ▲ | spwa4 15 hours ago | parent [-] | | Actually, after the regime came into power they also had good relations with Israel. As long as they thought they could win the Iran-Iraq war they kept good relations (Iran-Iraq war: 2 years of Iraq attacking Iran, 7 years of Iran attempting to conquer Iraq). In fact Israel saved many high ranking Iranian officials from Iraqi assassination. Just shows: dictators will show no loyalty or gratitude. The second they can use you as a cheap excuse to stay in power and abuse that power, you better believe it will happen that very second. Iran has shown they will abuse everyone every way they can. This is the regime that is SO pure in their religious beliefs they distributed "plastic keys to heaven" to their cheapest demining equipment (primary school children, to the point that one problem was sometimes the kids weren't yet heavy enough that they wouldn't trigger an anti-personnel mine that an adult soldier coming later would still not be safe) |
|
|
| |
| ▲ | petre a day ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | France is pushing for a two state solution in Israel. So it was dumb to attack it to begin with. I don't know what they are trying to accomplish. Legitimize the recent US and Israeli attacks against Iran? The Iranian leadership probably doesn't want peace in Israel because if that ever happens, they cannot further instrumentalize the Palestinians and Lebanese muslims against Israel. | | |
| ▲ | bawolff a day ago | parent | next [-] | | I don't think Iran particularly cares about the two state solution or Palestinians in general. They want to be the regional power of the middle east, which means they need to destabilize their rivials (Israel and Saudi Arabia) hence they fund their enemies. It is no different than what America and the USSR were doing during the cold war just on a smaller scale. Playing cold war games is tricky though because its easy to over extend or let your proxies drag you into a conflicts you don't want. This is what happened to Iran and thus the cold war turned hot. | |
| ▲ | noduerme a day ago | parent | prev [-] | | Iran's beef with Israel is not because they care about the Sunni Palestinians or Palestinian land rights or something like that. They certainly don't want peace, they want Israel wiped off the face of the earth as a religious goal in itself, and for being the only non-Islamic country in the Middle East. Any concern expressed by Iran for Palestinians is purely for propaganda purposes: It's easier for Westerners to sympathize with than saying they'd like to destroy Israel and kill all the Jews simply for existing. | | |
| ▲ | za3faran 20 hours ago | parent [-] | | There are jews in Iran, which israel bombed their places of worship. | | |
| ▲ | noduerme 18 hours ago | parent [-] | | There are about 9,100 Iranian Jews remaining in Iran, versus 320,000 Iranian Jews in the world more or less[0] who had all their property stolen, were attacked and forced to flee Persia, where they had lived for the past 2,000 years or so. The number under 10k remaining is very specific because it is so small. They are treated as second class citizens. They are not allowed any sort of real religious freedom, have even fewer rights than their oppressed Muslim neighbors (although in fairness, no citizen of Iran under the dictatorship has any civil rights). The other 300,000 Iranian Jews now live in Israel and America, where they were forced to flee to. The Jews remaining in Iran are (mis)treated as curiosities kept in a zoo for propaganda purposes, to prove that the Iranian regime is tolerant and multicultural. It is not. Ask the Kurds or the Baloch. Unfortunately, neither has a homeland backed by military force. The world would be much better if they did. If you think the Palestinians are the only ones in a bad situation, you're missing most of the field. The Iranian theocratic regime regularly hosts conferences of "Jews" who come to deny the holocaust and to say that Israel is an illegitimate country. If the remaining Jews in Iran beg to differ, they will be routinely executed. Israel's bombing of an adjacent building which accidentally damaged one of the remaining synagogues in Iran was likely without thought, but if someone in Tel Aviv actually did think about it they probably signed off on it as a favor to the remaining Iranian Jews, to establish that they weren't helping Israel. Would you want to be a Jew in Iran? I think it would be about the same as being Sioux in South Dakota in the 1890s. How ironic to be bombed by the reservation you forced people onto, and to lose air superiority to it, so you can't even prevent those Iranian Jews from flying laps over Tehran. How sweetly ironic that you spent 47 years obsessing over hating the people you forced onto that reservation, wishing to destroy them, instead of improving your own country and your own people with all of that western oil money. Maybe building an entire dictatorship on a "minute of hate", or having a national holiday devoted to calling for the murder of another ethnic group who you already expelled, is not actually a viable social or economic strategy. Meanwhile, members of the Iranian dictatorship are free to live in Paris and send their daughters to college anywhere they want. Perhaps a few of them should flee, while the option is available. The Jews who fled to Israel don't have anywhere else to flee, they are the ones living on the "Indian Reservation". So maybe if the Iranian government is so interested in removing the "colonialists" of Israel, it should offer back in exchange all of the property it stole from the Jews who lived there before 1979. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iranian_Jews | | |
| ▲ | za3faran 6 hours ago | parent [-] | | A lot of what you wrote is speculative and rooted in media misinformation, not to mention the israelis doing exactly the same (e.g. milekowsky's son lives in florida). Although I am not Iranian, and I am against what their government did in places like Syria and nearby lands, I have seen enough western media manipulation and hasbara to question anything that comes out of such sources. The current war on them is what israel has been wanting to do for decades, and they got a dumb enough US president to do their dirty work for them. The same president who now realizes how much of a disaster the war was, given how it cost them the mid-terms. israel destroying places of worship and hospitals and schools is nothing new, and is well established. |
|
|
|
| |
| ▲ | Matl a day ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | > Them attacking France isn't any less rational than attacking, say, Qtar, or blockading non-US ships bound for non-US countries transiting the straight of Hormuz It does make sense if you think about it for longer than 5s - it's about U.S. allies putting pressure on the U.S. to end the war. This whole propaganda about Iran being irrational is so dumb it's embarrassing. The US is threatening to wipe out Iran's civilization, the EU is very tepid about the whole thing at best. Really sad to see, but not surprising. There's zero consistency or principle involved. | | |
| ▲ | Ajedi32 a day ago | parent [-] | | Yes, attacking uninvolved third parties seems like a great way to pressure them to end the war, if by "end the war" you mean joining it on the other side and helping finish you off. Traditionally that has been how countries tend to respond to military attacks on their soil. Iran's only saving grace seems to be that they're too ineffectual to pose any actual, serious threat to countries like France. | | |
| ▲ | Matl a day ago | parent | next [-] | | I don't personally think it's a great move by them by any means, but I think it's shallow to not try and understand how they may see it, as a bit more complicated than 'attacking uninvolved third parties', especially given these things seems to be happening across the EU[2], so it's likely not specifically about France. This also seems to have happened at US bases[3]. It's rather likely their attempt to show that they can 'reach' further than conventional means would suggest. 1 - https://www.theguardian.com/world/2026/feb/28/uk-france-germ... 2 - https://www.reuters.com/business/retail-consumer/temperature... 3 - https://www.food-safety.com/articles/11974-refrigerator-malf... | |
| ▲ | optimalsolver a day ago | parent | prev [-] | | Iran's strategy is what caused the GOP their worst electoral disaster in living memory. It's also why the US is highly reluctant to return to high-tempo combat. | | |
| ▲ | bawolff a day ago | parent | next [-] | | > Iran's strategy is what caused the GOP their worst electoral disaster in living memory. I think that is only a win if you have an extremely american centric perspective of this conflict. So they did that. Then what? Do you really think that is going to translate into anything significant on the battle field? It might have some marginal benefits but it probably won't matter in the big picture for Iran. | | |
| ▲ | Matl a day ago | parent [-] | | So they should sit around and let the US and Israel 'destroy Iranian civilization' I guess? Is that your suggestion? They're weaker than the countries attacking them. So causing inconvenience so that pressure will be put on the US to end the war by countries the US might listen to. Is that strategy going to work? Not sure. But does it have a chance of working? Maybe. | | |
| ▲ | bawolff a day ago | parent | next [-] | | > So they should sit around and let the US and Israel 'destroy Iranian civilization' I guess? Is that your suggestion? I'm just saying it isn't going to win them the war. The president broadly controls what the us military does. He doesn't need congress or the senate. You seem to be mixing up "wanting to win" with "actually winning". Of course Iran wants to win this conflict, but that doesn't mean they are actually winning. > They're weaker than the countries attacking them. Yes, getting into conflicts from a position of weakness is generally a bad plan. Succesful countries plan for this sort of thing well before the conflict starts which results in the conflict not happening in the first place. Iran had strategies in place for this, but they ended up backfiring. >Is that strategy going to work? Not sure. But does it have a chance of working? Maybe. Imposing costs on your opponent is a tried and true strategy that almost certainly could work. However Iran actually has to impose real costs instead of just propaganda wins. It seems like they were doing this best earlier in the war and now have run out of steam. | | |
| ▲ | Matl a day ago | parent [-] | | > Imposing costs on your opponent is a tried and true strategy that almost certainly could work. However Iran actually has to impose real costs instead of just propaganda wins. The price of oil, US midterm results, Gulf countries scrambling, that certainly doesn't look like they haven't imposed real costs. > Yes, getting into conflicts from a position of weakness is generally a bad plan. Succesful countries plan for this sort of thing well before the conflict starts which results in the conflict not happening in the first place. If by 'getting into conflicts' you mean 'getting invaded by the US and Israel' then sure. That just seems to be saying 'don't get invaded, sucker' which, while sound advice doesn't actually work out if someone's intent on invading you. The Iranians are not trying to 'win' as such, but rather impose enough cost on the attackers that continuing the war no longer makes sense for them. The truth is, you're not seemingly saying much of anything besides 'Iran bad'. | | |
| ▲ | bawolff a day ago | parent [-] | | > That just seems to be saying 'don't get invaded, sucker' which, while sound advice doesn't actually work out if someone's intent on invading you. Israel and USA have been intent on invading Iran for decades. But they didn't. Then suddenly they did. That didn't just happen randomly. Iran took a bunch of foreign policy risks that backfired spectacularly making them vulnerable to invasion. If they made different decisions, or if they just got luckier, they wouldn't have been in a vulnerable position and this wouldn't have happened. In many ways, the art of war starts long before the battles start. The things Iran could have done differently to affect the outcome of this war would probably have to have been done back then. It is a bit too late for them now. > The Iranians are not trying to 'win' as such, but rather impose enough cost on the attackers that continuing the war no longer makes sense for them. Yes, that is how all wars where the sides aren't evenly matched work. But all they have to show for it is slightly higher prices at the pump, and its unclear they will even be able to maintain that going forward. It isn't looking good for them. > The truth is, you're not seemingly saying much of anything besides 'Iran bad'. I'm just saying they are losing and don't seem to have good prospects going forward. If by bad, you mean in the sense of their strategic position - then yes, iran's strategic position is very bad. | | |
| ▲ | Jtsummers a day ago | parent [-] | | > Israel and USA have been intent on invading Iran for decades. But they didn't. Then suddenly they did. There is a war between the US/Israel and Iran, but there has not been an invasion. Attacks from a distance are not invasions. Contrast with the Russia-Ukraine war, where there actually has been an invasion. |
|
|
| |
| ▲ | noduerme a day ago | parent | prev [-] | | >> countries the US might listen to If that's really the theory behind attacking France, then the Iranian regime is completely unmoored from reality. The last time the US listened to France was never. | | |
| ▲ | Matl 13 hours ago | parent [-] | | It wasn't specific or limited to France. | | |
| ▲ | noduerme 42 minutes ago | parent [-] | | It seems to me you're giving them even less credit by saying so. If the IRGC is attacking third party nations without any specificity, that would be even more unhinged than their simply having a misplaced belief that attacks on those countries could have influence on US policy (that would be favorable to them). |
|
|
|
| |
| ▲ | tptacek a day ago | parent | prev [-] | | I don't think attacking France did anything to help that cause. Certainly we know from experience what attacking America would have done for them. | | |
| ▲ | hx8 a day ago | parent [-] | | I don't think turning off American Supermarket Refrigeration would cause the US to escalate. | | |
| ▲ | a day ago | parent | next [-] | | [deleted] | |
| ▲ | tptacek a day ago | parent | prev [-] | | You want to talk about things that might spark an actual US land invasion of Iran? Seems up there. | | |
| ▲ | hx8 a day ago | parent | next [-] | | Why? So far it doesn't seem to be causing much escalation in France, why would it be different for the US? | | |
| ▲ | bawolff a day ago | parent [-] | | America does tend to take geopolitical slights fairly personally relative to other countries. Not to mention one of the limiting factors for america in this war is public opinion. I'm sure they would love some way to sell it to the american public. | | |
| ▲ | tptacek a day ago | parent [-] | | Our responses to state-sponsored attacks on our soil are perhaps best characterized as "unhinged". |
|
| |
| ▲ | a day ago | parent | prev [-] | | [deleted] |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| ▲ | MomsAVoxell a day ago | parent | prev [-] | | >lash out indiscriminately Discrimination is a fallacious argument, if this is indeed an Iranian action, since Iran has been the target of a great number of indiscriminate attacks from the NATO bloc, including cyber attacks on its own food systems, also. >Iran's strategy I'm curious how you learn of Iran's strategy? | | |
| ▲ | bawolff a day ago | parent [-] | | "lash out indiscriminately" is a criticism of their strategy. Not an argument over if it is ethical or who deserves what. Going all, two wrongs make a right, misses the point. We aren't debating who is right but if iran's actions are likely to lead to them winning. | | |
| ▲ | MomsAVoxell a day ago | parent [-] | | If it were a lash, it would not be necessarily targeting specific infrastructure, no? Indiscriminately - I suppose you mean "not attacking only military targets" - well I don't mean it from ethical stance, but rather the nature of tit for tat warfare, which is what this is. >winning Yeah, lost me there. | | |
| ▲ | bawolff 21 hours ago | parent [-] | | > I suppose you mean "not attacking only military targets" I don't. I think it is extremely clear in context that that is not what was meant I mean, i also do think they are doing that too, and it seems like most experts agree that their use of cluster munitions over populated counts as indiscriminate in the sense of international law, but that is not the sense of indiscriminate that was being used in the comments above. |
|
|
|
|