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 41 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]