Pointlessness of this war aside, I fail to see how the situation is materially different than it was prior to the war begining.
Iran has generally been an active and persistant threat for many US firms long before this war began, and I have a hard time thinking they have had the restraint and the resources to collect together an arsenal of zero-day exploits they have yet to unleash.
To me, this just reads as empty threats intended more for the potential economic fear it can produce.
Iran has always lacked an ability to project power at a distance.
Outside of sympathetic lone operators, there really isnt much to suggest they can do anything more than ramp up rhetoric and calls for violence.
The reason why I call it empty threats is because it accomplishes its goal no matter the outcome.
If a sympathetic lone operator uses this as an excuse to start shooting, they can claim the credit. But if all it does is stoke fear that "Something somewhere might happen" then it's still a win for them.
> Iran has always lacked an ability to project power at a distance.
Sure. Now they maybe able to reach Greece. Give them five years and they will develop missiles that can reach France, or even UK. I am sure europeans would love the idea of fanatical regime having arms that can reach them, especially, if we consider that EU today does not have very robust air defense. Even Israel that planned for this war for a while has rockets that penetrate their defenses.
I would prefer the politicians not to take those gambles.
"Iran has always lacked an ability to project power at a distance"
I'm curious what you're basing this on, since Iran has been supplying Russia with drones, etc. for much of the war in Ukraine and so far has launched attacks into Jordan, Iraq, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, Qatar, the United Arab Emirates, Oman, and Cyprus since the US began its attacks.
Iran may not be able to strike at sites in the US, but it could certainly target data centers in the Middle East with some hope of success. I'm not at all confident the current administration has accurately assessed Iran's capabilities or has the ability to protect the assets of US-based companies (or US citizens) in that region.
Your post is extremely misleading. Shipping drones in a box or whatever they are doing so Russians can use them is completely different from what we mean by projecting power. In many cases the Russians are actually manufacturing the drones themselves based off the Iranian plan. That's not anything like the USA's power projection, where B2s can takeoff in Missouri, bomb Iran and come home without ever landing or even being shot at. I mean it's just not even close.
Launching attacks and having "some hope of success" is weak. And that's what Iran is and has always been, weak.
Yes they launch attacks. Most of these fail. They have nowhere near the level of lethality, precision, force projection and penetration of Israel or the United States.
When are Americans going to learn nationstates and some radical blowing themselves up are two different things. You don't stop the latter by blowing up the former. History has always shown in fact that doing that makes the latter problem worse.
It would be pretty dangerous to attribute such a thing (if it ever happened) to Iran without concrete evidence. Some stateside lone wolf nut might claim to be acting on behalf of Iran, but it doesn't make it true. It's pretty easy in America for anyone to get a gun and attempt a murder. It doesn't mean any government provided any meaningful capability, nor should we believe so until confronted with strong evidence.
Apparently the FBI recently stymied a plot that involved using drones deployed from offshore vessels targeting california. As to what that vessel might be, a submarine, a missile cruiser, a civilian vessel knowing or not, a container on a ship, the report left no indication.
Either way the target is tempting. Japan attempted it using the technology of their time which was entirely unguided. Today drones are precision instruments vs random dart balloon bombs.
And the evidence of this plot and Iranian involvement is what?
A quick Google search yielded nothing in that regard... honestly it just doesn't sound that credible in an age where increasingly anyone can say anything. Why believe such a claim without evidence? Because it was the FBI that said it?
There are tempting targets all over the place. Like in the Middle East itself that Iran can barely hit. Their defenses and their leaders are being blown to smithereens. But you want me to believe they might have a submarine off the coast of California?
China and/or Russia might have a collection of zero-days they've been sitting on, which they could surreptitiously provide to Iran. Of course, there's attribution risk there, and the opportunity cost of not saving those zero-days for their own later use.
It seems kind of unlikey to me. Cyber attacks are unlikely to meaningfully change the result of the war, so it would kind of just be a waste from the china/russia perspective. They so far havent lifted a finger to do anything for iran that wasn't free for them, so i doubt they would waste exploits on this.
This is not a pointless war. You may not like Trump or Bibi, but geopolitics-wise this war make perfect sense on many levels.
First, it limits China's ability to hoard cheep oil as Iran has to sell its oil with a discount due to being sanctioned. China hoards oil as it plans to attack Taiwan and it understands that there will be sanctions on oil trade. So, to minimize the shock on its economy China hoards oil. [1]
Second, Iran is the reason why Gulf states are surrounded by instability: Houthis, armed and funded by IR, in Yemen make Saudis and UAE uneasy. Iraqi militias funded and armed by IR as well sabotage internal politics of Iraq the same way Hizballah destabilizes Lebanon. No one in the Gulf (except Qatar maybe, up until recently) wanted strong IR. These countries and their peace is essential for US and the world economy.
Third, if IR gets nukes, most of the Gulf nations would want nukes too. They already see themselves surrounded by IR-funded militias. We do not need more nukes, we need less nukes in the world. And I have no idea how people simply ignore the fact that IR already has 400+kg of 60%-encriched uranium. Why if not for bombs?
So yeah, geopolitics-wise this war makes perfect sense. Islamic Republic is major destabilizing factor in the region, and this war attempts to resolve it.
Why the current admin cannot articulate it clearly, idk.
I call it pointless because I and many other Americans have been told these things before.
We are always in a constant "Red Queen's Race" with other nations as a means of establishing dominance.
We subsidize allies like Israel with billions of dollars that have never been allocated by our congress, and which only serve to subsidize the healthcare of Israeli citizens while we continue to have nothing of the sorts.
"Bro, just trust me Iran is SO CLOSE!" for the past 40 years is not convincing us that this war has any benefit to us.
Americans are already on the hook for trillions of dollars in debt we cannot pay as a country, and now we want to continue exploding the deficit to the tune of $1 Billion per day.
Its existential threat after existential threat with no consideration to the actual troubles americans are facing in the here and now. Its just endless wars with no end in sight. Outside of manufacturing consent on behalf of Israel, posts such as yours seem highly dedicated to trying to convince nobody aside from the wealthy few Americans with international holdings.
> I call it pointless because I and many other Americans have been told these things before. We are always in a constant "Red Queen's Race" with other nations as a means of establishing dominance.
Well, if it's not the US, then someone else will. So, it can be US then.
> We subsidize allies like Israel with billions of dollars that have never been allocated by our congress, and which only serve to subsidize the healthcare of Israeli citizens while we continue to have nothing of the sorts.
Aid to Israel is basically giving them weapons for free, i.e., paying US-based companies. I have no idea how did you jump from weapons to subsidizing Israel's healthcare.
> "Bro, just trust me Iran is SO CLOSE!" for the past 40 years is not convincing us that this war has any benefit to us.
What is the purpose of having 60%-enriched uranium if not for bombs? If Iran has 60%-enriched uranium today, it means that they did start to work on it 10s of years ago. So, these people who said it were right.
I am not sure why you advocate for the spread of nuclear weapons, especially with regimes that are known to spread instability in the region.
> Americans are already on the hook for trillions of dollars in debt we cannot pay as a country, and now we want to continue exploding the deficit to the tune of $1 Billion per day.
This is a valid issue, and it has to be resolved. However, it has nothing to do with the war. With this war, or without, the debt is a structural problem of US politics. So far, for the past 20 years, everyone just kicks the can down the road.
> Outside of manufacturing consent on behalf of Israel, posts such as yours seem highly dedicated to trying to convince us that this isnt a pointless war from the American perspective.
It is absolutely not a pointless war. If this war is won, it secures long-term peace in the region, which will absolutely benefit the US. I have no idea why you think that having a regime that funds most of the terror groups in the regions, and spreads instability is good for the US.
Indeed. Remember this is the same regime that was insisting their leader was alive and about to make a speech when he had been dead for hours in the opening strikes of the conflict. They said they would sink American aircraft carriers if attacked. Meanwhile, the American president went on TV and stated they've blown through so many layers of leadership they are not sure who they could even reach out to.
Iran can clearly barely defend itself. The idea they will suddenly pull off something meaningful now strains credulity.
Weird of you to neglect to mention the hundreds of dead Iranians, including not only many civilians on their own soil but also layers of the Iranian leadership. Including of course the assassination of the supreme leader. I'm not saying his death is a bad thing. But that would be the most "materially different" part of this time vs "business as usual".
The other reason this is relevant is because it might lead one to reasonably conclude Iranian options for retaliation have already been exhausted.
If they have some capability in reserve what are they waiting for?
> I have a hard time thinking they have had the restraint and the resources to collect together an arsenal of zero-day exploits they have yet to unleash
The semi-official IRGC account warns of attacks on offices and infrastructure of US & Israeli firms in the ME with drones and missiles, not zero-days.
In a just world many people would go the gallows for the decades of harm the US has inflicted on Iran for basically no reason whatsoever other than to benefit oil companies.
We overthrew their democratically elected government to install the Shah as a puppet dictator because the British goaded us into it by hand-waving about "communism" after Iran nationalized their own oil reserves from the Anglo-Iranian Company (which became BP). What followed was a brutal era of repression where American companies took a slice of oil revenue.
Once this became untenable, another of our puppets, Saddam Hussein, ejected the future Ayatollah Khomenei from Iraq in 1978. Why? Because we wanted the religious fundamentalists to win instead of the communists, which might bring Iran into the Soviet sphere of influence.
we then propped up a decade of war with Iraq by supplying Iraq with weapons. More than a million people died.
Iran has weathered decades of sanctions, which is a fancy way of saying "we're going to starve you and deny your citizens basic medical care". The death toll for this is also likely in the millions.
We've let our rabid attack dog in the region, Israel, bomb Iranian consulates (eg Damascus), assassinate scientists, diplomators and negotiators, bomb them with impunity and otherwise commit regular war crimes.
We've gone to war for no other reason than Israel wants Iran to be a fail-state because it threatens the Greater Israel project [1]. It's clear that there was no military planning in any of this or, more likely, military planners probably said "this is a bad idea, we can't win" and they were ignored.
Iran continued complying with the JCPOA for at least a year after Trump cancelled it at the behest of Sheldon Adelson [2].
All of this while Saudi Arabia, our "ally", provided material suport to the 9/11 hijackers [3]. Our attack dog spies on us. A lot eg Jonathon Pollard [4]. And Jeffrey Epstein was almost certainly a Mossad access asset that compromised every level of our government, our companies and our educational institutions.
We are the bad guys here and I hope one day Iran gets some justice for the harm we've inflicted upon it.
> Iran has weathered decades of sanctions, which is a fancy way of saying "we're going to starve you and deny your citizens basic medical care". The death toll for this is also likely in the millions.
Hi, I think millions is a drastic overstatement here which undermines the rest of your (often legitimate) claims.
Also Israel seems to have fairly normal relations with many countries in the region, the difference seems to be they are "countries not publicly calling for the destruction of Israel".
Which "millions"? There's a lot to choose from. Oh, for context, John Mearscheimer puts the estimate on those killed by US sanctions (across all countries we've done this to) at 38 million [1].
I always have to bring up the sanctions on Iraq after Saddam was no longer our puppet. A Un report in the mid-1990s claimed US sanctions had killed 500,000 Iraqi children. Then UN ambassador and later Secretary of State Madeline Albright responded by saying "the price was wroth it" [2].
As for the Iran-Iraq war, there are many estimates of the total deaths (across both sides) exceeding a million eg [3].
It's only pointless as long as you ignore their legitimate attempts of building nukes. If you don't want them to have nukes, then military action is the only way to stop them unfortunately. Because if/once they do get a nuke, it'll be impossible to stop them after that, and they'll hold the entire middle east hostage, so might as well do everything you can to prevent that before it happens, now that Russia is too busy to lend them a hand.
>Iran has generally been an active and persistant threat for many US firms long before this war began
I doubt this. Iran's leadership, like any dictatorship, just wants to be left alone to subjugate its people and enjoy the masses of wealth and power they have. When you're in such a privileged but fragile position, you don't go around poking the hornet's nest looking to start a fight with the biggest military in the world, because it would mean your end.
But Iran will probably retaliate now that they got attacked. OR, it will be a false flag to justify boots on the ground. IDK.
They held most of gaza hostage, blocking their access to international waters off gaza's own coast, based on the actions of a much smaller subset of those people. That seems about the most classical example of holding hostage as it gets.
I think if Israel believes that weapons can be smuggled via sea, which is reasonable given the smuggling via Sinai and Rafah crossing, then they took the rational step of mitigation this risk.
"I doubt this. Iran's leadership, like any dictatorship, just wants to be left alone to subjugate its people and enjoy the masses of wealth and power they have."
So ... that is why they only cared about themself and did not involve with Iraq, Lebanon, Syria, Yemen, ..
> It's only pointless as long as you ignore their legitimate attempts of building nukes. If you don't want them to have nukes, then military action is the only way to stop them unfortunately. Because if/once they do get a nuke, it'll be impossible to stop them after that, and they'll hold the entire middle east hostage so might as well do everything you can to prevent that before it happens.
Obama had a perfectly good deal in place with Iran before Trump fucked it all up. Military action was not the only way to stop them.
>Obama had a perfectly good deal in place with Iran before Trump fucked it all up.
What makes you think the Iranian regime is trustworthy to actually respect that deal and not just continue building nukes on the side while using diplomacy to string everyone along that they aren't?
You know who else had a deal? Ukraine. Did that deal stop them from being attacked by Russia? Can you stop a military invasion by waving the piece of paper with the deal in the enemy's face? Because that's why nukes are the best insurance policy over deals and why Iran desperately wants them.
How can people be so gullible to blindly trust Iran's word thinking a deal means anything?
The two deals you mention are not at all comparable.
Ukraine's deal was vague promises with vague consequences, which of course materialized into zero ability to stop a land invasion.
The Iranian deal before its destruction was very much concerned with safeguarding against any attempt to "potentially circumvent" and gave auditors alot of freedom to investigate without obstruction.
Your partisan posting in regards to the notion of the war being pointless indicate that you're coming more from a place of emotion than logic. I can empathize, but strongly caution that its important we discuss the facts of arguments rather than gesturing that all but you fail to see the light.
> What makes you think the Iranian regime is trustworthy
I don't think anyone believes the Iranian regime has ever been trustworthy. Probably why part of Obama's deal included inspections, surveillance, and monitoring.
Obama’s deal specifically excluded surprise inspections (often referred to as "Anywhere, Anytime"). So, if you are trying to hide something, and you know that the inspection is coming, you will succeed.
You're right, but neglect to mention that infrastructure necessary to enrich uranium is not something so easily squirrled away and hidden while also dealing with radioactive isotopes.
It was a treaty, many concessions existed to ensure both parties were comfortable with the arrangement. But that does not at all suggest that the agreement didnt account for foul play on either side.
It was an incredibly solid diplomatic option employed for several years, during which the perpetual "months away from nuclear weapons" rhetoric never proved well-founded.
Iran's existance is perpetually an existential threat when the only alternative to diplomacy is its total destruction at the expense of American and Iranian lives.
> You're right, but neglect to mention that infrastructure necessary to enrich uranium is not something so easily squirrled away and hidden while also dealing with radioactive isotopes.
But Iran did violate the agreement. The agreement was not just between the US and Iran, it had other parties as well. Yet, when US withdrew, Iran immediately violated it. Why? If they had no goal to pursue military-grade enrichment, why violate the agreement?
Biden's admin did not resume the agreement as well due to those violations by Iran.
I see this agreement as failure for the reason that it did not prevent in a structural way Iran from acquiring enriched material, with or without violations.
> Iran's existance is perpetually an existential threat when the only alternative to diplomacy is its total destruction at the expense of American and Iranian lives.
I do not believe that Iran is interested in diplomacy at all. They were never interested in diplomacy. Why did they fund all these groups around the Middle East if IR is so peaceful?
The "legitimate attempts of building nukes" as claimed by the same folks who, ~9 months ago said "Iran's nuclear facilities have been obliterated, and suggestions otherwise are fake news" (https://www.whitehouse.gov/articles/2025/06/irans-nuclear-fa...).
>They've been claiming Iran is about to destroy Israel every 6 months for the past 40 years too
Remember STUXNET? Have you thought for a second that maybe if their centrifuges and nuclear facilities weren't constantly attacked and sabotaged by US and Israel every step of the way for the past few decades, plus having their top nuclear scientists assassinated every now and then, they could have had nukes a long time ago when those warnings were issued without those constant roadblocks setting them back?
So the administration lied and Iran‘s nuclear capabilities weren’t “completely obliterated” back in June, and saying otherwise isn’t “fake news”?
It can’t be both ways. Either way the administration is lying, so I just don’t trust any of the reasons given for the current conflict.
The sad part is this is exactly what Trump and his administration, as well as the larger Republican Party, have wanted for years. My inherent distrust of every government action until I see overwhelming evidence to the contrary.
The moment IR gets nukes, Saudis and all the other countries around them will get nukes as well.
I don’t understand why everyone is so hell bent on not preventing the spread of nuclear weapons. We have enough of this crap already, and the last thing we need is more nukes.
I think you're missing the crux of the point: why is anything the Trump administration says taken at face value? They have no commitment to the truth, whatsoever.
If Iran was on the path to developing nukes, the correct path here was to:
1. Show the evidence to congress, and declare war legally based on the facts.
2. Get international buy-in, and work with our allies (all of whom would very much like to prevent Iran from procuring a nuclear weapon).
This was a hastily started war with flimsy goals and seemingly no real urgency. And one of the first things we did as part of our attack was to bomb an elementary school, killing hundreds of children.
Critics of this war aren't "hell bent on not preventing the spread of nuclear weapons". We're mostly looking at the situation, and thinking "this is not great".
> I think you're missing the crux of the point: why is anything the Trump administration says taken at face value? They have no commitment to the truth, whatsoever.
No, I am not. It has nothing to do with Trump his abilities to speak only truth or always lie.
Pretty sure if they were capable of that then they would just do it instead of threatening to do it. Nobody in the middle of an existential war threatens to attack more - they just attack with everything they've got.
After all, they already bombed an AWS data center in 2 countries who were not participating in the war.
"Nobody in the middle of an existential war threatens to attack more - they just attack with everything they've got."
That sounds like a poor strategy. Expend all of your resources in one grand gesture rather than trying to push your enemy's internal factions to curtail or end the fighting?
Unlike the current US administration, Iran is playing a long game - one in which it has been isolated in many ways. Indiscriminate attacks on civilian targets is not going to win it many friends; putting pressure on the tech companies that have been buddying up to the administration and may have some sway, on the other hand, is a cheap strategy that could pay off. Iran understands that the only language that seems to matter with Trump's backers is profit; threaten that and you may have some success.
The fact that Iran has already done some damage to AWS data centers makes it seem likely they could do so again if they tried. I don't know for certain, I'm not a military intelligence expert, but the strategy of "throw the kitchen sink at it" seems like a sure loser.
I guess i should say, nobody holds back out of being nice. If they hold back its because of some strategic benefit, such as rationing the weapons for the long haul.
What is the strategic benefit here of not attacking? The warning is unlikely to change us behaviour by itself, at most it might just get america more on alert.
> Iran is playing a long game
Doesn't seem like it. Attacking semi-neutral gulf states and mining the strait are desperation moves. They are things that sacrafice the long term but you still do them because if you dont fix the short term there won't be a long term.
> Indiscriminate attacks on civilian targets is not going to win it many friends
Which has played out in practise... part of the reason why the usa is getting such limited push back internationally (basically just some strongly worded letters) is nobody really like iran because of how they have conducted themselves historically.
They have had no issue with fairly indiscriminate attacks so far in this war, i doubt they are going to start now.
> The fact that Iran has already done some damage to AWS data centers makes it seem likely they could do so again if they tried.
The threat here seemed to be cyberattacks and/or physical attacks on US based infrastructure.
Nobody doubts that iran can fire drones/missiles at their next door neighbour (although some reason to doubt they can keep it up). Attacks on us soil and/or cyberattacks are a different story.
> Pretty sure if they were capable of that then they would just do it instead of threatening to do it
They warned about hitting the oil infrastructure first. Then they did it. This is the same. They are warning so that the civilian personnel will be withdrawn from the targets and measures will be taken. Then they will strike them.
If I were an opponent of the U.S., my short-list of companies to threaten (regardless of ability to carry through) would be the list of donors to Trump's ballroom. In Trump's febrile mind, only chumps pay taxes but there is some care for the people currently handing him money that's his to spend as he wishes.
Not surprisingly, pretty much every company mentioned in this article is on that list.
This is an interesting issue: what constitutes a valid military target?
Traditionally that meant armed forces, their bases, their supplies and so on. But the line has gotten awful blurry. Tech companies have become entwined with the state and are fundamnetal parts of both domestic and foreign policy. Targeting of military strikes is an obvious example [1][2].
I believe that in the very least these companies have risen to the level of defense contractors so Palantir is at least as valid of a target as Lockheed Martin, Northrop Grumman or Boeing. Is that sufficiently valid? I don't know.
But I don't think you can plead ignorance about what your tech platform is being used for, particularly if you're Palantir. You are helping a military force kill people and are deciding which people. You can't wash your hands of that.
> Traditionally that meant armed forces, their bases, their supplies and so on.
That definition actually isn't traditional, it's recent and was created due to what was seen in both the World Wars last century. Fire bombing Dresden? Not a legitimate military target by modern definitions (parts of Dresden perhaps, but not the way the attack was conducted). The rockets fired at the UK by the Germans almost blindly? Not legitimate by today's standard.
Prior to the Geneva Convention, there was much less debate about legitimacy, it was just done.
> This is an interesting issue: what constitutes a valid military target?
Any form of supply chain was considered a valid military target, e.g., refineries, factories, assembly lines, etc. If an army relies on tech from, say a cloud provider via gov cloud, then it can be argued that disrupting cloud operations and thus hindering army's coordination, information collection, etc., is a valid target.
Like if you take over a control system to open a dam, sure i'd buy that as counting. But say ddos'ing a website? Its hard for me to picture that as counting as an armed attack.
> Traditionally that meant armed forces, their bases, their supplies and so on. But the line has gotten awful blurry. Tech companies have become entwined with the state and are fundamnetal parts of both domestic and foreign policy. Targeting of military strikes is an obvious example
The idea of having private companies form part of your defense industrial base isn't new. I would assume the same rules apply to tech companies contributing as a factory making dual use products for the war effort would.
It depends on the target of the cyberattack. Depending on who, what and when it'll be somewhere between a criminal action, a terrorist attack and a military action.
If you take down a power grid, that's pretty much a terrorist attack. The victims are likely heavily weighted to be civilians. Same for opening a dam to flood downstream.
But take the military radar installations the Iranians have bombed on military bases around the region since the US and Israel started this war. What if the Iranians had cyberattacked those same installations? I'd call that a military action. I'd even consider it less of an escalation than, say, blowing up a consulate in Damascus.
Targeting industrial and economic assets (factories, ports, telecommunications infrastructure, etc.) has always been legitimate. If tech makes an effective contribution to military action, which includes much more innocuous stuff than major defense contracts, it's a valid target.
> This is an interesting issue: what constitutes a valid military target?
I can tell you what's not and then why it's important to know what's not...
The islamist ruling Iran are already using cluster bombs and these are banned in 120 countries because they indiscriminately target civilians: cluster bombs killing civilians aren't aiming at "valid military targets".
Note that the same islamist regime also sent its guards into hospitals to finish the wounded. They killed 30 000+ of their own civilians a few weeks ago. Killing 30 000+ unarmed civilians is not a valid military target.
And the regime in Iran applauded loudly, like in nearly every country ruled by sharia law, when 1200 young people were having fun at a music festival on Oct 7th and considered it an "act of resistance". Killing 1200 young people dancing and enjoying life ain't a "valid military target".
We've now established that the Islamic Republic of Iran won't hesitate to target civilians and shall celebrate the "resistance" when thousands of civilians (including but not limited to their own) are killed.
So, no matter whether the targets are valid or not, nothing they say about the validity of the targets they pick should be taken into account: they're murderers slaughtering and celebrating the slaughter of civilians.
The warning is a way to get companies to apply pressure to their governments. The attacks that follow (if they follow) will demonstrate that this was serious. They've already hit airports, hotels, ships, and US military bases so there's no reason to think that a corporate office in the region is safe when the US military isn't able to block all the attacks against its own facilities.
The belief in "72 virgins" (not 52) is not a common belief amongst Muslim men. It's basically a Western misconception, likely inspired by a specific translation of Osama bin Laden's 1996 manifesto.
> and from there they can grind on for decades with no victory to anyone.
I see that as unlikely, at most they might try to temporarily secure the edges of the strait of hormuz with ground troops. Which is far a different scenario than operating 500 FOBs, huge airbases, and a giant greenzones in major cities like Iraq/Afghanistan or even Vietnam.
I don't expect this administration to care about the Iranian people when it comes down to it, which is the only scenario they'd ever commit to something like that. They will likely only care about American objectives like destroying their navy/combat capabilities and make some deal with an IRGC leader to let them save face for an exit.
Pointlessness of this war aside, I fail to see how the situation is materially different than it was prior to the war begining.
Iran has generally been an active and persistant threat for many US firms long before this war began, and I have a hard time thinking they have had the restraint and the resources to collect together an arsenal of zero-day exploits they have yet to unleash. To me, this just reads as empty threats intended more for the potential economic fear it can produce.
I assumed this meant bombing or shooting up tech firm headquarters, outpost, and targeting higher level managers and execs.
They were always hacking all the time.
Iran has always lacked an ability to project power at a distance. Outside of sympathetic lone operators, there really isnt much to suggest they can do anything more than ramp up rhetoric and calls for violence.
The reason why I call it empty threats is because it accomplishes its goal no matter the outcome. If a sympathetic lone operator uses this as an excuse to start shooting, they can claim the credit. But if all it does is stoke fear that "Something somewhere might happen" then it's still a win for them.
> Iran has always lacked an ability to project power at a distance.
Sure. Now they maybe able to reach Greece. Give them five years and they will develop missiles that can reach France, or even UK. I am sure europeans would love the idea of fanatical regime having arms that can reach them, especially, if we consider that EU today does not have very robust air defense. Even Israel that planned for this war for a while has rockets that penetrate their defenses.
I would prefer the politicians not to take those gambles.
"Iran has always lacked an ability to project power at a distance"
I'm curious what you're basing this on, since Iran has been supplying Russia with drones, etc. for much of the war in Ukraine and so far has launched attacks into Jordan, Iraq, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, Qatar, the United Arab Emirates, Oman, and Cyprus since the US began its attacks.
Iran may not be able to strike at sites in the US, but it could certainly target data centers in the Middle East with some hope of success. I'm not at all confident the current administration has accurately assessed Iran's capabilities or has the ability to protect the assets of US-based companies (or US citizens) in that region.
Your post is extremely misleading. Shipping drones in a box or whatever they are doing so Russians can use them is completely different from what we mean by projecting power. In many cases the Russians are actually manufacturing the drones themselves based off the Iranian plan. That's not anything like the USA's power projection, where B2s can takeoff in Missouri, bomb Iran and come home without ever landing or even being shot at. I mean it's just not even close.
Launching attacks and having "some hope of success" is weak. And that's what Iran is and has always been, weak.
Yes they launch attacks. Most of these fail. They have nowhere near the level of lethality, precision, force projection and penetration of Israel or the United States.
When are Americans going to learn nationstates and some radical blowing themselves up are two different things. You don't stop the latter by blowing up the former. History has always shown in fact that doing that makes the latter problem worse.
It would be pretty dangerous to attribute such a thing (if it ever happened) to Iran without concrete evidence. Some stateside lone wolf nut might claim to be acting on behalf of Iran, but it doesn't make it true. It's pretty easy in America for anyone to get a gun and attempt a murder. It doesn't mean any government provided any meaningful capability, nor should we believe so until confronted with strong evidence.
Apparently the FBI recently stymied a plot that involved using drones deployed from offshore vessels targeting california. As to what that vessel might be, a submarine, a missile cruiser, a civilian vessel knowing or not, a container on a ship, the report left no indication.
Either way the target is tempting. Japan attempted it using the technology of their time which was entirely unguided. Today drones are precision instruments vs random dart balloon bombs.
And the evidence of this plot and Iranian involvement is what?
A quick Google search yielded nothing in that regard... honestly it just doesn't sound that credible in an age where increasingly anyone can say anything. Why believe such a claim without evidence? Because it was the FBI that said it?
There are tempting targets all over the place. Like in the Middle East itself that Iran can barely hit. Their defenses and their leaders are being blown to smithereens. But you want me to believe they might have a submarine off the coast of California?
China and/or Russia might have a collection of zero-days they've been sitting on, which they could surreptitiously provide to Iran. Of course, there's attribution risk there, and the opportunity cost of not saving those zero-days for their own later use.
It seems kind of unlikey to me. Cyber attacks are unlikely to meaningfully change the result of the war, so it would kind of just be a waste from the china/russia perspective. They so far havent lifted a finger to do anything for iran that wasn't free for them, so i doubt they would waste exploits on this.
> Pointlessness of this war aside
This is not a pointless war. You may not like Trump or Bibi, but geopolitics-wise this war make perfect sense on many levels.
First, it limits China's ability to hoard cheep oil as Iran has to sell its oil with a discount due to being sanctioned. China hoards oil as it plans to attack Taiwan and it understands that there will be sanctions on oil trade. So, to minimize the shock on its economy China hoards oil. [1]
Second, Iran is the reason why Gulf states are surrounded by instability: Houthis, armed and funded by IR, in Yemen make Saudis and UAE uneasy. Iraqi militias funded and armed by IR as well sabotage internal politics of Iraq the same way Hizballah destabilizes Lebanon. No one in the Gulf (except Qatar maybe, up until recently) wanted strong IR. These countries and their peace is essential for US and the world economy.
Third, if IR gets nukes, most of the Gulf nations would want nukes too. They already see themselves surrounded by IR-funded militias. We do not need more nukes, we need less nukes in the world. And I have no idea how people simply ignore the fact that IR already has 400+kg of 60%-encriched uranium. Why if not for bombs?
So yeah, geopolitics-wise this war makes perfect sense. Islamic Republic is major destabilizing factor in the region, and this war attempts to resolve it.
Why the current admin cannot articulate it clearly, idk.
[1] https://jkempenergy.com/2026/02/15/chinas-oil-stocks-and-rea...
I call it pointless because I and many other Americans have been told these things before. We are always in a constant "Red Queen's Race" with other nations as a means of establishing dominance. We subsidize allies like Israel with billions of dollars that have never been allocated by our congress, and which only serve to subsidize the healthcare of Israeli citizens while we continue to have nothing of the sorts.
"Bro, just trust me Iran is SO CLOSE!" for the past 40 years is not convincing us that this war has any benefit to us. Americans are already on the hook for trillions of dollars in debt we cannot pay as a country, and now we want to continue exploding the deficit to the tune of $1 Billion per day. Its existential threat after existential threat with no consideration to the actual troubles americans are facing in the here and now. Its just endless wars with no end in sight. Outside of manufacturing consent on behalf of Israel, posts such as yours seem highly dedicated to trying to convince nobody aside from the wealthy few Americans with international holdings.
> I call it pointless because I and many other Americans have been told these things before. We are always in a constant "Red Queen's Race" with other nations as a means of establishing dominance.
Well, if it's not the US, then someone else will. So, it can be US then.
> We subsidize allies like Israel with billions of dollars that have never been allocated by our congress, and which only serve to subsidize the healthcare of Israeli citizens while we continue to have nothing of the sorts.
Aid to Israel is basically giving them weapons for free, i.e., paying US-based companies. I have no idea how did you jump from weapons to subsidizing Israel's healthcare.
> "Bro, just trust me Iran is SO CLOSE!" for the past 40 years is not convincing us that this war has any benefit to us.
What is the purpose of having 60%-enriched uranium if not for bombs? If Iran has 60%-enriched uranium today, it means that they did start to work on it 10s of years ago. So, these people who said it were right.
I am not sure why you advocate for the spread of nuclear weapons, especially with regimes that are known to spread instability in the region.
> Americans are already on the hook for trillions of dollars in debt we cannot pay as a country, and now we want to continue exploding the deficit to the tune of $1 Billion per day.
This is a valid issue, and it has to be resolved. However, it has nothing to do with the war. With this war, or without, the debt is a structural problem of US politics. So far, for the past 20 years, everyone just kicks the can down the road.
> Outside of manufacturing consent on behalf of Israel, posts such as yours seem highly dedicated to trying to convince us that this isnt a pointless war from the American perspective.
It is absolutely not a pointless war. If this war is won, it secures long-term peace in the region, which will absolutely benefit the US. I have no idea why you think that having a regime that funds most of the terror groups in the regions, and spreads instability is good for the US.
>"but geopolitics-wise this war make perfect sense"
For the US - maybe, assuming they do not get bloody nose at some point.
Everyone is on IT infosec thin and slippery ice.
Taunting someone else on the ice is a bad idea.
As is giving anyone reason to want you to plunge to your icy death, rather than to merely fall gently on your butt.
Prior to the war beginning there was a higher percentage of discussion of the Epstein Files.
Indeed. Remember this is the same regime that was insisting their leader was alive and about to make a speech when he had been dead for hours in the opening strikes of the conflict. They said they would sink American aircraft carriers if attacked. Meanwhile, the American president went on TV and stated they've blown through so many layers of leadership they are not sure who they could even reach out to.
Iran can clearly barely defend itself. The idea they will suddenly pull off something meaningful now strains credulity.
Sleeper cells are probably a bigger risk than zero days.
You really don’t see how the situation is materially different? The bombed oil fields, hotels, dead American soldiers - all business as usual?
Weird of you to neglect to mention the hundreds of dead Iranians, including not only many civilians on their own soil but also layers of the Iranian leadership. Including of course the assassination of the supreme leader. I'm not saying his death is a bad thing. But that would be the most "materially different" part of this time vs "business as usual".
The other reason this is relevant is because it might lead one to reasonably conclude Iranian options for retaliation have already been exhausted.
If they have some capability in reserve what are they waiting for?
> I have a hard time thinking they have had the restraint and the resources to collect together an arsenal of zero-day exploits they have yet to unleash
The semi-official IRGC account warns of attacks on offices and infrastructure of US & Israeli firms in the ME with drones and missiles, not zero-days.
In a just world many people would go the gallows for the decades of harm the US has inflicted on Iran for basically no reason whatsoever other than to benefit oil companies.
We overthrew their democratically elected government to install the Shah as a puppet dictator because the British goaded us into it by hand-waving about "communism" after Iran nationalized their own oil reserves from the Anglo-Iranian Company (which became BP). What followed was a brutal era of repression where American companies took a slice of oil revenue.
Once this became untenable, another of our puppets, Saddam Hussein, ejected the future Ayatollah Khomenei from Iraq in 1978. Why? Because we wanted the religious fundamentalists to win instead of the communists, which might bring Iran into the Soviet sphere of influence.
we then propped up a decade of war with Iraq by supplying Iraq with weapons. More than a million people died.
Iran has weathered decades of sanctions, which is a fancy way of saying "we're going to starve you and deny your citizens basic medical care". The death toll for this is also likely in the millions.
We've let our rabid attack dog in the region, Israel, bomb Iranian consulates (eg Damascus), assassinate scientists, diplomators and negotiators, bomb them with impunity and otherwise commit regular war crimes.
We've gone to war for no other reason than Israel wants Iran to be a fail-state because it threatens the Greater Israel project [1]. It's clear that there was no military planning in any of this or, more likely, military planners probably said "this is a bad idea, we can't win" and they were ignored.
Iran continued complying with the JCPOA for at least a year after Trump cancelled it at the behest of Sheldon Adelson [2].
All of this while Saudi Arabia, our "ally", provided material suport to the 9/11 hijackers [3]. Our attack dog spies on us. A lot eg Jonathon Pollard [4]. And Jeffrey Epstein was almost certainly a Mossad access asset that compromised every level of our government, our companies and our educational institutions.
We are the bad guys here and I hope one day Iran gets some justice for the harm we've inflicted upon it.
[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greater_Israel
[2]: https://fpif.org/these-three-billionaires-paved-way-for-trum...
[3]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alleged_Saudi_role_in_the_Sept...
[4]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jonathan_Pollard
> Iran has weathered decades of sanctions, which is a fancy way of saying "we're going to starve you and deny your citizens basic medical care". The death toll for this is also likely in the millions.
Hi, I think millions is a drastic overstatement here which undermines the rest of your (often legitimate) claims.
Also Israel seems to have fairly normal relations with many countries in the region, the difference seems to be they are "countries not publicly calling for the destruction of Israel".
Which "millions"? There's a lot to choose from. Oh, for context, John Mearscheimer puts the estimate on those killed by US sanctions (across all countries we've done this to) at 38 million [1].
I always have to bring up the sanctions on Iraq after Saddam was no longer our puppet. A Un report in the mid-1990s claimed US sanctions had killed 500,000 Iraqi children. Then UN ambassador and later Secretary of State Madeline Albright responded by saying "the price was wroth it" [2].
As for the Iran-Iraq war, there are many estimates of the total deaths (across both sides) exceeding a million eg [3].
[1]: https://www.tiktok.com/@trtworld/video/7615994489991122194
[2]: https://www.youtube.com/shorts/1T5JRVR53Eo
[3]: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2010/sep/23/iran-iraq-war-...
All right except for calling Israel the US' rabid attack dog. It's the other way around, quite clearly.
>Pointlessness of this war aside
It's only pointless as long as you ignore their legitimate attempts of building nukes. If you don't want them to have nukes, then military action is the only way to stop them unfortunately. Because if/once they do get a nuke, it'll be impossible to stop them after that, and they'll hold the entire middle east hostage, so might as well do everything you can to prevent that before it happens, now that Russia is too busy to lend them a hand.
>Iran has generally been an active and persistant threat for many US firms long before this war began
I doubt this. Iran's leadership, like any dictatorship, just wants to be left alone to subjugate its people and enjoy the masses of wealth and power they have. When you're in such a privileged but fragile position, you don't go around poking the hornet's nest looking to start a fight with the biggest military in the world, because it would mean your end.
But Iran will probably retaliate now that they got attacked. OR, it will be a false flag to justify boots on the ground. IDK.
> Because if/once they do get a nuke, it'll be impossible to stop them after that, and they'll hold the entire middle east hostage
Like Israel?
Holding hostages has never been part of Israel's playbook, it's always been very much part of Iran's.
They held most of gaza hostage, blocking their access to international waters off gaza's own coast, based on the actions of a much smaller subset of those people. That seems about the most classical example of holding hostage as it gets.
> based on the actions of a much smaller subset of those people.
Interesting way to describe the government the people of Gaza.
If Palestinians launch the rockets from Gaza to Israel, why should Israel to continue their trade with them? This is counterintuitive.
Who says Israel should trade to them? I completely agree with Israel's right of shutting off Israeli borders and trade with Gaza
I'm talking about motion from Gazan waters to directly adjacent international waters, none of which involves touching anything sovereign to Israel.
I think if Israel believes that weapons can be smuggled via sea, which is reasonable given the smuggling via Sinai and Rafah crossing, then they took the rational step of mitigation this risk.
[flagged]
"I doubt this. Iran's leadership, like any dictatorship, just wants to be left alone to subjugate its people and enjoy the masses of wealth and power they have."
So ... that is why they only cared about themself and did not involve with Iraq, Lebanon, Syria, Yemen, ..
> It's only pointless as long as you ignore their legitimate attempts of building nukes. If you don't want them to have nukes, then military action is the only way to stop them unfortunately. Because if/once they do get a nuke, it'll be impossible to stop them after that, and they'll hold the entire middle east hostage so might as well do everything you can to prevent that before it happens.
Obama had a perfectly good deal in place with Iran before Trump fucked it all up. Military action was not the only way to stop them.
>Obama had a perfectly good deal in place with Iran before Trump fucked it all up.
What makes you think the Iranian regime is trustworthy to actually respect that deal and not just continue building nukes on the side while using diplomacy to string everyone along that they aren't?
You know who else had a deal? Ukraine. Did that deal stop them from being attacked by Russia? Can you stop a military invasion by waving the piece of paper with the deal in the enemy's face? Because that's why nukes are the best insurance policy over deals and why Iran desperately wants them.
How can people be so gullible to blindly trust Iran's word thinking a deal means anything?
The two deals you mention are not at all comparable.
Ukraine's deal was vague promises with vague consequences, which of course materialized into zero ability to stop a land invasion.
The Iranian deal before its destruction was very much concerned with safeguarding against any attempt to "potentially circumvent" and gave auditors alot of freedom to investigate without obstruction.
Your partisan posting in regards to the notion of the war being pointless indicate that you're coming more from a place of emotion than logic. I can empathize, but strongly caution that its important we discuss the facts of arguments rather than gesturing that all but you fail to see the light.
> What makes you think the Iranian regime is trustworthy
I don't think anyone believes the Iranian regime has ever been trustworthy. Probably why part of Obama's deal included inspections, surveillance, and monitoring.
Obama’s deal specifically excluded surprise inspections (often referred to as "Anywhere, Anytime"). So, if you are trying to hide something, and you know that the inspection is coming, you will succeed.
You're right, but neglect to mention that infrastructure necessary to enrich uranium is not something so easily squirrled away and hidden while also dealing with radioactive isotopes.
It was a treaty, many concessions existed to ensure both parties were comfortable with the arrangement. But that does not at all suggest that the agreement didnt account for foul play on either side.
It was an incredibly solid diplomatic option employed for several years, during which the perpetual "months away from nuclear weapons" rhetoric never proved well-founded. Iran's existance is perpetually an existential threat when the only alternative to diplomacy is its total destruction at the expense of American and Iranian lives.
> You're right, but neglect to mention that infrastructure necessary to enrich uranium is not something so easily squirrled away and hidden while also dealing with radioactive isotopes.
But Iran did violate the agreement. The agreement was not just between the US and Iran, it had other parties as well. Yet, when US withdrew, Iran immediately violated it. Why? If they had no goal to pursue military-grade enrichment, why violate the agreement?
Biden's admin did not resume the agreement as well due to those violations by Iran.
I see this agreement as failure for the reason that it did not prevent in a structural way Iran from acquiring enriched material, with or without violations.
> Iran's existance is perpetually an existential threat when the only alternative to diplomacy is its total destruction at the expense of American and Iranian lives.
I do not believe that Iran is interested in diplomacy at all. They were never interested in diplomacy. Why did they fund all these groups around the Middle East if IR is so peaceful?
The "legitimate attempts of building nukes" as claimed by the same folks who, ~9 months ago said "Iran's nuclear facilities have been obliterated, and suggestions otherwise are fake news" (https://www.whitehouse.gov/articles/2025/06/irans-nuclear-fa...).
They've been claiming Iran is about to destroy Israel every 6 months for the past 40 years too
Israel, like the US, needs to be in a permanent state of war to keep the ball moving
>They've been claiming Iran is about to destroy Israel every 6 months for the past 40 years too
Remember STUXNET? Have you thought for a second that maybe if their centrifuges and nuclear facilities weren't constantly attacked and sabotaged by US and Israel every step of the way for the past few decades, plus having their top nuclear scientists assassinated every now and then, they could have had nukes a long time ago when those warnings were issued without those constant roadblocks setting them back?
So the administration lied and Iran‘s nuclear capabilities weren’t “completely obliterated” back in June, and saying otherwise isn’t “fake news”?
It can’t be both ways. Either way the administration is lying, so I just don’t trust any of the reasons given for the current conflict.
The sad part is this is exactly what Trump and his administration, as well as the larger Republican Party, have wanted for years. My inherent distrust of every government action until I see overwhelming evidence to the contrary.
Why does IR need 60% enriched uranium?
The moment IR gets nukes, Saudis and all the other countries around them will get nukes as well.
I don’t understand why everyone is so hell bent on not preventing the spread of nuclear weapons. We have enough of this crap already, and the last thing we need is more nukes.
I think you're missing the crux of the point: why is anything the Trump administration says taken at face value? They have no commitment to the truth, whatsoever.
If Iran was on the path to developing nukes, the correct path here was to:
1. Show the evidence to congress, and declare war legally based on the facts.
2. Get international buy-in, and work with our allies (all of whom would very much like to prevent Iran from procuring a nuclear weapon).
This was a hastily started war with flimsy goals and seemingly no real urgency. And one of the first things we did as part of our attack was to bomb an elementary school, killing hundreds of children.
Critics of this war aren't "hell bent on not preventing the spread of nuclear weapons". We're mostly looking at the situation, and thinking "this is not great".
> I think you're missing the crux of the point: why is anything the Trump administration says taken at face value? They have no commitment to the truth, whatsoever.
No, I am not. It has nothing to do with Trump his abilities to speak only truth or always lie.
IAEA itself reported the 60% figure [1].
[1] https://www.iaea.org/sites/default/files/25/06/gov2025-24.pd...
The nukes they’ve been “days away” from making since like 1992?
The nuclear capacity we bombed “very successfully” months ago?
Having 60% enriched Uranium is about 2 weeks from having a nuke.
Man time dilation will get ya
Yeah, sure.
You can read IAEA report yourself: https://www.iaea.org/sites/default/files/25/06/gov2025-24.pd...
I legitimately thought you were making a joke and that I was doing a yes-and.
Anyway have a good one
Pretty sure if they were capable of that then they would just do it instead of threatening to do it. Nobody in the middle of an existential war threatens to attack more - they just attack with everything they've got.
After all, they already bombed an AWS data center in 2 countries who were not participating in the war.
"Nobody in the middle of an existential war threatens to attack more - they just attack with everything they've got."
That sounds like a poor strategy. Expend all of your resources in one grand gesture rather than trying to push your enemy's internal factions to curtail or end the fighting?
Unlike the current US administration, Iran is playing a long game - one in which it has been isolated in many ways. Indiscriminate attacks on civilian targets is not going to win it many friends; putting pressure on the tech companies that have been buddying up to the administration and may have some sway, on the other hand, is a cheap strategy that could pay off. Iran understands that the only language that seems to matter with Trump's backers is profit; threaten that and you may have some success.
The fact that Iran has already done some damage to AWS data centers makes it seem likely they could do so again if they tried. I don't know for certain, I'm not a military intelligence expert, but the strategy of "throw the kitchen sink at it" seems like a sure loser.
I guess i should say, nobody holds back out of being nice. If they hold back its because of some strategic benefit, such as rationing the weapons for the long haul.
What is the strategic benefit here of not attacking? The warning is unlikely to change us behaviour by itself, at most it might just get america more on alert.
> Iran is playing a long game
Doesn't seem like it. Attacking semi-neutral gulf states and mining the strait are desperation moves. They are things that sacrafice the long term but you still do them because if you dont fix the short term there won't be a long term.
> Indiscriminate attacks on civilian targets is not going to win it many friends
Which has played out in practise... part of the reason why the usa is getting such limited push back internationally (basically just some strongly worded letters) is nobody really like iran because of how they have conducted themselves historically.
They have had no issue with fairly indiscriminate attacks so far in this war, i doubt they are going to start now.
> The fact that Iran has already done some damage to AWS data centers makes it seem likely they could do so again if they tried.
The threat here seemed to be cyberattacks and/or physical attacks on US based infrastructure.
Nobody doubts that iran can fire drones/missiles at their next door neighbour (although some reason to doubt they can keep it up). Attacks on us soil and/or cyberattacks are a different story.
> Pretty sure if they were capable of that then they would just do it instead of threatening to do it
They warned about hitting the oil infrastructure first. Then they did it. This is the same. They are warning so that the civilian personnel will be withdrawn from the targets and measures will be taken. Then they will strike them.
Did iran provide a warning before striking the Ras Tanura oil refining facility? I dont recall seeing that in the news but i might have missed it.
Oh no, Iran, please don't destroy our giant public-private surveillance apparatus!
I've seen another headline today suggesting the UK might drop to a 3-day workweek to conserve fuel.
Like damn, between reduced work-weeks and the prospect of wrecking our government-entwined spyvertising parasites, maybe the war was a good idea...
It is buried way down in the article. Iran issued this statement after us/Israel targeted Iranian banks.
Do they mean the US Tech firms that are already an extension of the state(s) that initiated this conflict and have been terrorizing the world?
Don’t threaten me with a good time.
If I were an opponent of the U.S., my short-list of companies to threaten (regardless of ability to carry through) would be the list of donors to Trump's ballroom. In Trump's febrile mind, only chumps pay taxes but there is some care for the people currently handing him money that's his to spend as he wishes.
Not surprisingly, pretty much every company mentioned in this article is on that list.
Nah it's foolish to think only that it's just Trump war.
This is an interesting issue: what constitutes a valid military target?
Traditionally that meant armed forces, their bases, their supplies and so on. But the line has gotten awful blurry. Tech companies have become entwined with the state and are fundamnetal parts of both domestic and foreign policy. Targeting of military strikes is an obvious example [1][2].
I believe that in the very least these companies have risen to the level of defense contractors so Palantir is at least as valid of a target as Lockheed Martin, Northrop Grumman or Boeing. Is that sufficiently valid? I don't know.
But I don't think you can plead ignorance about what your tech platform is being used for, particularly if you're Palantir. You are helping a military force kill people and are deciding which people. You can't wash your hands of that.
[1]: https://www.972mag.com/lavender-ai-israeli-army-gaza/
[2]: https://www.business-humanrights.org/es/%C3%BAltimas-noticia...
> Traditionally that meant armed forces, their bases, their supplies and so on.
That definition actually isn't traditional, it's recent and was created due to what was seen in both the World Wars last century. Fire bombing Dresden? Not a legitimate military target by modern definitions (parts of Dresden perhaps, but not the way the attack was conducted). The rockets fired at the UK by the Germans almost blindly? Not legitimate by today's standard.
Prior to the Geneva Convention, there was much less debate about legitimacy, it was just done.
> This is an interesting issue: what constitutes a valid military target?
Any form of supply chain was considered a valid military target, e.g., refineries, factories, assembly lines, etc. If an army relies on tech from, say a cloud provider via gov cloud, then it can be argued that disrupting cloud operations and thus hindering army's coordination, information collection, etc., is a valid target.
So, I am not sure there is anything new here.
Is a cyberattack a military action?
Like if you take over a control system to open a dam, sure i'd buy that as counting. But say ddos'ing a website? Its hard for me to picture that as counting as an armed attack.
> Traditionally that meant armed forces, their bases, their supplies and so on. But the line has gotten awful blurry. Tech companies have become entwined with the state and are fundamnetal parts of both domestic and foreign policy. Targeting of military strikes is an obvious example
The idea of having private companies form part of your defense industrial base isn't new. I would assume the same rules apply to tech companies contributing as a factory making dual use products for the war effort would.
It depends on the target of the cyberattack. Depending on who, what and when it'll be somewhere between a criminal action, a terrorist attack and a military action.
If you take down a power grid, that's pretty much a terrorist attack. The victims are likely heavily weighted to be civilians. Same for opening a dam to flood downstream.
But take the military radar installations the Iranians have bombed on military bases around the region since the US and Israel started this war. What if the Iranians had cyberattacked those same installations? I'd call that a military action. I'd even consider it less of an escalation than, say, blowing up a consulate in Damascus.
Targeting industrial and economic assets (factories, ports, telecommunications infrastructure, etc.) has always been legitimate. If tech makes an effective contribution to military action, which includes much more innocuous stuff than major defense contracts, it's a valid target.
> This is an interesting issue: what constitutes a valid military target?
I can tell you what's not and then why it's important to know what's not...
The islamist ruling Iran are already using cluster bombs and these are banned in 120 countries because they indiscriminately target civilians: cluster bombs killing civilians aren't aiming at "valid military targets".
Note that the same islamist regime also sent its guards into hospitals to finish the wounded. They killed 30 000+ of their own civilians a few weeks ago. Killing 30 000+ unarmed civilians is not a valid military target.
And the regime in Iran applauded loudly, like in nearly every country ruled by sharia law, when 1200 young people were having fun at a music festival on Oct 7th and considered it an "act of resistance". Killing 1200 young people dancing and enjoying life ain't a "valid military target".
We've now established that the Islamic Republic of Iran won't hesitate to target civilians and shall celebrate the "resistance" when thousands of civilians (including but not limited to their own) are killed.
So, no matter whether the targets are valid or not, nothing they say about the validity of the targets they pick should be taken into account: they're murderers slaughtering and celebrating the slaughter of civilians.
> This is an interesting issue: what constitutes a valid military target?
Everything that hurts the only thing the orange retard cares about, the stock market, they've been pretty clear about it I think
If they warn, then I doubt they can do it.
If they could do it, they would do it first and brag about it after.
And I say this as someone on team Persia on this conflict.
The warning is a way to get companies to apply pressure to their governments. The attacks that follow (if they follow) will demonstrate that this was serious. They've already hit airports, hotels, ships, and US military bases so there's no reason to think that a corporate office in the region is safe when the US military isn't able to block all the attacks against its own facilities.
what percentage of inference globally happens from datacenters in middle east and israel?
Idk about inference but the bulk of VPN providers you see ads for on every other youtube video are Israeli
[dead]
[flagged]
[flagged]
The belief in "72 virgins" (not 52) is not a common belief amongst Muslim men. It's basically a Western misconception, likely inspired by a specific translation of Osama bin Laden's 1996 manifesto.
[dead]
> and from there they can grind on for decades with no victory to anyone.
I see that as unlikely, at most they might try to temporarily secure the edges of the strait of hormuz with ground troops. Which is far a different scenario than operating 500 FOBs, huge airbases, and a giant greenzones in major cities like Iraq/Afghanistan or even Vietnam.
History is positively littered with examples of powerful empires embarking on a "quick" "easy" campaign then ends up taking years or decades.
I don't expect this administration to care about the Iranian people when it comes down to it, which is the only scenario they'd ever commit to something like that. They will likely only care about American objectives like destroying their navy/combat capabilities and make some deal with an IRGC leader to let them save face for an exit.
I thought it was 72.