3/4/2026 at 1:08:50 PM
Setting aside any considerations on our side: for this war (or really any war), it's worth turning the chessboard around to look at things from your adversary's perspective as much as possible.If you're the Iranian regime, the world is a hostile place. You're surrounded by enemies and potential enemies. In your time of crisis, the friends you thought you had are acting like they don't know you. The situation is one of existential threat. A future reality with your head on a pike is a very real possibility. You don't exactly have many options here, so maybe you play the only move you can make. It's a risky one, but it's at least bold and will be effectuating.
Interestingly, this move also attacks your real enemy: the globalized market. Iran would do well for itself in a world of 1926; in 2026, there's going to be friction.
In a sense, they're not fighting the US/Israel. They're fighting our datacenters. I'm sure the strategy for this conflict was vibe-planned to a large extent. A hyper-conservative regime like this will probably fare (at least in the long run) about as well as you would if you decide to nope out of society and go live in a Hobbesian state of nature in your local park. That might work for awhile, but eventually, the system will come for you. And that's just neutrality. Pick a fight with capital, and you'll always lose.
by bm3719
3/4/2026 at 1:21:34 PM
Yes this is pretty much my read as well. You can debate the morality or pragmatism of this war (or any war) but fundamentally there is no winning against global Capital. The US, some other country, are just vectors for larger forces.Which IMO is why attempting to combat that from the outside is probably fruitless, and a better route is to try and gain control from the inside. Iran (or Russia, for that matter) would be dominant forces if they were integrated with their neighbors. Imagine Russia inside the EU – they'd have as much/more influence than Germany.
But they're outside, increasingly isolated, and thus open to erosion, whether in a hostile war like today's, or just by being outcompeted and culturally left behind.
by keiferski
3/4/2026 at 1:31:47 PM
This old clip comes to mind: https://youtu.be/ZVYqB0uTKlEby wavemode
3/4/2026 at 10:10:23 PM
Some would say Russia is very much inside the US and somewhat inside the EU through its proxies (currently govts of Hungary and Slovakia, quite possibly in the future - France and Germany).by geoka9
3/4/2026 at 1:19:57 PM
Iran is on “death ground” as Sarah Paine would say. It’s a TERRIBLE idea to put your enemy on death ground because all they can do is fight now. We’re going to keep bombing them until there’s nothing left. Iran is going to end up looking like Afghanistan (a broken country of small feudal states) at the end of this.Edit: By Iran, I'm referring to what's left of the current Iranian administration and military, not the entirety of the Iranian people.
by vrosas
3/4/2026 at 1:34:43 PM
You’re overlooking the fundamental difference between Iranian society and Afghan society. In Afghanistan, the U.S. was trying to bomb a place that was always a collection of small feudal states into being a functioning country. In Iran, it’s trying to dislodge a theocracy that’s taken over a country that’s had orderly, centralized administration for almost two thousand years.I wouldn’t bet on either approach working. But a good outcome in Afghanistan was always completely hopeless. A good outcome in Iran is merely unlikely.
by rayiner
3/5/2026 at 1:59:28 AM
> In Iran, it’s trying to dislodge a theocracy that’s taken over a country that’s had orderly, centralized administration for almost two thousand years.You don't actually know anything about Iran's history, do you. Sure, back in the pre-Islamic days, Persia had two empires that pretty much set the standard for "centralized administration". After Arab invasion, it's a mixed record. The Safavid's (possibly) can be considered a "centrally administered" kingdom. To wit, Reza Shah Pahlavi's feather in his cap was that he managed to (finally after centuries) put the various provincial grandees and nomadic tribes in a box. That's basically 100 years.
A good primer background (on modern Iran at least) is "Iranian Nationalism" by Richard Cottam, 1963.
by yubblegum
3/4/2026 at 2:32:05 PM
I agree with you that Afghanistan is a much different country. My fear is that once the entire centralized theocracy is bombed out of existence it will open the door for localize warlords to begin carving up territory. The alternative is a Khamenei 2.0 character stepping in. But then the question is, will Israel/the US not just assassinate them too? I don't know but there's no way this ends well.by vrosas
3/4/2026 at 2:40:37 PM
I hate the idea of nation building. But I’ve long thought that if there was any Muslim country where we could pull off the feat we did in Germany and Japan—turning it into a stable democracy—it’s Iran. But that would take boots on the ground, which I don’t support. (I don’t support the assassination either to be clear.)by rayiner
3/4/2026 at 10:49:26 PM
> where we could pull off the feat we did in GermanyGermany was already a democracy just 12 years prior and has been a loose union of constitutional monarchies for a century before. Just saying.
by 1718627440
3/5/2026 at 3:35:30 AM
That’s my point. Germany already had a developed state with burgeoning democratic government. So it wasn’t a tall order to reboot it as a stable democracy. Japan likewise had already developed a modern state under Emperor Meiji.by rayiner
3/4/2026 at 8:54:00 PM
> But a good outcome in Afghanistan was always completely hopeless.I was with you up until this. Just wanted to point out that a "good outcome" is relative and not necessarily synonymous with a centralised state.
by AlecSchueler
3/5/2026 at 5:24:43 AM
I am sure they are trying to "dislodge theocracy". We know USA and Israel are always hypertruthful about their real goals in Middle eastern adventurism. One country "doesn't" have any nukes and the other attacked Iraq because they "had" nukes. So tou should understand if different people have different levels of trust in the stated motivations.by donkeybeer
3/5/2026 at 2:42:06 PM
The objective of the mission is clearly to dislodge the theocracy. The motivation for doing so is clearly US and Israeli security, not concern for the welfare of Iranians. Which is as it should be. Countries should act in their own interest, not in the interests of other countries.by rayiner
3/5/2026 at 3:29:52 PM
The objective is bs, most probably oil and Israeli interests. After all there have been many stated "objectives" of all their past middle eastern campaigns. I literally cited an example where false lie of nukes was used to invade Iraq while the actual country lying about nukes sits scot free and is again directing another misadventure. If the USA hated theocracies so much it won't be allying with arab countries or have been propping up the "Mujahideen".by donkeybeer
3/5/2026 at 9:08:53 AM
> We know USA and Israel are always hypertruthful about their real goals in Middle eastern adventurism.Really? Has they talk about bombing a school due to incorrect intel, over 150 are dead with lot of being children. https://news.un.org/en/story/2026/03/1167063
by nerdyadventurer
3/5/2026 at 9:31:28 AM
Please read my message again.by donkeybeer
3/4/2026 at 1:29:43 PM
No, this isn't what Paine means by death ground. Paine used that to refer to Soviet citizens/soldiers that knew they would be erased/eliminated if they lost. The Iranians don't think that their opponents want to eliminate their entire civilization.by keiferski
3/4/2026 at 1:32:24 PM
[flagged]by malfist
3/4/2026 at 1:47:01 PM
> Have you seen the Islamophobia in the westPeople in the west who talk about “Islamophobia” are often just ignorant about what Muslim countries themselves do to control political Islam. In my home country, where Islam is the official religion, the government banned Islam-associated parties until recently and went around killing Islamists without due process. In majority-Muslim Turkey, political Islam was suppressed—e.g. hijabs were banned until Erdogan came to power. Singapore bans the hijab for certain civil servants. None of that is “Islamophobia”—it’s an effort to make sure that what happened in Iran doesn’t happen in their country.
by rayiner
3/4/2026 at 2:01:17 PM
We talk about Mosques shooting, women and girls wearing the hijab attacked/assaulted in the streets (being a woman in the streets after the sun is down always is a risk, if you're wearing anything Muslim-looking, you multiply that risk,), and a lot of aggression here.by orwin
3/4/2026 at 2:22:04 PM
The shah of Iran heavily suppressed Islam as well…and It led directly to the Islamic revolution. Suppression of normal political and religious expression leads to more extremists, not less.When i talk about Islamophobia, I think about the time when my mom was run off the road by a couple of guys in a truck yelling slurs, or the woman who was stabbed walking home from our mosque, or the bulletholes in our mosque windows, or the weekly bomb/death threats.
You wield your ethnicity like a bludgeon to “win” these types of arguments but you are quite remote from the actual experience of others who look like you.
by oa335
3/4/2026 at 2:35:54 PM
[flagged]by rayiner
3/4/2026 at 9:42:33 PM
[flagged]by UncleMeat
3/4/2026 at 11:14:17 PM
You understand that Egypt is a Muslim country and El Sisi is a Muslim, right? This is a discussion about what moderate Muslims must do in countries like Egypt and Bangladesh to keep their countries from ending up like Iran.by rayiner
3/5/2026 at 5:29:04 AM
Of course but Iran or Egypt pose no threat to me. I'd believe you if you said it was more urgent to do the same to christians in the USA and west.by donkeybeer
3/5/2026 at 1:48:47 PM
That comparison is ignorant. We’re not talking about Mitt Romney, okay? We’re talking about a hypothetical where polygamists overthrow the government of Utah, stone Mitt Romney to death, and threaten to do the same in Idaho. That’s the equivalent of what happened in Iran, what happened in Egypt recently, and the threat across the Muslim world.The last time we faced a similar risk from Christianity, it resulted in a military occupation of Utah: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CF3UqUH6y-M&vl=en. If that was happening now, we’d be having a serious conversation about military responses to “political Christianity.” But it’s not.
by rayiner
3/5/2026 at 2:24:08 PM
> We’re talking about a hypothetical where polygamists overthrow the government of Utah, stone Mitt Romney to death, and threaten to do the same in Idaho.I’m morbidly interested in hearing your rationalizations, if any, for the Jan 6th protests.
by oa335
3/5/2026 at 2:08:04 PM
Christian psychos are already at the forefront of the government, its not the end, its barely even the beginning of their insanity. And this batch doesn't yet need to engage in militantism, because...the entire government apparatus is already there for doing their bidding, but that's hardly any reason to see they aren't escalating with their insanity. I mean, Israel itself has even more of religious extremism in their government and society than present day America.All of that is also quite irrelevant to the fact that Iran wasn't attacking the USA or Israel, Israel and America attacked them unprovoked while making a pretense of negotiating peace deals with them. I hate religion and I hate theocracies, while these are shitty countries they haven't been shitty to me, only to their internal populace. Iran also isn't the country that "doesn't have" nukes and refuses to get their nuclear facilities inspected. There is only one country in the middle east that does. Iran is far more trustworthy in the nuclear department than Israel. Israel, if it hadn't already shown how much of a reprobate traitorous liar they already are, shows yet another iteration of their old colors to the new generation. The same Israel that did the USS Liberty and so on.
edit: Holy shit and to say nothing of the reports coming that soldiers are being told this is a Holy war for Armageddon. That's literal theocratic extremism right under our noses.
by donkeybeer
3/4/2026 at 1:54:42 PM
[flagged]by malfist
3/4/2026 at 2:14:33 PM
It’s not even remotely similar. We’re talking about countries where (almost) everyone is Muslim and Muslims control the political system, police, etc. Moderate Muslims who can’t reasonably be accused of “Islamophobia” understand that political Islam is a danger and often take extreme measures to keep it in check.Projecting American racial politics onto other countries is an extremely bad (and bizarrely ethnocentric) way to try to understand how the world works.
by rayiner
3/4/2026 at 6:39:05 PM
[flagged]by giraffe_lady
3/4/2026 at 7:54:29 PM
[flagged]by rayiner
3/4/2026 at 8:18:44 PM
[flagged]by giraffe_lady
3/4/2026 at 10:59:21 PM
Cultural relativism is a liberal concept; orthogonal to socialism/communism.by rayiner
3/4/2026 at 9:41:23 PM
Welcome to rayiner's posts. You'll see weird stuff on race too.by UncleMeat
3/4/2026 at 10:48:28 PM
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46885305 - He believes only property owners should be allowed to vote, and would explicitly disenfranchise the majority of US citizens.https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45945758 - He dismisses someone who opposed a fascist dictatorship as being "antisocial" and says she was harming society by opposing said dictatorship. The most generous interpretation of that position is a tacit, rather than explicit, endorsement of fascism.
He's got some strange views, indeed.
by Jtsummers
3/4/2026 at 11:23:00 PM
[flagged]by rayiner
3/5/2026 at 1:18:19 AM
[flagged]by Jtsummers
3/5/2026 at 1:42:40 AM
* * *by rayiner
3/5/2026 at 2:06:53 AM
> America’s poor history education strikes again.I like how full of assumptions you are. You were educated in US public schools, weren't you?
by Jtsummers
3/5/2026 at 2:33:34 AM
I was, but my dad was active in politics in a third world country, and worked in international development. Also, I still have family in Bangladesh so I can watch third-world people overthrowing their government again in real time on Facebook. My views on democracy and culture are directly borrowed from my dad’s crushing disillusionment with third world people and their attempts at running a democracy.If I had to rely on my American K-12 education I’d be completely unprepared to understand what life is like for the majority of the world that wasn’t born on “socio-cultural third base.”
by rayiner
3/5/2026 at 10:50:17 AM
You seem unprepared to understand what life is like for the majority of the worldby owebmaster
3/4/2026 at 10:24:53 PM
It's wild how much karma someone has who looks like all they do is post ragebait racist takes.by malfist
3/4/2026 at 10:27:37 PM
It is good proof the mods lie about moderation though. Regardless of what you think of this particular user, I’ve seen dang jump down even long time user’s throats for much less.by butterbomb
3/5/2026 at 1:47:50 AM
I’m on the naughty list because I pushed back on nonsense like he posts and also questioned dang’s moderating ability as a result. Blatant sexism and racism are perfectly fine here as long as it’s “polite”. Pushing back on people spouting it will get you a timeout and a lecture.by tstrimple
3/4/2026 at 1:33:53 PM
Sure, those things exist, but let's not pretend that modern war is remotely comparable to the Eastern Front of WW2.by keiferski
3/4/2026 at 6:02:04 PM
I can't help but think the 'death to America' chants going away plus the end of Iranian funding for Islamic terror/Islamic based violence will help fight Islamophobic perceptions in the US. My entire life it's seemed like a very visible section of Islam wanted my country/the West destroyed which by extension has influenced my opinion of Islam. I think a secular Iran is going to improve the perception of Islam in the West. I feel like the US and Iran have been at low level war my entire life and that Iran by their actions/words have felt the same.by _DeadFred_
3/4/2026 at 8:56:08 PM
> I can't help but think the 'death to America' chants going awayWith the recent actions of the US you can bet those chants won't go away for a long time.
by AlecSchueler
3/5/2026 at 7:49:11 PM
Were they ever going away before? Like I said this has been going on my entire life. It has shaped my worldview, especially in relation to Islam.by _DeadFred_
3/5/2026 at 1:50:16 AM
The bombings will continue until sentiment about the USA improves.by tstrimple
3/4/2026 at 9:27:20 PM
And you think assassinating their leaders in an unjustified war and bombing school children and infrastructure will bring about those changes?by malfist
3/4/2026 at 10:31:50 PM
Who knows. This is all pointless idiocy extending from again what I feel has been Iran waging low level war against my country my entire life. I hate it all. What did Iran think would be the outcome if their attempt to assassinate Trump would have succeeded?https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2026/03/03/trump-ass...
At this point Iran has killed/maimed/injured civilians in many of their neighboring countries for no purpose:
https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2026/3/1/us-israel-attacks-on...
and sadly Iranian schoolgirls have long been the victims of this low level war the Islamic theocracy has been waging in the name of Islam/Islamic morals:
https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/news/2023/12/iran-security...
https://www.amnestyusa.org/press-releases/child-detainees-in...
by _DeadFred_
3/5/2026 at 5:30:22 AM
>What did Iran think would be the outcome if their attempt to assassinate Trump would have succeeded?Most probably mass celebrations on the streets of America.
by donkeybeer
3/4/2026 at 1:21:22 PM
Or, here me out, you could just leave and go home. But I suppose that's unthinkable.by RobertoG
3/4/2026 at 6:07:45 PM
> Iran is going to end up looking like Afghanistan (a broken country of small feudal states) at the end of this.Soooo, lateral move from 1999 with the benefit of the theocratic regime that rules over those states having a bit of hindsight this time and being keenly aware that they ought not to let themselves be exploited puppet or proxy for larger international conflict? I'm not saying Afghanistan on track to be a shining beacon of modernity in an otherwise backwards region but things are looking pretty up for them and I wish them the best.
An equivalent for Iran would be what? Next guy shows up in charge, promises a few token reforms. Bombs stop falling, protestors go home, business as usual resumes but with a little more normalcy toward the rest of the world.
by cucumber3732842
3/4/2026 at 1:17:51 PM
> A hyper-conservative regime like this will probably fare (at least in the long run) about as well as you would if you decide to nope out of society and go live in a Hobbesian state of nature in your local park.Sounds more like the Taliban than Iran's ex-leadership.
Pete Hegseth is hyper-conservative too. Actually all three of the main combatants are hardline religious groups.
by davedx
3/4/2026 at 1:43:43 PM
> Pete Hegseth is hyper-conservative too. Actually all three of the main combatants are hardline religious groups.You get downvoted for saying something that's true, and it's not even a defense of the Irani theocratic dictatorship.
Namely: at least some of the support for the war (and for Israel) in the US is religiously motivated. Religious as in "fundamentalist". This doesn't make the US a theocracy, but it does mean many of the decision makers are making decisions based at least partly on Christian fundamentalist doctrine.
There are already some reports [1] of US troops complaining they are being told they've embarked on a mission from God. It boggles the mind.
> "One complainant, identified as a noncommissioned officer (NCO) in a unit that could be deployed “at any moment to join” operations against Iran, told MRFF in a complaint viewed by the Guardian that their commander had “urged us to tell our troops that this was ‘all part of God’s divine plan’ and he specifically referenced numerous citations out of the Book of Revelation referring to Armageddon and the imminent return of Jesus Christ”
> "“He said that ‘President Trump has been anointed by Jesus to light the signal fire in Iran to cause Armageddon and mark his return to Earth’”, the NCO added."
(This was just one report of many).
[1] https://www.theguardian.com/world/2026/mar/03/us-israel-iran...
Edit: wow, downvotes for quoting a mainstream newspaper with evidence that US policy is at least influenced by Christian fundamentalists, and this without any real argument to counter this, just drive-by downvoting? Sheesh, is this what passes for debate in HN?
by the_af
3/4/2026 at 6:54:22 PM
That would explain his May 2025 Tweet that "nothing can stop what is coming"
by dingaling
3/5/2026 at 5:14:07 AM
Iran had to be bombed just in time for the Jewish Purim, in the month of Ramadan.by freathinker102
3/4/2026 at 2:02:19 PM
Now this is all conspiracy theory, but it's food for thought.The USA's media strategy appears to be aimed at Christian Zionism to justify involvement in Israel's regional affairs. There are many influential Christian Zionists in government and politics in the US. Ted Cruz comes to mind as one outspoken example.
If you subscribe to these beliefs, all of this is perfectly rational, that this war is a signal of the end times, that the faithful should not shrink before the fight, the return of the Christ and millennium of peace are within reach.
There has also been conspiratorial speculation that one of the goals of this war is to incite antisemitism in the United States, to spur the return of the diaspora in America to the Holy Land. Israel needs bodies, if they are to realize the Greater Israel Project. Now this is all conspiracy theory, but it's food for thought.
by engineer_22
3/5/2026 at 1:52:47 AM
Not sure why it would be considered a conspiracy theory when they told the troops that’s why they are doing it.https://www.military.com/daily-news/2026/03/03/military-offi...
by tstrimple
3/5/2026 at 2:35:36 AM
Thanks for providing another link. I quoted The Guardian (a mainstream newspaper, whatever you may think of it) mentioning this same source, and got downvoted for it. Oh well.by the_af
3/4/2026 at 4:52:33 PM
There are not many Christian zionists in decision making positions in the US. You’ve named 1 person and how much power does Cruz actually have. The powerful are non Christian zionists. That much is blatantly obvious. Kushner, Witkoff, Lutnick, the entourage around Epstein, most of the cabinet of the current (non Christian president), most of the cabinet of the prior (catholic so non dispensationalist) former president. The media itself, which is used to manufacture consent is filled with, owned by and answers to non Christian zionists. Get a clue.by learingsci
3/4/2026 at 8:43:30 PM
the people currently making decisions may not be christian but are certainly beholden to christian zionist, their largest voting bloc are reactionary suburban white evangelicalsby throwaway-11-1
3/5/2026 at 4:25:08 PM
Absurd. There are very few Christian zionists amongst Christians, and a dwindling number of Christians overall, most especially in the suburbs. Christian zionists are almost entirely poor uneducated (hence their misreading of scripture) rural southerners who have effectively zero political power outside very small regional elections where international politics have no relevance.by learingsci
3/4/2026 at 1:33:41 PM
They're fighting our datacenters. (...) A hyper-conservative regime like this will probably fare (at least in the long run) about as well as you would if you decide to nope out of society
It is important to at least look at things as they are, and not through the prism of orientalism.
Iran's regime is socially conservative. But so is the current US government. There is no sign that they are anti-technology or isolationist.
by zorked
3/4/2026 at 2:05:58 PM
I agree, that's why they lasted as long as they did. It's a strategy that works, but only for awhile. They tried to use the apparatuses of global capital without fully integrating within it. That makes them an exteriority from the perspective of the market.In the end, that (plus their essential resource flows) only make them a more viable candidate for expansion of capital's machinic assemblage. The force of the market hasn't colonized all of the Earth yet; it yet has many peripheries. There's plenty of room for expansion in, say, central Africa. It'll get there eventually, but right now its focus is elsewhere. The assemblage will always weigh the costs/benefits, then select the next best space to expand into. That's what it's doing here. The goal is to convert some of its surplus value into ingesting a bit of its frontier, and make of it its own.
by bm3719
3/4/2026 at 1:33:32 PM
> well for itself in a world of 1926The explanation is here: https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Seyed-Hosseini-23/publi...
Population grew from 1950 at 20+million to today 80+million; every country quadrupling the population would collapse?
by KellyCriterion
3/4/2026 at 1:19:26 PM
Iran is firmly sided with China and Russia. China buys all their oil and doesn't want to see US/Israel expand their reach. They are very likely to support Iran.On their end, Iran has been preparing for exactly this for decades. If anything, the complexity of the globalized market means more weak points to strike. Which in 2026 is cheap and easy with swarms of drones. Meanwhile, the US is still carrying out precision attacks with expensive ordnance which they have limited supplies of.
TL;DR: Capital might very well lose this one.
by wossab
3/4/2026 at 1:24:13 PM
> On their end, Iran has been preparing for exactly this for decadesGiven the 12 day war and now, it doesn't seem like they are putting much of a fight. The US air superiority has completely done them, it'd seem.
> Iran is firmly sided with China and Russia.
Doesn't seem like those two will move an inch.
by ignoramous
3/4/2026 at 1:37:09 PM
You should sprinkle in a few other news sources because that’s not what is happening at all.Iran also has further escalation paths it can take. So far, they have only been targeting US-affiliated targets in the Gulf. You can imagine what would happen if they decide to expand their target list. But I think this will only happen if GCC countries decide to participate.
by Cyph0n
3/4/2026 at 1:50:29 PM
Which sources do you suggest?Everything I've read suggests the US and Israel are stomping all over Iran, and have destroyed their air force, navy, and even anti-air defenses.
I know these news are necessarily biased (e.g. do we know for a fact the three F-15E Strike Eagles were really downed by Kuwaiti friendly fire and none were downed by Iran?), but the chance of credible news of Iran putting up any real resistance is very, very slim.
by the_af
3/4/2026 at 2:06:16 PM
Iran has been sanctioned for decades. As a result, they do not have a modern airforce, navy, or even air defense systems. So it is completely unsurprising that USIS has complete air superiority. You can rest assured that Iran has planned for this.Their entire defense strategy post-war (Iran-Iraq war) has been centered around ballistic missiles. More recently, they “pioneered” the use of kamikaze drones (Shahed) and included their use in their strategy. Note that they have aggressively optimized Shahed when it comes to cost, ease of manufacturing, and ease of launch. Shahed drones have seen extensive combat usage in the Ukraine war.
The other “hint” when it comes to Iran’s response is the increasing estimates by the US as to how long this “operation” will last. Initially, it was a few days. Now they are saying 4-5 weeks. Edit: Looks like it could up to 8 weeks..
Long story short, until we start to see significant degradation in launches - both missiles and drones - we simply cannot say that Iran has been defeated.
As far as news sources go, the easy recommendation is Al Jazeera. Twitter/X is also decent, but there is a ton of noise.
by Cyph0n
3/5/2026 at 12:10:32 AM
Wouldn't we expect AJE to be pretty biased in this situation? I was thinking something from Europe or Asia (SCMP) might have less skin in the game.by abandonliberty
3/5/2026 at 1:07:07 AM
It is biased - interestingly less than expected on this topic because Iran is shelling them - but the idea is to read something to counteract Western bias. Asian outlets (non-Japanese) are another good source.by Cyph0n
3/4/2026 at 11:29:33 PM
Even US own war games against an unspecified country in the region went extreme badly for them, long before drones were a thing.by Hikikomori
3/4/2026 at 1:32:45 PM
Russia isn't moving for obvious reasons (I don't think IRGC planners even expected them to move, Putin has made it clear a 100 times he is out of anything involving Israel). But that said Putin arguably did his job already by destroying Patriot stocks and thus putting US on a timeline in terms of protection.With China the issue is different: They have a completely different military ecosystem so it's not like they can send them their own stuff. We already saw in Ukraine that running 2 types of equipment along each other is a pain in the ass and strains logistics. China is likely aiding them with satellite imagery instead.
by mamonster
3/4/2026 at 1:39:20 PM
I think China will sit this one out. There's nothing to gain for them with direct involvement.Any assistance to Iran (like satellite imagery) will have limited effect, and the Chinese know it. In my opinion, there's no way the Islamic Republic survives this. For any rational international actor, there's no sense in becoming involved in a lost fight.
by the_af
3/4/2026 at 1:50:58 PM
> In my opinion, there's no way the Islamic Republic survives this.But what if the Islamic Republic isn't a material thing, it isn't a government apparatus, it is actually the ideas and culture of a population under siege? 50-60 million Persians, and another 30-40 million muslims of other ethnicities. They have been embargoed for decades, the message that the US and Israel are evil has seeped into every corner of society there. It will not be so simple to erase that programming and you can expect a large portion of the population to resist to the bitter end. It's been over 20 years of planning to bring the USA to this point, 20 years because it was never a sure bet, and even today it's still not clear who wins. No, I think 4 days in it's too early to call winners and losers.
by engineer_22
3/4/2026 at 1:54:18 PM
[flagged]by bdangubic
3/4/2026 at 1:42:49 PM
> The US air superiority has completely done them, it'd seem.They're managing to successfully counterattack with strikes in every country in the region, while the bulk of their central leadership has been KIA. They still control the Strait of Hormuz and very intense naval, land, and air operations will be required to dislodge them.
If this war was started with the goal of the complete destruction of Iran, ground troops will have to go in (President Trump et. al. is already in the media telegraphing the requirement). Iran is a mountain fortress, and the home team (pop. 91 million) holds advantage. This has the potential to become and long and bloody war.
by engineer_22
3/4/2026 at 4:43:23 PM
I think people in the US are seriously discounting this. The only thing that Iranian forces have to do is keep lobbing drones. You don't need leadership, heavy industry, or even a lot of drones as long as you keep lobbing them.It takes very little for them to keep disrupting things which affect the global economy.
Even if leadership changes at the top and isn't killed, why would independent cells of fighters stop?
I think there's a huge possibility that Iran can keep being disruptive longer than the US is willing to spend $$$$$ bombing and intercepting.
by mekdoonggi
3/4/2026 at 7:07:35 PM
One nuance here is where that $$$$ actually goes. The US has a history of diverting a staggering amount of money to the war companies every 2 decades or so. The spend here might be the goal, not the cost.by collingreen
3/4/2026 at 6:55:05 PM
Well, they've managed to launch and land strikes on every country in the region. "Successful counterattack" is a considerably higher bar than that, IMHO.by AnimalMuppet
3/4/2026 at 7:19:40 PM
What use is that quibble?Everyone agrees the United States and Israel have inflicted more damage than the Iranians have in reverse. That's not an interesting point.
More interesting is the Iranian strategy moving forward, since our insight into their world is restricted.
by engineer_22
3/4/2026 at 1:34:13 PM
I don't see it.Russia has their hands full with Ukraine and has failed in the past to protect other allies such as Syria.
China seems wise enough to provide some support to Iran while sitting out of direct involvement in the war. China has everything to lose with war and nothing to gain. If anything, they are signaling "stability" to the Global South -- something from which the US is increasingly drifting away -- and war is the opposite of stability.
> Meanwhile, the US is still carrying out precision attacks with expensive ordnance which they have limited supplies of.
I think they have more than enough, plus Iran faces an even worse situation. Limited stockpiles of their only effective weapons, missiles and drones, and quickly running out. What's worse, by not using those weapons in huge salvoes, they reduce their efficiency... they only work if they can overcome defenses, but if they spend them too fast they lose their only effective weapon.
I think the Islamic Republic will be overthrown, but this requires boots on the ground, and it'll become a quagmire like Iraq or Afghanistan. At some point the US will declare success and leave, and from the ashes of Iran countless warring factions will emerge, an endless insurgency, and possibly the next ISIS. We've seen this happen more than once, no reason to believe this will go a different way.
Russia and China cannot stop this.
Edit: rather than downvotes, I prefer debate. Be better, HN. I realize this is difficult in times of war involving the country where the majority of HN hails from, but I trust you can do it. Engage in rational debate please.
by the_af
3/4/2026 at 10:16:10 PM
> In a sense, they're not fighting the US/Israel. They're fighting our datacenters.LOL. Sorry, this is silly. Do you really think that Iran hates data centers?
The best scenario for Trump is to make this a limited war that nobody even notices outside of Iran's borders. He wants to announce to Americans "see? We did what we wanted and it was over in a few days, you barely noticed it".
While the nightmare scenario is to end up bogged down in a long drawn war with global repercussions, inflation, market crashes or even boots on the ground for months and years.
Iran can't win a military confrontation with the US, but it can make it so expensive that the US will decide to back off. These are strategic attacks, their form of "second strike". Raising the price of an attack on them, exactly as a nuclear armed country would retaliate on cities and not on military bases.
by throw310822
3/4/2026 at 7:00:11 PM
>If you're the Iranian regime, the world is a hostile place.And so is being Israel with Iran right there with Hezbollah, Hamas etc... Incredibly biased comment.
How many here are commies living in USA suburbs or thirdies?
by heraldgeezer
3/4/2026 at 7:13:53 PM
> And so is being Israel with Iran right there with Hezbollah, Hamas etc... Incredibly biased comment.How would it help any of us, to imagine ourselves being an alternate reality version of the Iranian leadership who in turn are imagining themselves being the Israeli leadership?
In order to guess what Iran does next, all we have to do is the first step, to imagine ourselves in the Iranian position, not to hypothesise about a much more competent Iranian leadership than actually exists which had the empathy needed to put itself in anyone else's position rather than call Israel and the USA un-metaphorically the big and little Satan.
by ben_w