I've seen data centers that were built to withstand an aircraft impact (they were located on a major airport flight path). I wonder if they'd rebuild these to that standard or something even stronger, given these attacks. It probably wouldn't help much against ballistic missiles, but it might make it more resilient against drone attacks.
Here's a Google Maps link to BAH53 (Manama), it doesn't look like the hardened data centers I seen (e.g. sloped walls like a bunker): https://maps.app.goo.gl/6DjhQs753p6EHQUu6
> I've seen data centers that were built to withstand an aircraft impact (they were located on a major airport flight path).
AWS/Azure/GCP/etc Colo in Equinix/Telehouse datacentres there, and those Docklands locations in particular were picked based on location to LINX (major London peering/interchange), and LINX was put in Docklands out of desire for relatively proximity to telcos, and London’s banking/finance industry.
The Bunker operates an underground datacentre out of a former military installation. Radar base if memory serves me. That’s definitely hardened from airplane attacks and I believe is used by some hyperscalers.
https://thebunker.net/wp-content/uploads/2026/02/The-Bunker-...
I think the two kinds of attacks are so different that they require different defenses.
Drones need not fly in straight lines. Data centers need ventilation, providing a path for drones. Putting grids in a ventilation shaft will stop the first drone, but a coordinated attack will use one drone to blow up defenses and a second/third/etc one to reach the target
Tell everyone that you have global redundancy and they won't even bother to damage it because it won't help their cause.
Upon checking Sentinel-2 imagery for BAH55 from 2026-03-29 to 2026-04-13 (and all later imagery) there is also visible blast damage to the roof of BAH55, which would correspond in timing to media reports about damage caused about 2026-04-01. Sentinel-2 imagery appears to clarify AWS' claim of "while in Bahrain, a drone strike in close proximity to one of our facilities" to mean a direct impact to the building. However it seems likely from high resolution satellite imagery of BAH55 that the machinery rooms of the building perhaps took most of the damage, perhaps leaving data halls in a better shape elsewhere in the building (but possibly still unusable due to water/smoke damage).
[1] https://browser.dataspace.copernicus.eu/?zoom=17&lat=26.156&...
[2] https://browser.dataspace.copernicus.eu/?zoom=17&lat=26.156&...
So, if the whole of me-south-1 (Bahrain) went down it means at least three buildings many kilometers apart must have been attacked.
[1] https://aws.amazon.com/about-aws/global-infrastructure/regio...
[1] https://www.theguardian.com/world/2026/jul/24/ukraine-wareho...
Russia is already targeting apartment blocks. I doubt they hesitate to attack known factories.
It's not like something being civilian infrastructure is a problem -https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_strikes_against_Ukrain...
What's somebody going to do? Complain to the UN?
Afaik, Europe is not in solidarity on no long range weapons and it's mostly driven by the US who is trying to get out of helping Ukraine. So which countries are given the drones and which countries said no long range attacks?
Russians fire at everything in Ukraine, military and civilian. They'd obviously fire on those factories except they can't find them.
Who cares what the justifications Ukraine uses, they are fighting for their existence against Russian invaders and are not openly targeting civilians.
Ukraine has been pretty openly targeting civilians since 2014 and didn't stop in 2022. It's just (very reasonably) judged differently when one country commits war crimes while aggressively attacking another and when a country crosses that line while defending themselves against a much larger foe.
A rack of 14 $5k servers is worth $70k. A half-pallet stacked two meters high with $50 rubber dicks, each in a 30x10x10 cm box, is worth around $24k, and has the same form factor. There are more expensive servers but there are also more expensive products.
But large data centers would be maybe 10k square meters in one building, while the largest building of the Elektrostal Wildberries warehouse was over 150k sqm.
A datacenter, if successfully and completely burned down, would of course cause disruption (although in a well designed redundant system it shouldn't), but doing so is harder and burning down a major logistics hub causes disruption too.
The warehouse also leaves a hard to deny, widely visible reminder to the population that the war has consequences, in the form of a Moscow-sized smoke cloud: https://worldview.earthdata.nasa.gov/?v=33.290517136221574,5... (plus endless videos of small sellers lamenting their fate).
Unsurprisingly, the people fighting the war know what they’re doing.
> wildberries has been taken over by an oligarch
> a revolution is not just a disorganized uprising on the streets it requires years of planning and support.
[1] "How Every Communist Country in Europe Ended": https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=avTUUizh-sg
Edit: Incidentally news of the original strike was posted on HN 5 months ago and flagged, for whatever reason. Why would it be flagged? https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47317587
This is just one of the popular ones, but there were also tens of posts about it with only 1-10 comments: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47641788
Here’s another popular one: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47632503
The reason it’s not really news this week is because both the Bahrain and the Dubai regions have been effectively non-operational for the last 4 months, so the IRGC saying they destroyed an already-destroyed region is less newsworthy.
Because individual HN users do the flagging and many are tired of the inevitable and pointless Israel v Palestine proxy comment war that predictably erupts on any topic related to the Middle East.
The point is that every random going-on gets used as an excuse to rehash the entire conflict from 1947 onwards, and a lot of people are just not interested in that, and don't consider it relevant to the site.
You comment presumes that either the posted article or the comments are doing in any informing. I contend that neither do, they are both simply writing prompts for partisans.
Your comment also presumes that the entire earth is not already saturated in Israel v Palestine content. You not getting your desired outcome is not evidence that people are uninformed.
Whether they are or are not, you are also sidestepping an even more important question - why must all internet sites cover all topics? There's nothing wrong with any site making clear what topics they want to focus on. HN and it's users have made it clear they prefer to focus on tech and there are literally 70 million other places you can go to fight over Israel & Palestine. If that's your thing, have at it, you don't need to do it here.
In fact, I would argue that both HN and Israel v Palestine fight sites would be better for it. If all sites are for all issues then all sites just devolve to the same slop. If sites can focus, they develop their own unique community. The attempt to invade such spaces and force them to have the discussions you want them to have is just colonialism by another name.
It’s the act of comment warring that is pointless. [X/Y] partisans are not intellectually curious about statements coming from a [Y/X] partisan. Nobody’s minds are going to change either way.
There presumably some third parties who could hypothetically be swayed, but from what I’ve seen they’re few and far between.
As for use it gets: plenty of use, mostly when someone needs to have their worlds close to that area (usually latency or legal reasons). There are a lot of smaller businesses that lost a lot (or maybe even everything) because their never thought they would need to create backups in a different region. Most of that wasn't really reported on but instead gets shared on various platforms like Reddit.
> Off-Topic: Most stories about politics, or crime, or sports, or celebrities, unless they're evidence of some interesting new phenomenon. If they'd cover it on TV news, it's probably off-topic.
Or how good their HA/failover strategy must be.
Although losing one data centre from an availability zone seems like exactly the kind of issue AWS plan for and handle well, and does not take down the whole AZ. By contrast with "our BGP config got messed up".
Genuinely curious. Aside for high frequency trading where latency is so vital.
And after that it's Mumbai, 2500km away. That will easily double your latency, which is someone that you can feel in usage.
You're expected to keep your data redundant in a 2nd region... I'm sure not everyone does, but I'd guess most AWS customers that only keep their data in a single region have chosen a different region (us-east-1 perhaps...)
I wonder if AWS even has the capacity to keep an entire region’s data elsewhere if they wanted to (I mean they could with their margins, but I doubt they do.)
Earn those bananas! Bezos isn't rich enough yet! Work harder!
2. It’s expected and war, and while war is not good, I wonder about data backups and succession planning for this.
3. It makes sense they would’ve had a fire drill and reviewed since it’s a capital investment, 6 months of war, at the same time Bahrain is considered stable, so I really wonder about the conversation around this and if there was any disaster planning with this scenario in mind.
4. If there wasn’t, I’m sure there is now across all regions of AWS.
This month has been for me, a uptick in unique headlines that I wouldn’t have thought would happen.
Just talk to me, 10, 20 years ago, there was no true conversation around attacking datacnters.
Just think how much RAM and SSD's were lost. :(
Winner: US military industrial complex + Israel
Losers: Everyone else
They’re involved.
Would that be fine? Or would that cause a lot of tension with Canada and make them involved in a US-China conflict?
> Belarus is full of Russian bases
> Russia does not officially maintain a traditional independent sovereign military base in Belarus, but it operates two Soviet-era radar and communication facilities and heavily uses Belarusian military infrastructure, airfields, and new joint construction projects.Civilian damage occurs all the time - often on purpose (infrastructure), sometimes not directly on purpose (drones getting off-target for various reasons, that also happens and not all of this is on purpose). What Iran does here is increase the cost of waging warfare against it, to make continuation of war as unappealing as possible. To claim the nearby countries are "uninvolved" while hosting military bases or providing targeting data to the USA is just propaganda. Why would you insinuate this? It is clearly an incorrect statement. One can debate whether targeting amazon is useful or not, but definitely you don't have an uninvolved country here, so much is clear. Besides, all companies of a given country at war, need to provide data and money anyway.
No, that is actually a lie, and quite obviously false.
In the United States, nobody can "declare war" except Congress. Our President has authorized military action against Iran and plenty of strikes, this is true. However, Congress has not passed a War Powers Resolution, much less an open declaration of war.
Therefore, nobody in the United States has "declared war on Iran", the current situation notwithstanding. That is why there are many arguments against it.
Obviously, anyone can look into the Wikipedia articles for any of those conflicts and see that they're all properly labeled as "wars", but it is also quite possible for a nation or entity to be a belligerent and participate in an actual war without formally and legally declaring it so.
So to say that "[President] Trump declared war" is definitely false, and it is rather amusing to me, reading the "Iran War" article, how often it says "Trump declared ..." something on X. Perhaps it's a fiction that haters like to hate with, like the way that the executive branch can't pass a law without all of Congress passing that law first, but they still take all the credit for passing those laws?!
I think that the US Congress is reluctant to declare wars because of the many ramifications for our own nation and the entire world. Nobody wants to see WW3 erupt, and WWII was well underway before the US was goaded into wholeheartedly joining the fray.
> Nobody wants to see WW3 erupt
know-how 1 hour ago [dead] | parent | next [–]
Iran has been killing Americans and Israeli since the 1970s. Read a history book.
It would have been ... better ... without the 2nd sentence.
I don't see them listed on https://mediabiasfactcheck.com either, which is usually a red flag for me. For example you can find other suspicious sources - like Iran International - on there https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/iran-international-bias-and-c...
The whole website seems to have issues, probably because of AWS issues in the middle-east. But archived pages are available:
- About: https://web.archive.org/web/20260719174647/https://houseofsa...
- Contact: https://web.archive.org/web/20260328195438/https://houseofsa...
CNBC: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49004096
This one got more upvoted for some reason though.
From what I can tell, the issues are: Fonts are too small, secondary fonts have terrible contrast with their backgrounds, information is too dense/not enough white space, overuse of blinking/glowing status dots, overuse of bordered elements, and overuse of accented elements. I am surely forgetting some other issues.
I'm not sure why there seems to be a consistent set of design mistakes that LLMs tend toward.
LLMs in general are pretty terrible at spatial arrangement. You should see some of the architects' critiques of AI-generated floorplans that are on YouTube; the LLM generates a layout that is just nuts. I've found them largely useless at putting together UI mocks; Figma or Photoshop is still way easier to work with if you just want to cut up UI elements and rearrange them.
The status dots are a part of animations in general, which they overuse, especially things like transform/scale on hover and hover effects on many many elements.
I think it's not simply borders but contrasting-color borders often with box shadows.
Probably something to do with the training data and how it’s weighted. It’s the same how the writing is essentially full of overused phrases, the AI slop feel.
I draw parallels between the development of whales and large-scale shipping:
- Both are comparatively recent developments. Giant whales are less than 5 million years old, large cargo ships (tankers, dry bulk, containers) at what are now considered ordinary scales are less than three decades old. (See: <https://logisticselearning.com/largest-container-ships/> especially graphic here: <https://logisticselearning.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/06/im...>.)
- Both require highly-efficient propulsion: mammalian metabolism, petroleum-fueled diesel engines, respectively.
- Both require widely-separated resource opportunities. For whales, seasonally-abundant food such as krill or fish; for cargo, large-scale production and consumption of goods separated by water.
- Both require comparative safety from predators. Large adult whales have virtually no natural predators (orcas being a notable exception), until human whaling grew in scale largely since the 1500s and accelerating greatly through the 19th and 20th centuries, during which whole populations where annihilated. Maritime shipping depends on a lack of piracy or hostile naval warfare, with tremendous losses to traffic being seen during the 1st and 2nd World Wars in both the Atlantic and Pacific.
(There's a similar pattern with air travel, in which flights virtually instantly divert far from active combat zones. The list of airliner shoot-down incidents is surprisingly large: <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_airliner_shootdown_inc...>.)
Highly-centralised or choreographed logistics chains are also fragile and subject to disruption. During WWII, the Soviet Union was initially inclined to One Big Dump supply depots, possibly a hallmark of centralised planning. These proved attractive targets and quite harmful to ongoing operations, and over the course of the war much more decentralised patterns emerged, or so I dimly recall from long-ago reading. Decentralised operations are integral to much guerilla / asymmetric warfare by the inferior party.
In Wildberries case (and Ozon's shortly), that centralization didn't require much peace at all - just a government that wasn't run by a fascist nutter who naively thought he could invade a neighbor without consequences.
Which is to say that all the military assets in Gulf countries, including this Amazon DC, are valid military targets.
https://www.npr.org/2022/03/05/1084729579/russian-law-bans-j...
1. Not a war
2. A defensive/protective operation.
The reason being the article 353 of Russian Criminal Code, under which planning or waging a war of aggression carries a prison sentence.
https://crimeofaggression.info/selected-documents/
Not that the law matters in Russia, but defence in depth I guess.
https://www.pbs.org/newshour/world/ukraine-hits-russias-larg...
His quandary: should he eat it anyway? Seems like the radiation should be minimal, after all. Or maybe wait until this next Wednesday when he has a stomach x-ray and eat a small slice just beforehand to confound his primary care physician (they are both great practical jokers!)?
Amazon will already have quite a lot of hardware queued up for new datacenter builds and expansions, some of that will presumably be redirected to this project once folks stop chucking missiles around. They also pride themselves on the speed of new datacenter rollout - even if they have to bulldoze the site and start from scratch, I doubt it takes as long as a year.
They are behind many atrocities in Iran and in the region including the situation in Gaza (partially). They also provided weaponry and support to Russia against Ukraine.
We don't need Americans to "save us", we have 90M intelligent people and can resolve our own issues. It would be great if the West started respecting the sovereignty of other nations.
I have a hard time sympathizing with the Pahlavi supporters cheering the bombing of our home.
What I’m saying is that supporting one of the biggest terrorist group in the world by the logic of “the enemy of my enemy is my friend” is a grave mistake. It legitimizes one of the biggest, if not the biggest, reasons behind the current situation in Iran and some other bad situations in the region.
If you are an Iranian, you know what IRGC has done and keep doing, how good they are at propaganda and how nothing is beyond them including killing (and worse) anyone anywhere in the name of their god.
But the IRGC is the only one defending my home right now. I also find it curious why you are not calling the US or Israel against this illegal aggression against our country?
What I’m saying is that we should not legitimize the IRGC. Trump is bad, the current Israeli government is very bad, and the IRGC is very bad.
On another note, the IRGC is defending itself, not us. They’ve killed exponentially more people in days than US or Israel has over in total. Again, all of these are bad.
Clearly the biggest tell that you are anything but Iranian. You might dislike the regime but no one calls their own government a “terrorist group”, a term reserved for foreign agents.
Stop astroturfing behind a throwaway, you coward.
Here, have a look for what a terrorist country looks like: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foreign_interventions_by_the_U...
> Point 1: The United States of America and the Islamic Republic of Iran and their allies in the current war, by signing this MOU, declare the immediate and permanent termination of military operations on all fronts, including in Lebanon, and undertake from now on not to initiate any war or any military operation against each other, and to refrain from the threat or use of force against each other, and ensuring the territorial integrity and sovereignty of Lebanon. The final deal will confirm the permanent termination of the war on all fronts, including in Lebanon and other provisions of this paragraph.
Why on earth would anyone trust a country that reneged on a hard fought deal and followed that up by bombing during negotiations to restore what was lost.
Like what's the worst case scenario that happens to iran if they just signed a new deal? How would it have been any worse than the current situation?
The deal doesn't even require a high level of trust - worst case they just go back to the previous situation. Making a deal only has an upside, even without trust.
Just like employment at will - and yet having a job is better than no job in most cases.
I am of course not certain why Iran's armament is of any concern to America. It might be of concern to another country of course, which loves to make America fight its wars.
Is it really just for a return to the pre-Trump status quo, only this time with the same deal not cosigned by Obama?
There's zero foundation for trust to uphold an international agreement even between US and its closest allies. Iran has no basis to believe any agreement will be legitimate or upheld.
If you believe the US military, Iran has already lost the majority of its capital-intensive armaments and its nuclear program and its senior leadership. This means there are fewer strategic holdings now at risk. Iran knows it can't be effectively invaded. The regime loses control in two scenarios: (1) internal regime change; (2) diplomatic capitulation to US demands. Waiting out at least US mid-terms while continuing to threaten the strait and neighbor's infrastructure is quite possibly Iran's best decision tree path from the point of view of the regime.
The current POTUS tore up the last nuclear deal with iran in 2018 for domestic political payoff. I can't take protestations about 'we've been trying to negotiate!' seriously when they come from the same people that created nearly a decade of strategic uncertainty (preceded by years of trash talk) and whose negotiation style oscillates between brutal violence and self-pitying wheedling.
I don't want to be partisan, but the incumbent POTUS is the epitome of dishonesty and the political polarization in US domestic politics is so extreme that even US allies are talking about a generational loss of trust. It would be irrational for a historical antagonist like Iran to bank on negotiating a new agreement with a country that refuses to bind itself by any international norms; it seems to me that it would be far more rational for Iran to breakout in pursuit of a nuke, and having once performed a successful test, reap the benefits of strategic stability that have gradually accrued to North Korea despite its ongoing pariah status. That is to say, once they have a nuke and other countries can no longer casually attack them, more of their economy can be redirected away from acquiring a strategic deterrent and into more normal kinds of economic development.
Not only has the US proven itself to be incredibly untrustworthy -both recently and in the past-, the protracted war in Ukraine demonstrates what happens when you give up your nukes and a member of the "nuke-havers" club decides that they want your territory. We're at the point where any country that has a militant nuclear-weapons-equipped neighbor and has both the ability to develop nuclear weapons and the state power to keep control of them would be stupid not to build them.
It's a shame that several of the countries that are supposed to be "the adults in the room" have decided to abandon the various gentlemen's agreements that made nuclear-weapons nonproliferation agreements sensible.
The US idea of peace was regular bombing - I have heard people from defemse sector even use the "lawn moving" term publically. I dont understand an expectation that foreign country should be ok with that.
Plus, Trump dont do good faith deals, he promisses and breaks deals next day.
If you do get to a deal, there's no permanance and no means of enforcement.
This seems counterfactual, unless you called the regime for which you state you «have no love for» "satisfactory" or its length "insignificant".
> we have 90M intelligent people
This is also a pretty unbelievable claim - were it so, I and many others would move to Iran immediately. Can we say you are not being literally factual?
There's no good guys. Why is the US even there?
Edit: downvoted to -3. Did i say anything that was untrue? Or do people not like the truth?
I mean, you're passing over the violent revolution from socialists and Islamists.
Also, yes, your insight that not all revolutions are equal is correct. The US "revolution" (really more of a war for independence) was a net positive. The Iranian Revolution (which truly was a revolution) was a net negative.
We should be part of Canada right now
Also, I only care about what outcome is better for us in the long run. Being part of UK or Canada wouldn't have been better. Though many colonies' independence movements have led to disaster.
Isn't it an oversimplification to say there are no good guys? O
> Did i say anything that was untrue? Or do people not like the truth?
It is widely assumed, but not factually correct, that the US was responsible.
On August 15th 1953 the CIA staged a coup to overthrow the government, but it failed. By the next day the State Department was actively trying to enter into diplomatic talks.
Three days later a group of clerics headed by Ayatollah Borujerdi took advantage of the situation and stirred up unrest that was ultimately responsible for the Shah taking power. They had been concerned about Mossadeq embracing secular liberalism and a referendum that dissolved the Majlis (parliament/congress). MI-6 had offered them support, but they rejected it.
I would highly recommend this book if you can get a copy: https://www.amazon.com/Iran-CIA-Fall-Mosaddeq-Revisited/dp/0...
Straight from Wikipedia
The attempted coup brought out a lot of pro Mossadeq protestors. It wasn't until the 19th when clerics organized anti Mossadeq protestors that it took hold.
Might be worth flagging to Wikipedia editors for a review.
- Failed coup attempt threatens government
- 'Ooops sorry just pranking you lol'
- Distracted government challenged by internal actor
- Power vacuum followed by monarchy
I'm sorry, this is like disclaiming responsibility for shooting at you on the grounds that most of my bullets missed and the one that hit just winged you. It's not my fault that your grumpy neighbor exploited the situation to attack you and then a third actor exploited the situation to seize all your assets!
And if we wanted to help another country, working with the international community should be the only approach we take.
We've spent many decades overthrowing countries to what end? Even our vassals like Israel have universal healthcare while we're all in debt because of healthcare. It's not working and needs to stop.
Btw, lots of Arabic influence in Iranian culture. Yeah separate Indoeuropean language, but Arabic alphabet, tons of Arabic loanwords, and required Arabic lessons partially to help read the Quran. There's a reason the Pahlavis wanted to emphasize Aryan pride instead.
One could make the argument the people who live in liberal democracies have an obligation to help those who unfortunately do not and who are still forced to live under autocratic oppression.
There were periods in history where most people lived under the thumb of some sort of autocrat of one form or another be they monarchs or religious leaders. Most people had very few human rights and had little opportunity for self-determination. Through the hard work of revolutionaries around the world many of those autocrats were deposed and others seeing the writing on the wall offered power to the people more willingly.
Think of it like a jailbreak where the jailer is oppressive and everyone in the jail is innocent. On your wait out should help open the cells of as many people as you can if only out of your own self interest because a larger mob escaping gives each individual a better chance to escape due to strength in numbers but also because it's just the right thing to do.
It's sort of the same thing here, Our ancestors (or even some of us) got out from under the thumb of an autocrat jailer but there are still others in that jail. If we don't help them who will? What would you want someone else to do if you were in their situation? To walk by an unjustly imprisoned person's jail cell and not free them when it is trivial to do so makes you the jailer.
Now that's the theory. In practice, I agree with much of what you're saying -- reality is a far trickier place than we'd like and the details make doing the right thing difficult if not impossible. And that doesn't cover the reality that western democracies are imperfect themselves and that many of their citizens are still subject to repression by their own autocratic leaning leaders, and so that we can't always do the right thing, but we should at least aspire to.
Just think how would you feel if other countries interfered 'with all good intentions, of course' in the internal affairs of your country.
If Iran wasn't supporting terror organizations around the world and didn't help russia I would agree. Their country, they can kill as much of their own people as they please.
Are you sure it isn’t the other way around?
Well, maybe start fixing problems at home before spending tens of billions not fixing things anywhere else? we can't even change ourselves for the better, an adjudicated rapist, alleged pedophile rules us, and we're going to reform other countries? what grounds do we have to be casting stones ? "they're killing protestors!" I hear many westerns say, while ignoring the americans we're jailing for 30 years, calling terrorists for protesting the extrajudicial killings ICE are doing. we have millions without healthcare, above subsistence employment, food security. Why are americans worried about "changing" iran?? Let's look in the mirror, folks.
Trump isn't "strong" until he actually calls Putin's bluff on nuclear weapons. You're not gonna do it Putin, and I'm fully willing for me and everyone I know to die in WW3/nuclear holocaust just to make sure Putin goes to hell a bit faster.
Trump has done more pro israel actions than Biden
However, Biden is completely pro-Israel. He would do anything for them and has said so. Guessing he didn't think attacking Iran was the best thing for Israel. Well look at how it's going.
Uh,
> Is there space for nuanced discussion?
Apparently not?
When I said "even" Biden and Bush, it meant in the sense that they were less of a problem but did overreach. Why mention that... In the same vein, even the Democratic party is still largely pro-Israel, and more so disagrees with the Republican party on how to do it. And they're quieter about it, which tbh is smarter. Trump has accepted by far the most money for Israel, but from a different place than others, the Adelsons. Biden's is from AIPAC, and they likely bet on him because he's so supportive of Israel at the core, whereas Trump might be more transactional.
If you want to oppose imperialist scum, this makes sense. If you want the global economy to not be shit, it doesn't.
and of course ground troops _have_ to invade Iraq, Saddam has WMD's. And it will finally bring stability to the region. And they _have_ to invade Afghanistan, there is no way to take out bin Laden otherwise. And it will finally bring stability to the region. Casualties will be minimal because the oppressed natives will welcome us as liberators and our overwhelming military superiority will ensure our troops suffer no casualties.
The one coherent rule of this administration is that "will become a disaster" is not a part of the decision making process.
Morality aside, I just don’t see how this has been ignored. I know there is a large push for peace by many of the leaders of Iran and it turns out decentralized power can be a double-edged sword. Still, they can’t hold out forever.
-Thucydides' Melian Dialogue
Given how clownish the US is handling this war, I'm afraid you just have to get used to it.
Hard to like anyone in this situation.
Then in the 1970s the CIA provided SAVAK with the names of secular left opposition to arrest and execute.
So spare me talk about foreigners supporting religious fanatics, the western establishment did so for decades.
I for one don't want my tax dollars used to bomb schools in Iran.
Iran did bad things, but not as much as they could. Now they're doing more bad things and we can't stop them.
Instead this is a conflict where all sides are garbage. It's a conflict where we hope that everyone loses.
On the one side you have a terrorism-sponsoring theocracy that wants to force stone-age beliefs on its people, while exporting mayhem elsewhere. On the other you have Iran. (ba-dum-tss!)
Seriously, though, everyone involved with this conflict are bad actors. The US has bombed some 8 countries so far this year, threatened literal allies such that they got blood supplies ready for an invasion, is busy looting Venezuela like a busted pirate shithole -- basically Somalia -- is starving Cuba, is terroristically blowing up random boats by titling them "narco-terrorists", and is headed by a criminal rapist PoS that is rapidly turning the country into an idiocracy while their military is headed by a ChatGPT spouting imbecile. Israel is a war-criming pariah that pushed their luck a little too far and it turns out you can only bank on "but the holocaust" for so long while you're a rogue hermit nation that has vile behaviours and habits.
It's only in context that Iran, far down in the depths of garbage nations, somehow comes out looking like the better party in the conflict.
But, start with YOUR OWN FIRST.
Only then will you have the moral altitude to "go after theirs".
Not until WE have prosecuted OUR war criminals, will we have the precedent to prosecute any other nations' war criminals [1].
So, get on with it, citizen. Hold your government accountable. The people always get the governments they deserve.
[1] - No, "the West" is not morally capable of going after Putin, Netanyahu, etc. Not until we start prosecuting our own war criminals with real, effective results.
Whereas you could look at a place like Vietnam that fought its war and moved on, Trump's focus is largely dealing with actors that never did. I suspect the Saudi's won't be the only Nuclear deal signed. So much of this is just the cold war extended, but with North Korea and Iran trying to work their way past non-proliferation. The natural response would also be to arm South Korea and possibly Japan. All of which would have been the West's natural response to non-proliferation being violated.
I get the perception, but much of this is decades in the making and almost everyone involved including the US should have sued for peace years ago. Actual peace. Not, "we're not firing rockets but Israel can't exist."
As for Vietnam, they're suffering from tariffs, why are you assuming they're also no negatively affected by the Trump admin?
Between which parties, exactly..?
Indeed, why would I focus on the guy who started this very war under discussion and multiple other wars over the past year, has openly threatened nuclear attacks, and controls the largest military in world history. The guy who continually posts the US flag over sovereign, notably non-US countries. Must just be TDS, right? I mean, guy hasn't nuked a city yet so what's the big deal right?
What a bizarre statement. And the truth is that the US has been terroristic for decades, assassinating and murdering with impunity, stomping on sovereignty endlessly, with zero intentional law or moral justification on its side. Trump is kind of the ultimate outcome of that sort of behaviour, only he's too stupid to do the normal justification games. It's Americanism in its raw, most grotesque form.
"You completely lose me when you pin proliferation on the US."
The world had a general detente and a rules-based international order, and the only thing that has changed is the position of the US. Now Poland wants nukes. Japan wants nukes. I will not be remotely surprised if Germany, Japan, South Korea or any other nation one day pops up as a new nuclear power. I mean, Canada sure as shit should secretly get nukes, for obvious reasons.
If North Korea sold warheads to Iran, honestly, who would blame them? It's actually comically funny that while attacking Iran for their purported nuclear program, Trump is simultaneously offering a nuclear program to 9/11 Saudi Arabia.
"Even if I were to entertain the Wonderland of the US invading Canada or Greenland"
Wonderland? A number of high ranking US representatives have openly stated such desires. The country is such a lawless immoral idiocracy now that absolutely nothing is off the table.
What may be misinterpreted as sympathy for them is sympathy for the suffering Iranians, and antipathy for the criminal and bigoted US foreign policy especially in the Middle East. This did not start with Trump's recent idiotic game; Iran's only democratically elected president so far was toppled in 1953 by the CIA at the request of Churchill, because they felt Iran's oil does not belong to the Iranian people but to British Petroleum.
When they're surrounded on every side by people who devote their lives to Hadith such as these, I can't blame them. Their enemies set up bases under hospitals, schools. Their wives and children are human shields. I think they're doing pretty well with the situation they've been handed. The situation is more complex than "They're firing on civilian populations", because their enemy fights in civilian clothing, and hides in civilian crowds. They're stuck between a rock and a hard place and are doing what they can to survive.
They have been targeting journalists.
Also what about the children? Why they do keep targeting them.
What’s radicalised them is not their religion but being driven from their homes and genocided - that would radicalise anyone. In fact given what’s been done to them, if anything the level of radicalisation in the Palestinian population is remarkably low
And America's decision to slaughter Iranian schoolchildren was completely optional. It happened only because Israel convinced Trump that there was an easy win available.
Americans should be grateful that Iran has shown great restraint in their response.
Iran purposefully slaughters thousands of its own protestors. The US made a grave mistake and accidentally hit that school.
If you can't understand the difference, you're beyond help.
Also, the US bombing of the Iranian school was not a "grave mistake", it was the predictable result of reckless and incompetent leadership.
Other AI partners had stated that fully automated target selection without a human in the loop could be catastrophic -- and instead of adding a human in the loop to review the targets, US military leadership switched to Grok, whose leader had no such qualms.
The predictable result: hundreds of dead innocent children, and Americans like you who simply do not care at all.
No responsibility, no accountability, nothing at all... just some racist assholes arguing it's fine to bomb schools because the IRGC is awful (and because you love Israel).
> then it is for the best if their country is destroyed entirely
Deep, deep thoughts, man.
This accurately describes Israel's multi-faceted genocide against the Palestinian people.
It is a genocide. It is mass murder. It involves direct violence, starvation, destruction of economic possibility, and it is morally abhorrent.
> your solution is the slaughtering of millions of Jews
The destruction of Israel does not mean the murder of Jews. A government can be replaced without killing everyone in the country. History is full of examples of this. Genocides are considerably _less_ common.
Where is the part in genocide when the supposed "genociders" are allowing 4000 calories of food a day into the people they supposedly want to destroy, as well as providing things like polio vaccines? And where the number of civilians killed by one of the most lethal militaries resulted in deaths at a 1:1 civilian to combatant ratio, a number completely unheard of in modern warfare?
> "The destruction of Israel does not mean the murder of Jews. A government can be replaced without killing everyone in the country"
Are you being serious now? And when the Jews say they like their democratically elected government, what exactly will happen when an outside force attempts to "destroy" it?
Funny how history rhymes sometimes
That’s just the tally from this year, they are also responsible for hundreds of thousands of civilian deaths across Syria, Yemen, Iraq, and Ukraine.
I think the moral altitude you are looking for doesn't exist.
What a grossly offensive and patently false thing to say[1].
Even if you for a second ignore the blatant nazi apologism and focus on the core claim of cruelty, the Nazis committed every one of those atrocities you’ve named, on a scale multiple orders of magnitude greater.
https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
* regardless of what you're battling for or against
** regardless of what you're flaming for or against
UAE has been down for months, Bahrain is now offline, Saudi Arabia is still under construction.
(I realize it’s a stretch from what you’re suggesting but if you think about it, not really)
government contractors may be embedded in high stakes situations.
<https://diamond-age.bib.bz/security-measures-adopted-by-atla...>
One> An executive has to care about a cost center, then proceeds to invest in prevention instead of looking like a hero after, instead of putting off a fire an getting a promotion or bonus. Which is nigh impossible.
Two> Our tech overlords try to push for our cyberpunk present to at least look kinda cool. Which they also refuse todo.
That plus most of Iran's attacks on Israel didn't do anything and likely still won't. Which is why Iran focused on the weaker gulf states even when Israel was involved.
Also, Israel will not abandon (or be abandoned) by the US, but the others might want to cut their losses if supporting the US becomes costlier than being neutral.
The game being played is extremely interesting, with high stakes and no margin for error. Too bad people die.
Won’t be pretty, as no empire has ever fallen peacefully.
Iran knows Israel won't stop itself from attacking for too long. So they are going to wait until that point and they are likely going to try the same targeting methodology to paralyze Israeli airbases. If they manage to do so, they will be able to significantly reduce the US/Israeli strike tempo and to be more successful using drones, not even missiles.
At the peak Iran fired 650 missiles at Israel and only killed 28 people, mostly from hitting a single residential building. These days Iran is only firing small salvos into gulf states and only 20-30 drones at a time. I'd be surprised if they could pull off 2025 numbers when they fired a hundred at Israel.
One way of interpreting that statistic is that they are running out of munitions. Another way is to consider that stockpiles are not running low, but the initial response was a collection of high-burn, uncoordinated, decentralized tactical actions after an attempted decapitation-strike disrupted top-down C&C. Now that the fog of war has cleared, and communication has been restored, a more strategic regime is now in effect.
At the end of the day Iran has more missiles than the US has interceptors. So when you get to the point when you're talking about running out, they just don't need to launch big salvos anymore.
Although what has changed is that Israël is no longer getting guns for free they need to pay for it same as everyone else. Progress!
I suspect that Iran knows that going after Dubai would upset a lot of American (and Sunni) billionaires.
...which I now return to...
You may be confused with southern Lebanon, which is.
The Saudi main army is pretty incompetent, but the Royal Guard is extremely effective. They are separately trained by the West and maintain comms separate from the main army. And now they've teamed up with Pakistan, which has one of the best air forces in the region.
Qatar recently opened up a route for citizenship to foreign veterans who serve in their armed forces. That guarantees them a steady supply of soldiers from the region should the need arise.
The most vulnerable are Bahrain and Kuwait, but both of them have had help with security actions from their more competent neighbors.
Saudi has the advantage that they have the US doing the dirty work for them. No need to do much themselves.
Although hitting the AWS data centre in Tel Aviv seems like it would be a great tit-for-tat strike to really annoy the US and Israelis without threatening them in a way that will provoke a nuclear response or doing real damage to civilians. So I don't see why they'd purposefully hold back on that.
Attacks trying to topple the Israeli state, in essence. Knocking out profitable capital is quite unlikely to do it.
Anything existential. (Tehran doesn’t currently have that capability.)
The only reason the USA doesn't flatten Iran with nukes is that the USA fears Russia will view it as an "all bets are off!" action and will do the same to Ukraine et al. Which is probably true right now.
Nuking Iran was never in the cards. We could have done that in 1979 and any time since. Ukraine has nothing to do with it. The red lines that would provoke a nuclear response from the US are pretty well known -- the US foreign policy establishment hashed out this stuff 75 years ago. Iran could get nuked by the US if it used NBC weapons against the US or our allies. No amount of bad behavior with conventional weapons is going to do it.
People in charge of nuclear armed countries are worried about the end of the so-called "nuclear taboo" which has kept countries from using nukes for 80 years, and they're not going to break it over a third rate power like Iran unless that third rate power actually acquires nukes and makes a credible threat to use them. We didn't use them in Korea or Vietnam. We didn't use them in Afghanistan. We haven't nuked North Korea. All more serious situations than the one in which we find ourselves today.
When somebody finally does break that taboo the world will be a much, much more dangerous place for everyone and planners in places like Washington, Moscow, and Beijing know it. Once a nuclear weapon is used, especially by a country with a large arsenal, every country that could have nukes but doesn't is going to have nukes.
Here's a good video on the topic concentrating on the possible Russian use of nukes in Ukraine:
Well, apparently they've had (lots of) the raw material for years. And they have training: all those Iranian science majors at universities during/after the Shah was deposed are candidates. They've had 40 years to study, play and worship. As a friend says, Pakistan got the bomb and if they can do it, anyone can!
Marie Curie purified plutonium all by herself before the turn of the century (albeit in minuscule amounts at high personal cost), so I have little confidence in your assessment.
laughing_man says "...use of that kind of weapon would probably get Iran invaded"
That's the situation they're in. Furthermore many of them are "holy warriors" for whom death is a reward. 72 virgins waitihg for each martyr - I can almost smell the testosterone from here.[Note to countermeasures people: possibly use smell to "sniff them out" of their caves and hidey-holes?? Farhad's flatulence brings him down, bwahahaahaaaaah!8-))]
laughing_man says [dirty bomb] "not a very practical weapon".
Unfortunately I believe this is just wrongheaded. When I was a kid I read Flash Gordon cartoons. There was an episode with "cobalt bombs" to wipe out a civilization permanently. One of the few times that I was freaked out as a kid. Nuclear war didn't scare me at all, but cobalt bombs and extermination - sheeeeeeit!8-(
Seems the Russians read the same comic strip and took it to heart:
https://www.wired.com/2007/09/soviet-doomsday/
and
https://www.unrevealedfiles.com/russias-dead-hand-the-doomsd...
who's to say Iranians are any different (albeit hornier - though granted it really is a lot colder in Russia than in Paradise!).
laughing_man says: "When somebody finally does break that taboo the world will be a much, much more dangerous place for everyone and planners in places like Washington, Moscow, and Beijing know it. Once a nuclear weapon is used, especially by a country with a large arsenal, every country that could have nukes but doesn't is going to have nukes.?"
No shit, Sherlock! You're waking up. "Nuclear deterrence" is dead IMO (The July/August 2026 issue of "Foreign Affairs" magazine discusses this). [I hope there's no rush, I haven't yet bought a plane ticket. Goddammit! Probably end up rowing again!8-((].
"raw material" != "material".
While I assume they could've purified enough of the former into the latter by this point if they wanted to, it is a much much harder thing to do than to say.
> Marie Curie purified plutonium all by herself before the turn of the century (albeit in minuscule amounts at high personal cost), so I have little confidence in your assessment.
No, what she discovered was *polonium*, not *plutonium*.
She named polonium that in support of the nationhood of Poland (which was at the time was partitioned between three countries), despite discovering it she never actually isolated it because polonium has a half life of 138 days which makes it a really really small fraction of the total material.
Polonium was first isolated in 1902 by Willy Marckwald who managed a whole 3 milligrams and even then it took another three years for people to realise what he'd isolated was the same thing Marie Curie had found. It took 15 tons of pitchblende to get those 3mg.
*Plutonium* on the other hand was first discovered in 1934. Plutonium (and uranium) is the stuff that makes fission bombs. It takes tens of kilograms of uranium or plutonium per bomb.
Purification of chemical elements (both polonium and plutonium) is much, much easier than separating the isotopes of uranium; and you need to purify ("enrich") uranium to a specific isotope to manufacture more than trivial quantities of plutonium. (And, indeed, polonium).
> Unfortunately I believe this is just wrongheaded. When I was a kid I read Flash Gordon cartoons. There was an episode with "cobalt bombs" to wipe out a civilization permanently. One of the few times that I was freaked out as a kid. Nuclear war didn't scare me at all, but cobalt bombs and extermination - sheeeeeeit!8-(
You're taking a comic book plot device as evidence?
Also, cobalt bombs != dirty bombs:
A cobalt bomb is a bomb powered by a nuclear explosion, that has enhanced fallout.
A dirty bomb is a normal, non-nuclear, explosive, that has some radioisotopes attached to it.
The former easily wipes out a city; the latter messes up a building.
https://www.bing.com/videos/riverview/relatedvideo?q=google....
ben_w: "You're taking a comic book plot device as evidence?"
I was telling a story about my early life! Get a grip! It was a lead-in to a)the Soviet doomsday device which may have been real and may still be around and b)to my early fright at the nasty side-effects of nuclear weapons.
ben_wL "The former easily wipes out a city; the latter messes up a building."
Indeed an understatement! The Chernobyl reactor is an accidental "dirty bomb". It FUed quite a large area: people don't do much picnicking in the Chernobyl Exclusion Zone:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chernobyl_exclusion_zone.
Spare me talking about how large the Chernobyl reactor and how heavy its fuel rods are, etc. Fissionable material and fission by-products are generally toxic: spreading it around is devastating and difficult to correct. And the Iranians have lots of that kind of crap.
Sarcasm noted, but you were mixing up something that wasn't isolated by Curie because it was too hard to do so, with something that was only found in the year she died.
> Indeed an understatement! The Chernobyl reactor is an accidental "dirty bomb". It FUed quite a large area: people don't do much picnicking in the Chernobyl Exclusion Zone:
If you gathered all the nasty decay products from Chernobyl and put them into convenient balls to strap to an explosive for the purpose of messing up someone else's country, you'd immediately have a problem of *the balls would cause the explosives you put them next to, to catch on fire, because of the heat output of their own radioactive decay*. Even in the spread-out form of the real life incident, robots stopped working when they got too close to large concentrations, the radiation fried circuits.
You are scared of something that is not only not plausible, it's something such that if they could do it at a scale big enough to hurt you, they'd have better things to do, e.g. hitting the US warships counter-blockading Hormuz.
> Spare me talking about how large the Chernobyl reactor and how heavy its fuel rods are, etc.
Spare you the most important point?
> Fissionable material and fission by-products are generally toxic: spreading it around is devastating and difficult to correct. And the Iranians have lots of that kind of crap.
You say "lots" like it's a point, but it isn't: "lots" is far too vague.
Chernobyl had nearly 3000 times as much uranium in it as a fission bomb, to a different enrichment level, but how much enrichment matters during a criticality incident which transmutes elements into the nasty radioisotopes that you don't want to be around is complicated for fallout calculations. Nobody, including SpaceX, has a missile that is big enough to carry that all in one go.
At the time of the accident in the reactor of the fourth power-generating unit of the Chernobyl nuclear power plant on April 26, 1986, the core contained 1659 fuel assemblies. Each assembly contained 114.7 kg of uranium, and therefore the reactor contained a total of 114.7 x 1659 = 190,287.3 kg of uranium. If the amount of fuel is calculated according to the uranium dioxide, i.e. in the form in which the fuel was loaded into the fuel elements, then its mass in each fuel element was 3.6 kg. A fuel assembly consists of 36 fuel elements, and therefore the reactor contained 3.6 x 36 x 1659 = 215,006.4 kg of uranium dioxide. The investigations performed in the destroyed buildings showed that the nuclear fuel after the accident is found in three main modifications: in the form of uranium dioxide tablets, in the form in which it was loaded into the reactor; in a dispersed form as dust and aerosol; and in a remelted state, in the form of a lavalike fuel-containing mass. This paper discusses the amount of nuclear fuel in the lavalike mass at the Chernobyl Nuclear Power Plant.
In comparison, the one which levelled Hiroshima contained 64 kilograms: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Little_Boy
This scale difference is also (one of the reasons) why even having a nuclear reactor as a "civilian program" is suspect. Makes it relatively easy to hide a weapons program.
Much, much more effective to use the reactor to transmute yourself some plutonium, than a dirty bomb. Apart from anything else, half the plutonium won't vanish in 30 years (caesium-137) / 28.9 years (strontium-90) / 8 days (iodine-131) like the main Chernobyl fallout is doing.
Q. Would it be possible to economically move the fission component into a standardized nuclear reactor that could then generate electrical power?
IOW is there a "swords to plowshares" solution to the disposal of fission weapons or, once you've made one, are you stuck with a device that can only be used to blow things up?
Reason I ask is, I see Russia et al sitting on all these weapons which cost a great deal, are no doubt costly to maintain and of little or no benefit to anyone (well, other than as a threat). [I mean, it's almost like owning a fleet of BMWs but even less useful! ] If we could build a "reactor framework" into which we could move a single warhead's fuel and that fuel could generate electrical power until sufficiently diminished to be of little/no use as a weapon, then that would IMO be a very good thing. Countries like Russia who had a closet of nukes but no money could sell the nuclear fuel off and benefit, buyers could get electrical power cheaper(?), and the world would be better off. Everybody wins.
Or is making a nuclear weapon effectively an economic one-way street (i.e., you're stuck paying for it forever?
Bullshit. Without historical data, you can't recreate experiments!
Why bother posting such nonsense?
In addition I would hope that even in the morally bankrupt state USA is in today, murdering 92 million people would cause some political problems (but this might be naive of me).
It might move the needle 15%.
Doesn’t matter. This question turns entirely on what Israel’s leadership thinks. If they’re faced with an existential threat, nukes are likely on the table.
That is not the only reason the United States doesn’t flatten Iran with nukes. It’s not even a consideration. How are you even arriving at such a conclusion?
Iran doesn't actually want to hit Israel hard, or at least doesn't want to do it right now. If they did, they wouldn't rattle their sabers so hard before each giant volley toward Israel, giving the Israelis ample time to prepare for a strike.
They seem to be correct because Israel has not nuked Iran in responses.
Israel also has a lot more options for retaliations against Iran then nukes.
Safe reminder both Israel and Iran, and arguably Iran more so, commit “war crimes”.
This does not resemble what I would imagine a fight for civilization survival to look like. I’m talking about the stakes being you win or you, your family, and every man, woman and infant you know is going to be killed or starved in concentration camps.
"We're only hitting Gulf neighbour US-adjacent targets" is less threatening than "we're aiming directly at Israel".
(Though yes, Iran has struck Israel with > 200 missiles in a single attack: <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/October_2024_Iranian_strikes_o...>.)
Note that US attacks on Iran have been similarly loudly telegraphed in response. Though I suspect the rationale (if any) differs.
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1983_Soviet_nuclear_false_alar...>
And the later "retaliation" against local bases by Iran was in the same, choreographed public fashion. At this point it seems to be a very respectful gentleman's conflict. It's very unlike some of the wars we've got entangled in, for sure. It seems like both sides sort of acknowledge that if we don't play fair, if it's not choreographed, if we don't stick to the rules, we really possess the power for world-ending, horrific conflict.
Was in your reality also the complete iranian leadership killed without warning, while they were discissing negotiations with the other side?
There are also other factually wrong things in your comment, but let's leave it at that.
Cash payments, rental subsidies, mortgage discounts, free healthcare, free tuition, tax credits, tax exemptions, job placement, immediate citizenship, etc. All if you're of a certain ethnicity.
Can Arab Jews make Aliyah?
Microsoft, Alphabet and Amazon grant Israel virtually government-wide access to their cloud and artificial intelligence technologies, enhancing data processing, decision making and surveillance and analysis capacities. [99] In October 2023, when the Israeli internal military cloud overloaded, [100] Microsoft, with its Azure platform, and the Project Nimbus consortium stepped in with critical cloud and artificial intelligence infrastructure. [101] Their Israel-located servers ensure data sovereignty and a shield from accountability, [102] under favourable contracts offering minimal restrictions or oversight. [103] In July 2024, an Israeli colonel described cloud tech as a weapon in every sense of the word, citing these companies. [104]
If someone enters my house uninvited, I don't care what they have to say to justify themselves because they don't have a right to be there in the first place.
Also, Israel designates tents dual use.
Designating an AWS location very likely used for targeting assistance during this war on Iran is a very different thing.
What do you think the end result of making regions unstable such as by unprovoked attacks on Iran is?
> you think
Well, maybe I am presuming too much there.
You're right, Mexicans feel so strongly about the war in Iran in 2026 that they... flooded into the US in the 90s and 2000s?
The US started this. Amazon is an American company with many governmental and military contracts. Why would it not be a valid target?
How many Iranian hospitals, schools, bridges, data centers, etc have been destroyed?
The answer here is surrender and disarmament. It's the only outcome that seems compatible with the reintegration of Iran into the world economy, normalization of diplomatic relationships with neighboring countries, and path to development/prosperity for its people.
Definitely not the country that slaughters protestors by the thousands.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2025%E2%80%932026_Iran_massacr...
There's so many people here who have clearly lost their ability to think clearly any time Israel is involved. I'm sure it's just coincidence though and nothing else is going on.
"The baby I just sniped in the head was a confirmed Hamazbollah IRGC terrorist." Sure, buddy. Hasbara is for losers.
It's also worth mentioning that the Germans and Japanese themselves were extremely brutal to their defenseless, surrendered neighbors that they attempted to colonize.
Like 100s (?) of Americans killed by Iran ever.
Compare to Iranians: Affected by the aftermath of the American coup of Mosaddegh (ultimately leading to IRGC's existence), providing weapons to Iraq for the Iran-Iraq War (200K deaths), etc. + decades of stupid policy trying to take their oil in the name of "regional security" (for "our" oil).
How would it work? Do you expect a 1:1 casualty list? 1:1 list of events? Should the US citizens allow for a coup on US soil carried out by the IRGC?
And, courage of their convictions, if their own people are so inherently evil for making “the other bastard die for his” they should be renouncing citizenship, yielding their ill-gotten wealth, and self-immolating for their nations eternal shame.
Categorical reasoning as applied to war does not yield a tit for tat, its category versus category. All of column B to preserve any column A. “Not worth the bones of a single British Grenadier”.
and protecting them from being tried criminally after theyve been deposed?
the US continues to blow up civilian infrastructure, and those WMDs that sadam was supposed to have were american made, for the purposes of using on iranian civilians.
To blow up civilian target is a choice.
I know nuance is unpopular nowadays but I do see a difference between bad decisions with unintended consequences and bad decisions with intended terrible results.
“Just one more conflict bro” as the kids would say.
Islamic regime carried out a lot of covert ops against civilian targets all around the globe, so what’s happening now is expected.
Neither the US nor Iran can do that. Iran and the US are in very different positions:
The US is the status quo power; they and their allies dominate the Mideast and Persian Gulf, and are hostile to Iran for geopolitical (control of region), economic (oil), and religious (Shiite-Sunni) reasons. There is a long history demonstrating that - Iran would be crazy to trust otherwise. If Iran does nothing, US and allies would control all of the Mideast (including Yemen, Syria, Lebanon, Iraq) and Iran would be helpless to protect itself or exercise its own will on any matter, legitimate or not, and risk getting overthrown and replaced with a US/allied proxy. That happened in the 1950s, and the proxy, the Shah and their heir, brutally ruled Iran until 1979 when the current were part of the Shah's overthrow and took power. Part of their raison d'être is to make sure US and allies never control Iran again. Iran cannot survive by 'minding their own business'.
Iran is the revisionist power; they would like to change the power structure so they are the dominant power, or at least they need to establish independence from the status quo power. They are a much lesser threat to the US than the US is to them, for obvious reasons: Iran doesn't have aircraft carriers and bases off the US coast, complete air superiority in US skies, isn't bombing the US, didn't kill the president, and lacks the power to impose crippling economic sanctions. But they are still a threat with ambitions that the US can't ignore.
The status quo power sets the rules and wants peace on their terms - with them still in power - so of course any challenger is violating the rules and appears to be an enemy of peace without being aware of the dynamic.
> Islamic regime carried out a lot of covert ops against civilian targets all around the globe
The US also carries out ops, including those that kill civilians, all over the globe (e.g., bombing speedboats in international waters), as do others. Some US ops are covert but with leadership of the international power structure and the power to act sometimes with impunity (e.g., removing Venezuala's government), they don't have always do it covertly. Iran can't fly bombers everywhere on Earth; they only have covert or insurgent operators for many purposes.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Taste_of_Armageddon
https://www.npr.org/2026/07/18/g-s1-134037/why-is-it-so-hard... (“… the U.S. has been acting like an empire without wanting to be an empire.”)
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30908249
https://usafacts.org/articles/how-have-military-deaths-chang...
I don't think it serves a strategic purpose to bomb Mar a Lago at this stage in the game.
BAH53 (Manama): https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1492345589
BAH54 (Zallaq): https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1359931661 BAH55 (Hamala): https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/956069872 If these data centres are rebuilt, you'd maybe expect them to be rebuilt in new locations behind existing _permanent_ (and seemingly quite expensive) air/missile defence batteries in Bahrain (https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1492281507 and https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1492953902). Based on the permanency of those air/missile defence batteries it doesn't look like the government of Bahrain are expecting things to get safer for data centre hosting in Bahrain any time soon.