[carbocation]

The article kind of downplays the most interesting elements. Not an expert, but to my limited understanding:

* I think this is the longest-range use of a ballistic missile in anger, possibly ever?

* This seems to reveal previously-unknown range of Iranian ballistic missiles and, if true, could touch basically all of Europe?

[ChuckMcM]

I think the article downplays the element that the attack probably achieved its goal which was not to actually hit something at Diego Garcia, but to show that thing 2500 miles from Iran are potentially targetable by Iran. That starts conversations like the one here and in other fora about whether or not Iran would limit themselves to military targets (Russia doesn't as an example) and if not how could Europe and its East Asian allies protect literally everything with their finite supply of defensive units.

[JumpCrisscross]

> to show that thing 2500 miles from Iran are potentially targetable

Iran has had IRBMs for some time. Demonstration doesn’t hurt. But demonstrating failure doesn’t particularly help either.

[chasd00]

The thing is Iran has long promised their max range was 2k Km and so defensive only. This shows that was a lie.

[roncesvalles]

All countries publicly understate the max range that their missiles can go. This is generally understood in the defense community.

[ofrzeta]

What's the point? Naively one would think it is the opposite.

[navane]

I heard the same about the number and location of French nuclear war heads, or their exact red lines. If you tell the enemy your limit they're gonna sit exactly on it.

[Glawen]

To surprise your ennemy. I've heard recently that they tune military hardware differently in peace than in war, e.g. radar signals frequency.

[sashagim]

> whether or not Iran would limit themselves to military targets

This question has long been answered

[machomaster]

How is it? So far they seem to be trying to hit actual non-civilian targets. Missing with the rockets on intended targets is a different matter.

And yes, hitting offices with American financial institutions or hotels with American soldiers in them is fine.

[sashagim]

Attacks on Israel clearly show that Iran - just like Russia - sees the civilian population as a legitimate target. Question of tactics remains, of course.

[parthdesai]

So just like US and Israel?

[big-and-small]

Except it would be very weird goal to achieve because it's only give more reasons to bomb whole country into oblivion and justify deployment of ground troops.

[Spooky23]

They’re at war. The US and Israel are bombing everything anyway.

Strategically, Diego Garcia is a forward operating base for irreplaceable B-52 and B-2 bombers. Placing them at risk on the ground seems like a reckless call, more likely the US pulls those resources back to the US.

I’m not rooting for Iran, but since the US has who they have making the calls, Iran has obvious strategic cards to play - escalation benefits them.

[DoctorOetker]

one missile fails, the other is intercepted

your conclusion: US will pull those resources back?

[Spooky23]

As a defender, you only need to fail once. Blow up a few B-2s on the ramp and that becomes a event with unlimited bad potential.

[urikaduri]

By the time it takes the missiles to reach there, the planes could be in the air.

[JumpCrisscross]

There is probably a hardline faction within Iran that still thinks it gains from further bombing and forced isolation.

[jhanschoo]

Why would Iran end up further isolated due to this war, and out of escalation? (your sentence is slightly ambiguous so I assume that you are referring to it.) If it successfully asserts control over the Strait as it seems to presently be doing, it should be able to negotiate a peace favorable to itself. Even with the status quo, I don't know how that figures into things, but the US has temporarily lifted sanctions on Iranian oil.

I don't follow the news very well, but from what I know the claim that you make isn't very obviously true but needs some evidence for it to stand.

[kombookcha]

I think this is the elephant in the roomt - in terms of quantifiable goals, Iran is winning this thing. I think they're going to want to punish the US and Israel to an extent where they will be reluctant to feel this particular sting again, and they want to assert their ability to control the strait. And it's working! They're clearly demonstrating that the US cannot simply decide when this is over and dictate terms, because Iran can pinch off an important vein of global commerce and probably sustain that pressure for far longer than it can be tolerated by other economies.

They've already gotten one concession in terms of this temporary sanctions relief, even as Trump frames it as a domestic emergency measure and repeatedly declares total victory each day of the conflict. They also got him to back off on targeting their power plants by promising to retaliate in kind against the power infrastructure of US aligned states in range.

I think the US has the ability to beat Iran in a fight, but it does not have the preparation or the resolve to do so at this time, because this is some halfcocked nonsense plan with amorphous goals that they thought would be over in a week.

[jacquesm]

Not without 100K coffins. And that doesn't really sell all that well in the US.

[PixyMisa]

Yep. The IRGC runs the country at this point, and they do not have anyone else's best interests in mind.

[pasquinelli]

maybe they aren't as worried about that as they should be. maybe america isn't as worried about that as it should be.

but, what are you saying? it would be weird for iran to act in a way that might provoke escalation? you mean in the totally unprovoked war israel/america launched against them?

[yongjik]

I don't know which country you're from, but in most countries, "our troops may get bombed if we join this war" is a very strong public argument against joining the war.

Just look at Trump's latest attempt to enlist his "allies" into sending warships to the Strait of Hormuz, and what a resounding success it was.

[hshdhdhj4444]

Not really. Because no one in Europe wants to bomb Iran into oblivion, if for no other reason but the fact that the Europeans (and Turkey) would face another massive refugee crisis.

The only people wanting to continue this war are the U.S. and Israel (and maybe Saudi Arabia?) and even Trump is clearly looking for an off ramp.

This is most likely a way for Iran to tell Europe to do what they can to end this otherwise they will drag Europe into this mess as well.

[bigfatkitten]

> and maybe Saudi Arabia?

The war is extremely bad for business for Saudi Arabia and has already cost them enormous amounts of money. It is causing damage to their oil refineries that will take years to repair.

The only person who gains anything out of this is Netanyahu and his friends. Everyone else loses, including the Israeli people.

[srean]

That is so because of Iran's choice of targets. SA might have misjudged that their business assets would be attacked.

There is some chatter that crown prince supported and approved the assassination of Khamenei and possibly supplies supportive intelligence.

They haven't been exactly friendly with Iran.

The odd ball is Qatar. Qatar had been working hard to have friendly relations with Iran. So I was surprised by Iran's attack on Qatari interests.

[machomaster]

This is what actually happened, but not what was predicted.

According to journalists, it was Saudis who have been trying for a long time to convince Trump to attack Iran.

Sunni vs. Shia, there is a history there.

[jacquesm]

There are unfortunately plenty of idiots in Europe who learned nothing from accompanying the USA on their previous illegal adventures abroad.

[big-and-small]

Europe to do what to stop the war? EU cant even stop war on their own borders. And we seen what Trump buddies think about EU in their leaked Signal chat.

Also it's not like EU and UK actually have any military capacity to bomb Iran even if they wanted because again everything they do have is going to Ukraine already.

[bawolff]

> * This seems to reveal previously-unknown range of Iranian ballistic missiles and, if true, could touch basically all of Europe?

The Wikipedia article has said they had missiles that can range 4300km since 2019 (as in the article was updated in 2019) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Shahab-5&oldid=91... . If Wikipedia has known about it for 7 years, surely military planners were already aware.

[jandrewrogers]

US intelligence had assessed that this was possible a long time ago. It was one of the motivations behind the installation of long-range missile defense capabilities in Poland and Czechia in the late 2000s. Obama killed that program to appease Russia.

Of course, there is a significant gap between Iran possessing the capability, having the temperament to use it, and actually doing so.

[alephnerd]

> It was one of the motivations behind the installation of long-range missile defense capabilities in Poland and Czechia in the late 2000s. Obama killed that program to appease Russia

This was sidestepped by allowing the Poland-SK defense partnership to kick off in 2013 [0] which was further entrenched in 2022 [1], and itself acted as a message against North Korea for acting in a similar manner with Iran [2]

[0] - https://www.president.pl/archives/bronislaw-komorowski/news/...

[1] - https://www.irsem.fr/storage/file_manager_files/2025/03/nr-i...

[2] - https://www.nytimes.com/2010/11/29/world/middleeast/29missil...

[AnotherGoodName]

> This seems to reveal previously-unknown range of Iranian ballistic missiles and, if true, could touch basically all of Europe

True but they have also literally launched multiple orbital satellites from iran on iranian rockets. Eg. The Noor 2 spy satellite and before that the Noor 1 series https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noor_2_(satellite)

These are in orbit to this day. They regularly post images it takes of US military bases. Essentially it’s similar to how sputnik was a demonstration of icbm capability. Iran can launch a first generation ICBM right now. Pointless if they use a conventional payload (too small payload to be cost effective militarily) and a non manoeuvrable warhead (would just be intercepted) and so these aren’t used militarily but essentially everyone acting shocked they can hit 4000km range was not paying attention.

I think one of the problems we are having right now is that we have leaders who actively believed the downplaying of Irans military capabilities. It’s one thing for the common civilian to think the enemies missiles are made of cardboard and tanks of paper but it’s another when the leader of a nation believes it. Now here we are with a war that’s stalemated and no way out.

[JumpCrisscross]

> we have leaders who actively believed the downplaying of Irans military capabilities

Iran has done precisely nothing unexpected in the entire course of this war. Closing Hormuz has been mooted since the 70s. And its IRBM stockpile has been known. This is more a case of something between political leaders and possibly the media being ignorant of even open-source intelligence.

[hirako2000]

I thought the US president said they didn't expect a number of things that happened.

It also expected a quick intervention, 2 weeks max.

[JumpCrisscross]

> the US president…

The President is a political leader.

[chasd00]

To be fair Trump admins most optimistic timeline was “4-6 weeks maybe longer”. We’re at the end of week 3.

[hirako2000]

I recall it was 12 days, or 4 weeks. Perhaps I missed an early prediction from the state that it could be 4 to 6 weeks.

The 12 days, and 2 weeks is what I recall most. But reality is what we want to see and hear. Some would say we are at week 4. Some that we are ending week 3.

Reason would be to accept we are taken for fools anyway. Or worse, run by fools.

[rayiner]

The downplaying of Iran’s capabilities is a weird kind of racism IMHO. In the modern view, Iranians have been categorized as “brown” so people lump them together with Somalians and Afghans. But Iran is a technologically and politically sophisticated country. In terms of the Civ tech tree, it’s higher than any middle eastern country except Israel.

[oa335]

> The downplaying of Iran’s capabilities is a weird kind of racism IMHO.

Agreed, but it’s not at all surprising to me. Propaganda means that people will project fictitious motives and capabilities on their opponents, even if they are internally inconsistent (e.g. Iran must be attacked because they will threaten the USA mainland vs Iran’s missiles are very inaccurate and barely hit anything).

[logicchains]

>Iranians have been categorized as “brown” so people lump them together with Somalians and Afghans.

Even from a racist perspective that's completely wrong; Iranians are white, the name "Iran" literally means "Land of the Aryans".

[breppp]

> Iranians are white, the name "Iran" literally means "Land of the Aryans".

The Indians were also Aryan according to race theories. I wouldn't put much sense into racism

[srean]

Leaving the 'aryan' and 'white' bit aside there are mountains of things that are common between Indians and Iranians -- the system of classical music, musical instruments, mythological characters, food, and of course language.

[sebastiennight]

Wow you just sent me through a fascinating journey through Wikipedia for a while there.

The history (and pseudoscientific justification) of racism is mind-boggling as ever.

[mikrotikker]

I thought Iranians were white? I've met many Iranians that were white.

[rayiner]

That’s what I thought, but in the modern discourse I think all Muslims are classified as non-white.

[alephnerd]

> is that we have leaders who actively believed the downplaying of Irans military capabilities

We've been hinting about these capabilities for decades [0]. A lot of what is being brought up now is stuff a number of us touched on during the Obama years.

None of this is really hidden either - it would be brought up in think tanks and even undergrad classes if you attended a target program.

Civilian leaders have always had a hands-off approach to Defense and NatSec policy - once you show them how close to a polycrisis everything is they quickly defer responsibility. It's actually pretty similar to working in a corporate environment - it's all about managing upwards.

[0] - https://www.nytimes.com/2010/11/29/world/middleeast/29missil...

[jopsen]

> it's all about managing upwards

That might not work with the current administration. Which probably a/the problem.

[alephnerd]

It still does/is. Most of what I'm seeing with Iran is similar to what was discussed back in the early 2010s.

There hasn't been significant churn in the NatSec space aside from political appointees, and core policymakers like Doshi, Maestro, Allison, Colby, and even Hill have worked with administrations irrespective of party affiliation.

[jopsen]

The outcomes is very different from 2010, how so?

[alephnerd]

> The outcomes is very different from 2010

Not really. What we're seeing today is similar to what was being discussed in 2010 [0]. Heck, this failed missile attempt confirms capabilities that were being discussed in 2010 [1].

[0] - https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2010/4/22/us-iran-strike-stil...

[1] - https://www.nytimes.com/2010/11/29/world/middleeast/29missil...

[zabzonk]

> a non manoeuvrable warhead (would just be intercepted)

Intercepted? In the UK, by what? London has no missile defence system that I am aware of.

[kenhwang]

Probably by the Sea Viper system from a destroyer parked in the Dover Strait. Now, the UK probably doesn't have enough interceptors or destroyers carrying them to be confident they'll be able to stop a proper all out attack, but that seems to be a common problem with every Western country right now with a peacetime military budget in an increasingly unpeaceful time.

[dingaling]

Sea Viper can defend against short / medium-range BMs impacting in its vicinity, not IRBMs passing overhead in mid-course to a distant target.

[chatmasta]

A missile would need to fly all the way over Europe before reaching London. It would be noticed, jets would be scrambled and it would be shot. Just like what happened here.

[delichon]

These were ballistic missiles. They are only vulnerable during the terminal phase, when they are moving at hypersonic speeds. Standard fighter jets aren't going to do it. It would take ground based THAAD, Patriot, or ship based Aegis systems. London might want to budget for that.

[polotics]

or take (less) of these https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SAMP/T 8^)

[hirako2000]

They can fly well above any commercial and military aircraft.

[lostlogin]

> I think one of the problems we are having right now is that we have leaders who actively believed the downplaying of Irans military capabilities.

Was that the problem?

The US handling of the situation seems the elephant in the room.

[pfannkuchen]

Why does it matter if they have some capabilities to hit whatever targets in Europe or America? They’re not crazy, it would still be suicide for them to do it. It would just give them leverage, which I can’t think of a fair reason to prevent them from having.

[jacquesm]

> It’s one thing for the common civilian to think the enemies missiles are made of cardboard and tanks of paper but it’s another when the leader of a nation believes it.

It's just another case of history - endlessly - repeating.

[dragonelite]

It's a message toward the west don't think you're safe further away. Iran is pushing the west out of west Asia. Time will tell what USIS and EU will do to combat this.

[ignoramous]

> Time will tell what USIS and EU will do to combat this.

Diplomacy was working fine, per high-ranking diplomats: https://www.economist.com/by-invitation/2026/03/18/americas-...

[PixyMisa]

Mandy Rice-Davies Applies.

[magic_hamster]

Anyone thinking they can talk their way into controlling Iran, a fundamentalist fanatic country with a very loud and visible doctrine literally calling to destroy the west, is delusional. The western "avoid conflict at all cost" approach is extremely detrimental.

[JasonADrury]

> Iran, a fundamentalist fanatic country

United States, a fundamentalist fanatic country: https://bsky.app/profile/gregsargent.bsky.social/post/3mhgag...

[srean]

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47469696

[ignoramous]

> Anyone thinking they can talk their way into controlling Iran, a fundamentalist fanatic country with a very loud and visible doctrine literally calling to destroy the west, is delusional

Yeah, what's it about peoples of the third world that they're always fanatical, that they're always out to destroy the first world... https://theconversation.com/orientalism-edward-saids-groundb... / https://archive.vn/HoEk5

[srean]

If US takes down their democracy and downs their domestic passenger jets, fight a proxy war with chemical weapons through Saddam Hussein that alone kills 20~30 thousand, no country is going to respond to that with flowers in their hair.

Loved your link, but I doubt it is going to change anyone who thinks Israel and US are doing the god's work here.

[seanmcdirmid]

Once you simply kill all the leaders, there is no one left to negotiate with.

Iran is also oddly moderate from the region (beyond the whole death to America thing).

[donkeybeer]

Of course Israel and the current US government are violent religious fanatics who are using made up crap like the Bible and Torah to motivate the war.

The nuclear armed violently psychopathic state in the Middle East that still lies about nukes is the one that must be attacked not the country that allowed all audits of their nuclear program. We should conduct an operation to decommission or transfer in safe keeping to a neutral power all of Israel's illegal nukes and impose crippling sanctions on them for their lying on this extremely serious matter.

[dlubarov]

> lies about nukes

Such as? Ambiguity (or not sharing information) isn't a lie.

[donkeybeer]

Lying about nukes until Mordechai Vanunu outed the program. Iran has been cooperative in letting its nuclear program being audited, your country like the countless "execptions" it claims for itself does not permit any audits.

You tell me, if Iran, Hamas, and (insert other groups you hate) played games about nukes and told you they "don't" have nukes despite having hundreds how would you feel?

Israeli nukes must be brought under audit and transferred or decommissionied urgently by neutral third parties, it is a very grave matter.

[wolvoleo]

I don't think they had any reason to destroy us until trump decided to kick the hornet's nest. In fact they were quite reasonable and agreed to inspections of their nuclear programme which is also something Trump broke before, and now with his petty war.

I mean they hate Israel way more than us and they never attacked them either (until this war obviously). And regime change was already happening there slowly. They would have become more moderate, the public opinion inside Iran was more and more against them especially since what they did to the protesters.

This war was unnecessary and only cemented the regime's hold on their people by giving them an external enemy.

[magic_hamster]

You are just uninformed.

Iran has sponsored, built and trained organizations all over the middle east so they could destroy Israel: Hamas, the Houthis in Yemen, Hezbollah in Lebanon and groups in Iraq are all proxies propped up by Iran.

Iran was the first to attack Israel, this happened in 2024 when Israel killed Nasrallah (Hezbollah) and Iran fired hundreds of ballistic missiles directly at Israel.

Iran hates the US way more than Israel, but Israel is closer so obviously they are directing their efforts according to what's plausible. Iran calls the US and Israel "the big satan" and "little satan" in almost all internal communication. Just a couple of weeks ago the entire Iranian parliament chanted "death to America" and "death to Israel" (you can see the videos online). Iran had US flags laid out on the floor of their facilities so that anyone going by will walk over the US flag.

Despite being very uncomfortable, the war is probably necessary because as seen by Iran's attack on Diego Garcia, they have way longer range than previously thought, they have a deposit or military grade uranium enough for 10-12 bombs, they were completely dishonest about their nuclear programs, and waiting until Iran had nukes meant you couldn't ever stop them. You'd have another North Korea but ten times worse, as the Iranian regime is truly a fundamentalist insane leadership. Trump may be unhinged but he's right about Iran using nukes if they had them.

[srean]

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47469696

[madaxe_again]

Iran have boats.

[derektank]

Obviously they have boats. The question is, do they still have boats which are capable of serving as a launch platform for ballistic missiles? And could those boats meaningfully close the distance between Iran and its adversaries.

This launch demonstrates that if the answer to both of those questions is still no, they can still place them at threat.

[zer00eyz]

The question is do they have a launcher that fits in a shipping container...

[alephnerd]

Yep. Hence why I posted it.

> previously-unknown

It was implied by Iran's space program.

There's a reason most regional powers also invested in a space program as well as a civilian uncles program. The name of the game is dual-use technologies.

The Biden admin also warned about Iran-NK collaboration on building these kinds of capabilities [0]

[0] - https://www.janes.com/osint-insights/defence-news/us-officia...

[arkensaw]

> civilian uncles program

I know its just a typo but lol'ed so hard

[alephnerd]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RejrrkrRShM