this post was submitted on 24 Feb 2026
38 points (95.2% liked)

World News

54116 readers
2741 users here now

A community for discussing events around the World

Rules:

Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.


Lemmy World Partners

News !news@lemmy.world

Politics !politics@lemmy.world

World Politics !globalpolitics@lemmy.world


Recommendations

For Firefox users, there is media bias / propaganda / fact check plugin.

https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/media-bias-fact-check/

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

If Washington’s participation in Israel’s June 2025 war with Iran elevated U.S. military force to a perfectly viable instrument of the United States’ Iran policy, the success of current talks would signal the formal undoing of that logic. But should the failure of talks pave the way for another full-scale war, the United States and Israel will be fighting an Iran vastly different from June. For the Iran of today appears to have made its peace with the grim conclusion that while a decisive slog with Israel and the United States is sure to be agonizing, it is preferable to the recurring attrition of repeated wars and a chronic strategic vulnerability that only emboldens adversaries to target Iran and its regional allies.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] Skyrmir@lemmy.world -1 points 2 hours ago (1 children)

In order to continue challenging air defenses, there has to be someplace left to launch an air attack from. And since Iran has nothing to stop US air attacks, that becomes an issue long before US air defense runs out.

[–] supersquirrel@sopuli.xyz 3 points 2 hours ago* (last edited 2 hours ago) (1 children)

Where is your evidence that will happen? Especially in the geography in which this conflict will occur?

I think the precise opposite has been demonstrated.

The entire concept of extremely long range missile trucks is the ability to fully exploit interior expanses as launch points for offensive strikes.

Who cares if you learn the location of a missile launch if the vehicle is already moving and chose an irrelevant place in the near backline to fire from?

The entire concept of long range missile launch from mobile trucks like this is the idea of mobility as an fully organic individualized capability.... a problem air power is least equipped to neutralize since the targets are maximally decentralized in a spatial sense and in motion.

[–] Skyrmir@lemmy.world 1 points 1 hour ago (1 children)

The US is showing up with 4 times as many cruise missiles as Iran has total launch systems, on day one. The US has a working supply chain to bring more. Iran won't have a supply chain from anywhere, and construction won't be an option without materials, which would also be targeted.

Iran has no chance of standing up to the US military, that's never really been a question. The only thing they can, and probably will do, is cause some losses to the Navy and any land troops. Unlike Iraq or Afghanistan, the US will take serious casualties if it goes into Iran. That won't be enough to stop the invasion, or really even slow it down. Internal politics would be a far more likely reason to stop any open invasion.

[–] supersquirrel@sopuli.xyz 1 points 1 hour ago* (last edited 1 hour ago)

The only thing they can, and probably will do, is cause some losses to the Navy and any land troops. Unlike Iraq or Afghanistan, the US will take serious casualties if it goes into Iran. That won’t be enough to stop the invasion, or really even slow it down. Internal politics would be a far more likely reason to stop any open invasion.

No, if Iran does a serious amount of damage to the US it is going to have MASSIVE blowback in the US. It might not immediately translate into the US backing off but the idea that Trump will pay no political cost in real terms if Iran does serious damage to the US military I just don't think holds up.

Long term I think it will just make the rightwing even more war obsessed but that is independent of a direct tactical transaction going on here in political power. If Iran hits the US hard during the attack Trump will look worse and it will cost him and his allies materially.

In the US War Cycle we are at the Brenschluss, the point where fascists completely take over the war machine from the remnants of a decayed irrelevant professional/elite class and the centrist/establishment warhawks are temporarily all onboard just before the first massive catastrophe utterly destroys the coalition's image of power and once again we fall subject to gravity, same as everyone else.