this post was submitted on 10 Mar 2026
41 points (97.7% liked)

World News

54580 readers
3035 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
 

When Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi said Tehran had spent two decades studying US wars to build a system that could keep fighting even if the capital was bombed, he was describing more than resilience; he was outlining the logic of Iran’s defence doctrine.

At the centre of that doctrine is what Iranian military thinkers call “decentralised mosaic defence” – a concept built on one core assumption: that in any war with the United States or Israel, Iran may lose senior commanders, key facilities, communications networks and even centralised control, but must still be able to keep fighting.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] rain_enjoyer@sopuli.xyz 3 points 3 hours ago* (last edited 2 hours ago)

if iranian misleers responded to actual situation instead of their imagined apocalypse scenario, iran's diplomatic position would be much better. planning like this removes lots of flexibility and reeks of hubris. they have probably assumed at time of writing that plan that brits will join americans in bombing campaign, which they didn't, so striking cyprus is a blunder, because if they didn't do that, brits wouldn't send a ship to eastern med, which allowed american carrier to go to red sea. brits now are unlikely to pressure americans against this campaign, as well as french, turks, azeris and all of gulf states because all of them or their assets were bombed

if you only have missiles and fuel that you can carry, then you're not prepared for a long war. if your TELs are plinked from air one by one because air defense was plinked day before, you're not prepared for a long war. attrition goes against you if multimillion dollar ballistic missile gets deleted by 40k SDB. extremely charitably this is short term solution meant to make it look like everything works fine. it took ~week for iranians to recover and get new orders, this is not sustainable

it's not new either. elements of this thinking appear in nuclear war planning as "spasm" response, which is uncoordinated, final response of low level elements in case of top brass removal (it's all conventional so far of course, nevertheless war like this is probably planned to be existential for iran). apparently first iteration didn't work, because tenure of that general who introduced it ended in 2019, and 2025 war didn't include running around like a headless chicken and causing diplomatic incidents left and right. they have burned down so much goodwill for nothing, it's lowkey impressive