this post was submitted on 22 Jun 2025
33 points (97.1% liked)

World News

2666 readers
193 users here now

founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
top 11 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] supersolid_snake@lemmygrad.ml 15 points 3 days ago (3 children)

Iran should stay the course and stick to striking the entity. The goal should be ending the entity and that's how you defeat the US in the region in the end also. Just be like, yeah all our nuclear shit got destroyed, you got us good, and keep targeting vital zio infrastructure until the colonists "voluntarily migrate" or whatever euphemism was used for Palestinians.

[–] yogthos@lemmygrad.ml 12 points 3 days ago (1 children)

That's basically the approach that Russia's been taking in Ukraine incidentally. They ignore all the provocations and just focus on winning through attrition.

[–] supersolid_snake@lemmygrad.ml 6 points 3 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago) (1 children)

Oh you are absolutely correct, they have played it smart despite numerous provocations. The settlers are absolutely losing their shit in less than a week. Hate to be cliche but I dont think they are built for this which makes sense. They are there to live a life of luxury, not be in a shelter with other selfish monsters.

[–] Lenins_Sabocat@lemmygrad.ml 8 points 3 days ago

It didn't even cross my mind, the lot of them having to be stuck together. Miserable Company.

[–] rainpizza@lemmygrad.ml 6 points 3 days ago (1 children)

Some cuban telegrams are echoing your thoughts too. It will be interesting to see what Iran decides.

[–] supersolid_snake@lemmygrad.ml 5 points 3 days ago

Yeah, i think this was a provocation to trigger a retaliation, but what do I know, I am definitely not a geopolitical strategist.

[–] KrasnaiaZvezda@lemmygrad.ml 1 points 3 days ago (1 children)

It is a strategy although I'm not sure it's the best strategy.

Any attack Iran suffers from the usa without retaliating will lead to a bigger attack and more joining in. It starts with an attack on nuclear sites and in a few steps could lead to a "limited nuking" of somewhere or other.

The only thing that I think could be worse for leading to widescale usage of nukes than attacking nuclear facilities is accepting an attack against ones nuclear facilities/structures unpunished.

[–] supersolid_snake@lemmygrad.ml 1 points 2 days ago

You may be right. Unfortunately not a lot of options. They should have gotten a nuke long ago

[–] ksynwa@lemmygrad.ml 11 points 3 days ago (1 children)

This means that the Islamic Republic is now locked in a war to death. There won't be any ceasefires from here on. Wonder how Iran will respond. I hope they at least damage israel significantly regardless of the final outcome.

[–] SlayGuevara@lemmygrad.ml 6 points 3 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago) (1 children)

I've read that the US has no other option than bombing as they cannot win a land war there in any way. Iran is all mountains. The second you get troops in is the second they will be encircled. They will not be able to get out. Tank warfare is useless there.

Strike the military assets in the region and the US has no options anymore.

[–] ksynwa@lemmygrad.ml 3 points 3 days ago

They also have their favourite option which they have historically resorted to countless times in the past which is the indisciminate brutalisation of civilians and destruction of civilian infrastructure because who is gonna stop them and how.