this post was submitted on 24 Feb 2026
50 points (94.6% liked)

World News

54211 readers
2208 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.

top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] CanadaPlus@lemmy.sdf.org 1 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago)

Honestly I doubt Trump would stick it out for any significant period of time. He's already acting surprised that Iran doesn't fold immediately when someone credibly threatens to break their toys. If the US attacks, there will be more of that, followed by some kind of TACO and and comments that "NOBODY though defeating Iran would be this hard". The main question I guess is how fast it would all happen.

[–] Skyrmir@lemmy.world 13 points 3 days ago (1 children)

What if the reason Trump hasn't attacked is because Iran is supplying Russia with the drones they need in Ukraine?

[–] supersquirrel@sopuli.xyz 5 points 3 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago) (33 children)

Yeah but the benefit of the US and other powers blowing through all their air defense missiles in another conflict with Iran would be so massive to Putin that in my opinion that is a major reason Trump is pushing this war.

[–] HumanOnEarth@lemmy.ca 4 points 3 days ago (3 children)

No doubt Russia will move if a regional war kicks off, maybe even China. Which is no doubt why the Russian agents are getting so much pushback against attacking Iran.

The timing of the nuclear sabre rattling from the Kremlin is suspicious too.

Total crackpot armchair hypothesis: is this what it would look like if Russia's plan was to escalate the war against Ukraine and Europe, and to do it while the United States is too occupied with other problems?

[–] CanadaPlus@lemmy.sdf.org 3 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago)

Russia's original plan was to take Kyiv in a week. Everything since then has seemed more like reaction than anything else, and I don't see how they could have controlled events to make this happen when they can't even control their own supply chain adequately.

Would they take advantage of a distraction, though? Sure.

[–] supersquirrel@sopuli.xyz 10 points 3 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago)

Total crackpot armchair hypothesis: is this what it would look like if Russia’s plan was to escalate the war against Ukraine and Europe, and to do it while the United States is too occupied with other problems?

I don't think Russia can meaningfully escalate without just resorting to nuclear bombs, but I think that would be a red line for China if it was just done arbitrarily as an escalation.

In every other respect Russia is near complete exhaustion militarily and any additional actions they take have to be done with elements triaged from other military efforts at the front.. and as we are seeing Ukraine does not simply let Russia quietly remove intensity from its offensive without immediately punishing them in devastating localized counterattacks.

What Russia is doing here is trying to project limitless strength at the point they are at near exhaustion, they can't really meaningfully tip the scales either way with Iran in my opinion, at least not to the degree the world seems to by default assume they can because they are a "military superpower". Russia needs hostilities to pause in the Ukraine war soon or the problems at the frontline for them will begin to accelerate non-linearly. They also need to be given all of the defensive lines that Ukraine built in a shitty diplomatic deal because they don't even remotely have the strength and vigor to power through them in the years long battle it would take to do so.

[–] frisbird@lemmy.ml 0 points 2 days ago (2 children)

The CIA has consistently reported that not only do Russian strategists and leaders not have the intention to invade more of Europe, they also do not have the capability and capacity to do so.

So yes, it's a crackpot hypothesis because it doesn't match reality as we know it.

[–] CanadaPlus@lemmy.sdf.org 2 points 1 day ago (1 children)

they also do not have the capability and capacity to do so.

TBF you don't need to be the CIA to observe that part.

[–] frisbird@lemmy.ml 1 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Yes. Which is why the discourse is so obviously manufactured I can't believe any of you don't see it.

The enemy is both weak and strong. Russia is both losing terrible for 4 years straight and also we need another $100B worth of the most powerful weapons in the world. Russia is both sending soldiers out to the fields without shoes or guns and also if we don't send more support Ukraine will lose. Russia is both almost completely out of soldiers and tanks and also all they will invade all of Europe if Ukraine falls.

It's so obvious. It's been obvious for years. The same people saying it's obvious that Russia is in an abject state are the same ones saying that unless we send weapons, or even troops, then Europe will be overrun by Russian hordes.

It's important that we see this discourse for what it is - pure manipulation of the masses. It has no basis in reality. Most of the discourse on the conflict has no basis in reality. The ruling class of the Western empire has one objective - maintain power over the world, including and most importantly, their domestic working class.

[–] CanadaPlus@lemmy.sdf.org 2 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago)

Hanlon's razor, though. There's always a tendency to think this way about enemies. The trick is not letting it become official doctrine, if you want to be the good guy and want to win.

And it's not FWIW. There's clickbait about imminent doom and shitposters talking about how Russians are just sunflower holders, but actual officers, agencies and analysts paint a much more nuanced picture.

[–] Skyrmir@lemmy.world 3 points 3 days ago (1 children)

Iran wouldn't blow through a serious fraction of US air defense. The main threats from Iran would be torpedo's and water based mines from hidden/small launch sites. Their drone attacks would probably land a couple hits early on, due to sheer volume, but they wouldn't get to launch waves like Russia is able to in Ukraine. There wouldn't be enough launch sites remaining after the first two weeks.

The bigger issues would be what other countries do in reaction. China and Russia at the top of that list.

[–] supersquirrel@sopuli.xyz 5 points 3 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago) (1 children)

Iran wouldn’t blow through a serious fraction of US air defense.

Iran already did in the 12 day war with Israel? What? Are you kidding? Air defense missile production capacity in the west was shown to be completely incapable of sustaining a barrage of Iranian missiles and it has been a discussion since about how to address that. The air defenses work, clearly, but they run out quick.

[–] Skyrmir@lemmy.world 1 points 3 days 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 1 points 3 days ago* (last edited 3 days 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 3 points 3 days ago (2 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 2 points 3 days ago* (last edited 3 days 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-Drug Cycle we are at the Brenschlaus, the point where fascists take over the war machine and the warhawks are temporarily all onboard just before the first massive catastrophe that utterly destroys the coalition's image of power.

[–] frisbird@lemmy.ml -1 points 2 days ago

The US is massively overextended in the region. And has limited platforms to deploy power from. Just as you say the US would first target Iranian launch capacity, Iran would first target US regional platforms, including the incredibly vulnerable carriers. Iran already demonstrated it can bypass missile defenses. The Houthis already demonstrated that they can threaten naval assets. Iran will target airfields and carriers first and those US bombers are going to have a hard time finding a place they can land.

load more comments (31 replies)
load more comments
view more: next ›