Settings

Theme

U.S. intelligence shows Iran retains substantial missile capabilities

nytimes.com

53 points by hebelehubele a month ago · 37 comments

Reader

yuppiepuppie a month ago

Suprises no one. I remember reading that the IRGC is quite a distributed organization, and has planned for the exact situation they find themselves in today.

Im guessing they have lots of stuff stashed away only known to each IRGC "section"

  • pseudohadamard a month ago

    It's not just that, the entire Iranian government setup is designed to make it as difficult as possible to get rid of them. Their government isn't built around checks and balances or the other usual things, it's a group that came to power through revolution and have done everything possible to make sure that the same thing doesn't happen to them. The result is a baroque interlocking system of councils and bodies and roles without any single point of failure.

    Which any career diplomat and analyst in the USG would have known, but clearly came as a complete surprise to a motley collection of reality TV stars, religious nutcases, and former Fox news pundits.

  • stock_toaster a month ago

    > Suprises no one.

    Well, it is maybe a surprise to at least _one_ person! /s

lo_zamoyski a month ago

The amount of buffoonery on the US side is staggering.

1. Iran is always 2 weeks away from having nuclear missiles.

2. Iran's military capability is destroyed.

3. If Iran had nuclear warheads, it could successfully deploy them against the US.

4. If Iran had nuclear warheads and could deliver them, their leadership is so suicidal/stupid that it would trigger MAD.

Truly staggering buffoonery.

  • tejohnso a month ago

    Also, the USRAEL regime keeps feigning diplomacy after committing multiple egregious acts of perfidy. On more than one occasion they started bombing during or at beginning of negotiations.

  • nostrademons a month ago

    The enemy is both strong and weak.

    • pseudohadamard a month ago

      "To know and not to know, to be conscious of complete truthfulness while telling carefully constructed lies, to hold simultaneously two opinions which cancelled out, knowing them to be contradictory and believing in both of them, to use logic against logic, to repudiate morality while laying claim to it, to believe that democracy was impossible and that the Party was the guardian of democracy, to forget whatever it was necessary to forget, then to draw it back into memory again at the moment when it was needed, and then promptly to forget it again: and above all, to apply the same process to the process itself -- that was the ultimate subtlety: consciously to induce unconsciousness, and then, once again, to become unconscious of the act of hypnosis you had just performed. Even to understand the word 'doublethink' involved the use of doublethink".

pentaphobe a month ago

Wait, so you're saying there are "WMDs" in the Middle East?

Fun and totally not sarcastic fact fact: the opposite of "Deja vu" is "jamais vu"

akagusu a month ago

Why this was flagged? Censorship?

bayarearefugee a month ago

You really think the President of the United States would do that? Just go on the internet and tell lies?

jacknews a month ago

... so we need to hit them again...

  • johng a month ago

    If their regular missiles are bad enough, just imagine them with nukes.

    • tejohnso a month ago

      I imagine with nukes they'd be much like Russia, or Pakistan, or India, or China. In other words, showing restraint and intelligence, and having a deterrent against wars of aggression from the world's highest-funded army.

    • glaslong a month ago

      All we seem to have done is prove to every non-nuclear country that they all SHOULD have nukes. Because it would have prevented Iran being invaded.

      • dfadsadsf a month ago

        It's game theory. You start developing nukes and risk US bombing you to stone age while killing your personally. But the moment you develop nukes, US will likely leave you alone. Choices.

      • johng a month ago

        Didn't Russia invading Ukraine already prove that?

    • megous a month ago

      US will kill more people through secondary effects of their aggression against Iran, than Iran's nuke ever would directly. True barbarians, except I understand English, so they sound to me less like bar bar bar, and more like a*holes. My gf tries to convince me US americans just don't care and are more like a bear in a porcelain shop. But dunno, I look at Cuba, Iran, Israel and lot of other places americans are very aggressive in/against and it's more like a*holes at this point to me. Whole porcelain shop is suffering. This just isn't the "we are big and stumbled a bit and broke stuff", anymore.

    • CamperBob2 a month ago

      They could have had nukes long ago. They exercised restraint. We didn't. Just imagine the regret they are experiencing now.

      Basically, Trump has taught some terrible people that they should have been even worse. The lesson will not be lost on their descendants.

      • delecti a month ago

        I don't think they should be experiencing regret. The power in nukes is not in using them, it's in the threat of using them. The threat of using them keeps you from being attacked, but once you actually use them, so will the other guys.

        This war has pulled the tarp off of their control over the Strait of Hormuz though. That's a strategic weapon they can use without getting nuked back. Iran is much stronger than they were before the war; this was their Trinity test.

        • CamperBob2 a month ago

          The power of nukes is that you don't get attacked by the US or Israel or Russia or anyone else.

          None of this would have happened if they had developed (or otherwise acquired) nuclear weapons. End of story.

          • M95D a month ago

            > The power of nukes is that you don't get attacked by the US or Israel or Russia or anyone else.

            Until they use them...

            • CamperBob2 a month ago

              No reason to think they would, unless some idiot were to attack them.

              Turns out they were the idiots, for trusting us to behave in accordance with international law.

              • M95D a month ago

                That "idiot" could attack using false flag op, blame someone else. Also, would you trust a decentralized military like Iran has to not fire a nuke for a minor provocation?

                • defrost a month ago

                  So far they've been sound, unsurprising considering they have no nuclear weapons despite being a week away from having one for three or four decades now.

                  The greater question is can the world trust a self indulgenent narcissist with zero checks and balances from having a 3 am whim to launch while Truthing on the toilet.

      • JohnMakin a month ago

        And what's truly ironic and moronic, is that the deal the talks are seeking a graceful exit for now would basically be a version of the JCPOA that was withdrawn for pretty much no reason in 2018. Which, if you are Iran, there is zero chance you're going to agree to anything like that anymore now they have all the leverage.

        Working hard, thank you!

    • bigyabai a month ago

      That sounds like Israel's problem. Iran doesn't possess a large enough missile to credibly nuke the US.

    • jacknews a month ago

      Did they fire their missiles before they were surprise-attacked by Trump?

      IMHO they should have nukes as a deterrent and to balance Israel.

pengaru a month ago

"intelligence"

gsibble a month ago

Article from the NYT with a vested interest in making the admin look bad = doubt

Keyboard Shortcuts

j
Next item
k
Previous item
o / Enter
Open selected item
?
Show this help
Esc
Close modal / clear selection