Pointlessness of this war aside, I fail to see how the situation is materially different than it was prior to the war begining.<p>Iran has generally been an active and persistant threat for many US firms long before this war began, and I have a hard time thinking they have had the restraint and the resources to collect together an arsenal of zero-day exploits they have yet to unleash.
To me, this just reads as empty threats intended more for the potential economic fear it can produce.
I assumed this meant bombing or shooting up tech firm headquarters, outpost, and targeting higher level managers and execs.<p>They were always hacking all the time.
Iran has always lacked an ability to project power at a distance.
Outside of sympathetic lone operators, there really isnt much to suggest they can do anything more than ramp up rhetoric and calls for violence.<p>The reason why I call it empty threats is because it accomplishes its goal no matter the outcome.
If a sympathetic lone operator uses this as an excuse to start shooting, they can claim the credit. But if all it does is stoke fear that "Something somewhere might happen" then it's still a win for them.
> Iran has always lacked an ability to project power at a distance.<p>Sure. Now they maybe able to reach Greece. Give them five years and they will develop missiles that can reach France, or even UK. I am sure europeans would love the idea of fanatical regime having arms that can reach them, especially, if we consider that EU today does not have very robust air defense. Even Israel that planned for this war for a while has rockets that penetrate their defenses.<p>I would prefer the politicians not to take those gambles.
"Iran has always lacked an ability to project power at a distance"<p>I'm curious what you're basing this on, since Iran has been supplying Russia with drones, etc. for much of the war in Ukraine and so far has launched attacks into Jordan, Iraq, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, Qatar, the United Arab Emirates, Oman, and Cyprus since the US began its attacks.<p>Iran may not be able to strike at sites in the US, but it could certainly target data centers in the Middle East with some hope of success. I'm not at all confident the current administration has accurately assessed Iran's capabilities or has the ability to protect the assets of US-based companies (or US citizens) in that region.
Your post is extremely misleading. Shipping drones in a box or whatever they are doing so Russians can use them is completely different from what we mean by projecting power. In many cases the Russians are actually manufacturing the drones themselves based off the Iranian plan. That's not anything like the USA's power projection, where B2s can takeoff in Missouri, bomb Iran and come home without ever landing or even being shot at. I mean it's just not even close.<p>Launching attacks and having "some hope of success" is weak. And that's what Iran is and has always been, weak.<p>Yes they launch attacks. Most of these fail. They have nowhere near the level of lethality, precision, force projection and penetration of Israel or the United States.<p>When are Americans going to learn nationstates and some radical blowing themselves up are two different things. You don't stop the latter by blowing up the former. History has always shown in fact that doing that makes the latter problem worse.
It would be pretty dangerous to attribute such a thing (if it ever happened) to Iran without concrete evidence. Some stateside lone wolf nut might claim to be acting on behalf of Iran, but it doesn't make it true. It's pretty easy in America for anyone to get a gun and attempt a murder. It doesn't mean any government provided any meaningful capability, nor should we believe so until confronted with strong evidence.
Apparently the FBI recently stymied a plot that involved using drones deployed from offshore vessels targeting california. As to what that vessel might be, a submarine, a missile cruiser, a civilian vessel knowing or not, a container on a ship, the report left no indication.<p>Either way the target is tempting. Japan attempted it using the technology of their time which was entirely unguided. Today drones are precision instruments vs random dart balloon bombs.
China and/or Russia might have a collection of zero-days they've been sitting on, which they could surreptitiously provide to Iran. Of course, there's attribution risk there, and the opportunity cost of not saving those zero-days for their own later use.
It seems kind of unlikey to me. Cyber attacks are unlikely to meaningfully change the result of the war, so it would kind of just be a waste from the china/russia perspective. They so far havent lifted a finger to do anything for iran that wasn't free for them, so i doubt they would waste exploits on this.
> Pointlessness of this war aside<p>This is not a pointless war. You may not like Trump or Bibi, but geopolitics-wise this war make perfect sense on many levels.<p>First, it limits China's ability to hoard cheep oil as Iran has to sell its oil with a discount due to being sanctioned. China hoards oil as it plans to attack Taiwan and it understands that there will be sanctions on oil trade. So, to minimize the shock on its economy China hoards oil. [1]<p>Second, Iran is the reason why Gulf states are surrounded by instability: Houthis, armed and funded by IR, in Yemen make Saudis and UAE uneasy. Iraqi militias funded and armed by IR as well sabotage internal politics of Iraq the same way Hizballah destabilizes Lebanon. No one in the Gulf (except Qatar maybe, up until recently) wanted strong IR. These countries and their peace is essential for US and the world economy.<p>Third, if IR gets nukes, most of the Gulf nations would want nukes too. They already see themselves surrounded by IR-funded militias. We do not need more nukes, we need less nukes in the world. And I have no idea how people simply ignore the fact that IR already has 400+kg of 60%-encriched uranium. Why if not for bombs?<p>So yeah, geopolitics-wise this war makes perfect sense. Islamic Republic is major destabilizing factor in the region, and this war attempts to resolve it.<p>Why the current admin cannot articulate it clearly, idk.<p>[1] <a href="https://jkempenergy.com/2026/02/15/chinas-oil-stocks-and-readiness-for-war/#:~:text=China%20has%20been%20accumulating%20crude,is%20following%20long%2Dstanding%20precedent." rel="nofollow">https://jkempenergy.com/2026/02/15/chinas-oil-stocks-and-rea...</a>
I call it pointless because I and many other Americans have been told these things before.
We are always in a constant "Red Queen's Race" with other nations as a means of establishing dominance.
We subsidize allies like Israel with billions of dollars that have never been allocated by our congress, and which only serve to subsidize the healthcare of Israeli citizens while we continue to have nothing of the sorts.<p>"Bro, just trust me Iran is SO CLOSE!" for the past 40 years is not convincing us that this war has any benefit to us.
Americans are already on the hook for trillions of dollars in debt we cannot pay as a country, and now we want to continue exploding the deficit to the tune of $1 Billion per day.
Its existential threat after existential threat with no consideration to the actual troubles americans are facing in the here and now. Its just endless wars with no end in sight. Outside of manufacturing consent on behalf of Israel, posts such as yours seem highly dedicated to trying to convince nobody aside from the wealthy few Americans with international holdings.
> I call it pointless because I and many other Americans have been told these things before. We are always in a constant "Red Queen's Race" with other nations as a means of establishing dominance.<p>Well, if it's not the US, then someone else will. So, it can be US then.<p>> We subsidize allies like Israel with billions of dollars that have never been allocated by our congress, and which only serve to subsidize the healthcare of Israeli citizens while we continue to have nothing of the sorts.<p>Aid to Israel is basically giving them weapons for free, i.e., paying US-based companies. I have no idea how did you jump from weapons to subsidizing Israel's healthcare.<p>> "Bro, just trust me Iran is SO CLOSE!" for the past 40 years is not convincing us that this war has any benefit to us.<p>What is the purpose of having 60%-enriched uranium if not for bombs? If Iran has 60%-enriched uranium today, it means that they did start to work on it 10s of years ago. So, these people who said it were right.<p>I am not sure why you advocate for the spread of nuclear weapons, especially with regimes that are known to spread instability in the region.<p>> Americans are already on the hook for trillions of dollars in debt we cannot pay as a country, and now we want to continue exploding the deficit to the tune of $1 Billion per day.<p>This is a valid issue, and it has to be resolved. However, it has nothing to do with the war. With this war, or without, the debt is a structural problem of US politics. So far, for the past 20 years, everyone just kicks the can down the road.<p>> Outside of manufacturing consent on behalf of Israel, posts such as yours seem highly dedicated to trying to convince us that this isnt a pointless war from the American perspective.<p>It is absolutely not a pointless war. If this war is won, it secures long-term peace in the region, which will absolutely benefit the US. I have no idea why you think that having a regime that funds most of the terror groups in the regions, and spreads instability is good for the US.
>"but geopolitics-wise this war make perfect sense"<p>For the US - maybe, assuming they do not get bloody nose at some point.
Everyone is on IT infosec thin and slippery ice.<p>Taunting someone else on the ice is a bad idea.<p>As is giving anyone reason to want you to plunge to your icy death, rather than to merely fall gently on your butt.
Prior to the war beginning there was a higher percentage of discussion of the Epstein Files.
Indeed. Remember this is the same regime that was insisting their leader was alive and about to make a speech when he had been dead for hours in the opening strikes of the conflict. They said they would sink American aircraft carriers if attacked. Meanwhile, the American president went on TV and stated they've blown through so many layers of leadership they are not sure who they could even reach out to.<p>Iran can clearly barely defend itself. The idea they will suddenly pull off something meaningful now strains credulity.
Sleeper cells are probably a bigger risk than zero days.
You really don’t see how the situation is materially different? The bombed oil fields, hotels, dead American soldiers - all business as usual?
Weird of you to neglect to mention the hundreds of dead Iranians, including not only many civilians on their own soil but also layers of the Iranian leadership. Including of course the assassination of the supreme leader. I'm not saying his death is a bad thing. But that would be the most "materially different" part of this time vs "business as usual".<p>The other reason this is relevant is because it might lead one to reasonably conclude Iranian options for retaliation have already been exhausted.<p>If they have some capability in reserve what are they waiting for?
> <i>I have a hard time thinking they have had the restraint and the resources to collect together an arsenal of zero-day exploits they have yet to unleash</i><p>The semi-official IRGC account warns of attacks on offices and infrastructure of US & Israeli firms in the ME with drones and missiles, not zero-days.
In a just world many people would go the gallows for the decades of harm the US has inflicted on Iran for basically no reason whatsoever other than to benefit oil companies.<p>We overthrew their democratically elected government to install the Shah as a puppet dictator because the British goaded us into it by hand-waving about "communism" after Iran nationalized their own oil reserves from the Anglo-Iranian Company (which became BP). What followed was a brutal era of repression where American companies took a slice of oil revenue.<p>Once this became untenable, another of our puppets, Saddam Hussein, ejected the future Ayatollah Khomenei from Iraq in 1978. Why? Because we wanted the religious fundamentalists to win instead of the communists, which might bring Iran into the Soviet sphere of influence.<p>we then propped up a decade of war with Iraq by supplying Iraq with weapons. More than a million people died.<p>Iran has weathered decades of sanctions, which is a fancy way of saying "we're going to starve you and deny your citizens basic medical care". The death toll for this is also likely in the millions.<p>We've let our rabid attack dog in the region, Israel, bomb Iranian consulates (eg Damascus), assassinate scientists, diplomators and negotiators, bomb them with impunity and otherwise commit regular war crimes.<p>We've gone to war for no other reason than Israel wants Iran to be a fail-state because it threatens the Greater Israel project [1]. It's clear that there was no military planning in any of this or, more likely, military planners probably said "this is a bad idea, we can't win" and they were ignored.<p>Iran continued complying with the JCPOA for at least a year after Trump cancelled it at the behest of Sheldon Adelson [2].<p>All of this while Saudi Arabia, our "ally", provided material suport to the 9/11 hijackers [3]. Our attack dog spies on us. A lot eg Jonathon Pollard [4]. And Jeffrey Epstein was almost certainly a Mossad access asset that compromised every level of our government, our companies and our educational institutions.<p>We are the bad guys here and I hope one day Iran gets some justice for the harm we've inflicted upon it.<p>[1]: <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greater_Israel" rel="nofollow">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greater_Israel</a><p>[2]: <a href="https://fpif.org/these-three-billionaires-paved-way-for-trumps-iran-deal-withdrawal/" rel="nofollow">https://fpif.org/these-three-billionaires-paved-way-for-trum...</a><p>[3]: <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alleged_Saudi_role_in_the_September_11_attacks" rel="nofollow">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alleged_Saudi_role_in_the_Sept...</a><p>[4]: <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jonathan_Pollard" rel="nofollow">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jonathan_Pollard</a>
> Iran has weathered decades of sanctions, which is a fancy way of saying "we're going to starve you and deny your citizens basic medical care". The death toll for this is also likely in the millions.<p>Hi, I think millions is a drastic overstatement here which undermines the rest of your (often legitimate) claims.<p>Also Israel seems to have fairly normal relations with many countries in the region, the difference seems to be they are "countries not publicly calling for the destruction of Israel".
Which "millions"? There's a lot to choose from. Oh, for context, John Mearscheimer puts the estimate on those killed by US sanctions (across all countries we've done this to) at 38 million [1].<p>I always have to bring up the sanctions on Iraq after Saddam was no longer our puppet. A Un report in the mid-1990s claimed US sanctions had killed 500,000 Iraqi children. Then UN ambassador and later Secretary of State Madeline Albright responded by saying "the price was wroth it" [2].<p>As for the Iran-Iraq war, there are many estimates of the total deaths (across both sides) exceeding a million eg [3].<p>[1]: <a href="https://www.tiktok.com/@trtworld/video/7615994489991122194" rel="nofollow">https://www.tiktok.com/@trtworld/video/7615994489991122194</a><p>[2]: <a href="https://www.youtube.com/shorts/1T5JRVR53Eo" rel="nofollow">https://www.youtube.com/shorts/1T5JRVR53Eo</a><p>[3]: <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/world/2010/sep/23/iran-iraq-war-anniversary" rel="nofollow">https://www.theguardian.com/world/2010/sep/23/iran-iraq-war-...</a>
All right except for calling Israel the US' rabid attack dog. It's the other way around, quite clearly.
<i>>Pointlessness of this war aside</i><p>It's only pointless as long as you ignore their legitimate attempts of building nukes. If you don't want them to have nukes, then military action is the only way to stop them unfortunately. Because if/once they do get a nuke, it'll be impossible to stop them after that, and they'll hold the entire middle east hostage, so might as well do everything you can to prevent that before it happens, now that Russia is too busy to lend them a hand.<p><i>>Iran has generally been an active and persistant threat for many US firms long before this war began</i><p>I doubt this. Iran's leadership, like any dictatorship, just wants to be left alone to subjugate its people and enjoy the masses of wealth and power they have. When you're in such a privileged but fragile position, you don't go around poking the hornet's nest looking to start a fight with the biggest military in the world, because it would mean your end.<p>But Iran will probably retaliate now that they got attacked. OR, it will be a false flag to justify boots on the ground. IDK.
> Because if/once they do get a nuke, it'll be impossible to stop them after that, and they'll hold the entire middle east hostage<p>Like Israel?
"I doubt this. Iran's leadership, like any dictatorship, just wants to be left alone to subjugate its people and enjoy the masses of wealth and power they have."<p>So ... that is why they only cared about themself and did not involve with Iraq, Lebanon, Syria, Yemen, ..
> <i>It's only pointless as long as you ignore their legitimate attempts of building nukes. If you don't want them to have nukes, then military action is the only way to stop them unfortunately. Because if/once they do get a nuke, it'll be impossible to stop them after that, and they'll hold the entire middle east hostage so might as well do everything you can to prevent that before it happens.</i><p>Obama had a perfectly good deal in place with Iran before Trump fucked it all up. Military action was not the only way to stop them.
The "legitimate attempts of building nukes" as claimed by the same folks who, ~9 months ago said "Iran's nuclear facilities have been obliterated, and suggestions otherwise are fake news" (<a href="https://www.whitehouse.gov/articles/2025/06/irans-nuclear-facilities-have-been-obliterated-and-suggestions-otherwise-are-fake-news/" rel="nofollow">https://www.whitehouse.gov/articles/2025/06/irans-nuclear-fa...</a>).
They've been claiming Iran is about to destroy Israel every 6 months for the past 40 years too<p>Israel, like the US, needs to be in a permanent state of war to keep the ball moving
<i>>They've been claiming Iran is about to destroy Israel every 6 months for the past 40 years too</i><p>Remember STUXNET? Have you thought for a second that maybe if their centrifuges and nuclear facilities weren't constantly attacked and sabotaged by US and Israel every step of the way for the past few decades, plus having their top nuclear scientists assassinated every now and then, they could have had nukes a long time ago when those warnings were issued without those constant roadblocks setting them back?
So the administration lied and Iran‘s nuclear capabilities weren’t “completely obliterated” back in June, and saying otherwise isn’t “fake news”?<p>It can’t be both ways. Either way the administration is lying, so I just don’t trust any of the reasons given for the current conflict.<p>The sad part is this is exactly what Trump and his administration, as well as the larger Republican Party, have wanted for years. My inherent distrust of every government action until I see overwhelming evidence to the contrary.
Why does IR need 60% enriched uranium?<p>The moment IR gets nukes, Saudis and all the other countries around them will get nukes as well.<p>I don’t understand why everyone is so hell bent on not preventing the spread of nuclear weapons. We have enough of this crap already, and the last thing we need is more nukes.
I think you're missing the crux of the point: why is anything the Trump administration says taken at face value? They have no commitment to the truth, whatsoever.<p>If Iran was on the path to developing nukes, the correct path here was to:<p>1. Show the evidence to congress, and declare war legally based on the facts.<p>2. Get international buy-in, and work with our allies (all of whom would very much like to prevent Iran from procuring a nuclear weapon).<p>This was a hastily started war with flimsy goals and seemingly no real urgency. And one of the first things we did as part of our attack was to bomb an elementary school, killing hundreds of children.<p>Critics of this war aren't "hell bent on not preventing the spread of nuclear weapons". We're mostly looking at the situation, and thinking "this is not great".
> I think you're missing the crux of the point: why is anything the Trump administration says taken at face value? They have no commitment to the truth, whatsoever.<p>No, I am not. It has nothing to do with Trump his abilities to speak only truth or always lie.<p>IAEA itself reported the 60% figure [1].<p>[1] <a href="https://www.iaea.org/sites/default/files/25/06/gov2025-24.pdf" rel="nofollow">https://www.iaea.org/sites/default/files/25/06/gov2025-24.pd...</a>
The nukes they’ve been “days away” from making since like 1992?<p>The nuclear capacity we bombed “very successfully” months ago?