The United States and Israel have launched a major attack on Iran

2026-02-286:3412072649www.cnn.com

The United States and Israel launched an attack on Iran Saturday morning, a major escalation following weeks of negotiations between US and Iranian officials over the country’s nuclear program.

The United States and Israel launched an attack on Iran Saturday morning, a major escalation following weeks of negotiations between US and Iranian officials over the country’s nuclear program.

President Donald Trump confirmed in a video posted to social media that the United States had begun a “massive and ongoing” military campaign in Iran, “to prevent this very wicked, radical dictatorship from threatening America and our core national security interests.”

“We are going to destroy their missiles and raze their missile industry to the ground,” Trump said.

Iran has long maintained that its nuclear program is for civilian purposes only. Iran’s state media said the country is preparing for a “a crushing response” to the attacks.

A US official told CNN early Saturday that strikes were underway, describing them as “not a small strike.” Earlier, Israeli Defense Minister Israel Katz called the attack a “preemptive strike” against Iran, as a state of emergency was declared across Israel.

The attack targeted Iran’s ballistic missiles and missile launchers, which Israel views as a serious threat. It’s unclear whether there have been any casualties.

Videos geolocated and verified by CNN show smoke rising from the capital city of Tehran. While strikes have also been reported in the Iranian cities of Isfahan, Qom, Karaj and Kermanshah, according to state-run news agency Fars.

Israel declared a state of emergency because of the expectation of Iranian retaliation. The Home Front Command also closed its airspace and ordered only essential activity across the country.

People run for cover following an explosion in Tehran, on Saturday, February 28.

In his video message, Trump said Iran had been working to rebuild its nuclear program after the US bombed its nuclear facilities in June. “They rejected every opportunity to reach their nuclear ambitions, and we can’t take it anymore,” he said.

Saturday’s operation follows threats from Trump, who warned Iran of US military intervention if the regime didn’t stop killing anti-government protesters. The US also threatened to intervene if Iran did not agree to a new nuclear deal, which was the subject of US-Iran diplomatic talks in Geneva on Thursday.

Trump has repeatedly hinted that he would like to see regime change in Iran, while also insisting the country halt all of its uranium enrichment so it can never develop a nuclear weapon.

Trump, however, has not articulated the strategic objective of a US military operation or how long such an operation would last.

The US military has been preparing for possible strikes for weeks while indirect negotiations had been ongoing between Washington and Tehran – steadily massing Air Force and Naval assets in the region in anticipation of a possible “go” order from Trump.

Military officials, including the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Dan Caine, have been privately warning about the potential downsides of a prolonged conflict with Iran, raising concerns about the scale, complexity, and potential for US casualties of such a mission, CNN previously reported.

As the US has collected its military hardware in the area, Iran has also been, fortifying several of its nuclear facilities, satellite imagery has shown.

Kevin Liptak contributed to this report.

This is a developing story and will be updated.


Read the original article

Comments

  • By papaver-somnamb 2026-02-2810:5925 reply

    I recall someone (name escapes me at the moment) defining WW3 as ignition in 5 flashpoints between belligerent groupings: - Eastern Africa esp. Sudan, which we all nearly universally ignore - Israel Iran - Russia and a neighbor which we know today is Ukraine - Pakistan Afghanistan India - China Taiwan Plus Plus

    Attributes that distinguish WW3 from previous world wars were IIRC: Contained conflagration, short targeted exchanges, probability of contamination low, material possibility of nuclear escalation. Case in point: North Korea developed nukes without being invaded, and now that they have nukes, other countries are watching and seeing that NK won't be invaded. What lesson do those other countries draw? And what of a world in which many potential belligerents hold nukes? Hiroshima weeps.

    I'd like to add an important attribute here: The revolution will be live-streamed, more-or-less. And essentially none of us will know the truth, even the reasons. I predict this fact will not distress many people, such is the state of humanity.

    So to the 7 or so decades of stability we and our ancestors enjoyed, here's looking at you, going down me. But Brettonwoods serves the present the least of any time since its creation. Case in point, w.r.t. eastern Africa, the geopolitical bounds of those ~4 countries seems likely meld to a degree. If we are indeed heading into WW3, I expect the world map to be redrawn afterwards, and the only lessons learned is how to win better in future.

    And if we are, while disgruntled old geriatrics go at each others throats via their youthful proxies, I greatly prefer the nukes rust in peace.

    Reminds me of Blaise Pascal's quote: 'All human evil comes from a single cause, man's inability to sit still in a room.' Aspiration, you gotta take care man, it just might kill ya.

    • By paviva 2026-02-2820:061 reply

      His French is so simple and yet, incredibly beautiful and elegant, in a way that I am not even able to express in words. Only Voltaire compares.

      "tout le malheur des hommes vient d’une seule chose, qui est de ne savoir pas demeurer en repos, dans une chambre." -- "All the woe of man comes from one single thing only: not knowing how to remain at rest, in a room"

      In the same text, he follows with:

      "Le roi est environné de gens qui ne pensent qu’à divertir le roi, et à l’empêcher de penser à lui. Car il est malheureux, tout roi qu’il est, s’il y pense."

      "The king is surrounded by people who think only of amusing the king and preventing him from thinking about himself. For he is unhappy, though he be king, if he thinks about it."

    • By JumpCrisscross 2026-02-2812:103 reply

      > Attributes that distinguish WW3 from previous world wars were IIRC

      You're missing the commonalities, what defined world wars: the full might of industrial economies being dedicated to military campaigns.

      World War II's theatres' were incoherent–the Axis interests in e.g. China and the Pacific had basically zero stragegic overlap with Europe and North Africa. (The only parties having to consider a unified theatre being the USSR and USA.) But the entire economic surplus of Europe, Asia and North America was basically dedicated to (or extracted towards) making things that were reasonably expected to be destroyed within the year.

      • By iso1631 2026-02-2814:522 reply

        British Empire was heavily involved in Europe, North Africa and South-East Asia. Events in India had great consequences on Europe

        The USSR on the other hand barely had any involvement in the Pacific theatre, entering in August 1945.

        • By AnimalMuppet 2026-02-2815:301 reply

          The USSR had to carefully keep enough land forces in the Pacific region to deter a Japanese land invasion. (Remember that Japan controlled Manchukuo.) So, yes, the USSR had little involvement, and they had to be very careful to keep it from becoming an active front.

          See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battles_of_Khalkhin_Gol (that was in 1939).

          • By dwd 2026-03-026:35

            Fear of the USSR entering the war against them was also a deciding factor in Japan's surrender. More so than the atomic bombs.

      • By jjfoooo4 2026-02-2820:012 reply

        > But the entire economic surplus of Europe, Asia and North America was basically dedicated to (or extracted towards) making things that were reasonably expected to be destroyed within the year.

        This is no longer necessary to inflict the catastrophic destruction we're really referring to when talking about a hypothetical WWIII

        • By datsci_est_2015 2026-02-2820:413 reply

          Their argument is that, by definition, it can’t be a world war unless all economic surplus is dedicated to war purposes.

          I tend to agree with both of you, and that by extension, we will never see another world war unless society as we know it collapses significantly.

          • By jbboehr 2026-03-028:301 reply

            I don't think you are using standard definitions.

            > A world war is an international conflict that involves most or all of the world's major powers. > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_war

            > Total war is a type of warfare that mobilizes the totality of national resources to sustain war production, blurring the line between military and civilian activities and legitimate attacks on civilian targets as part of a war without restriction as to the combatants, territory or objectives involved. > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Total_war

            It does so happen that the two world wars were also total wars.

            • By datsci_est_2015 2026-03-0211:54

              Well first off I think we were speaking colloquially. But secondly, I think unless certain powers cross some threshold where they’re undeniably engaging “total war”, they’ll use wishy-washy terms like “special military operation” (Russia) or “armed conflict”. That’s also not to mention proxy wars (Syria) or even non-violent acts of aggression against sovereignty (Hong Kong).

              In other words, “total war” is a necessary ingredient for a “world war” these days or you’ll have all of these countries claiming they’re not actually at war.

        • By Gibbon1 2026-02-2821:58

          Things have changed since I was a kid. We've gone from saturation bombing and dropping nukes as the big kahuna to being able to do point assassination strikes.

          Topical the Israelis just killed Khamenei.

      • By ethbr1 2026-02-2813:481 reply

        looks at Russia's economy

        • By bobthepanda 2026-02-2819:251 reply

          the "world" part of world war is also important. pretty much every economy involved was at least undergoing heavy handed rationing of goods, encouraging people to donate scrap metal, etc.

          Russians are not under food rationing yet.

          • By testdelacc1 2026-02-2821:371 reply

            Here’s hoping they feel the war in Moscow and St Petersburg this year. A bit of rationing wouldn’t hurt them.

            More than the war, they’ll feel the peace. More than 100% of the economic growth of the last few years has gone into war production, meaning the civilian economy has shrunk. When the weapons factories are scaled back the economy is going to hurt something fierce. Even Muscovites will notice.

            This is why Putin can’t stop fighting. When the fighting stops Russia will face a reckoning. Better to postpone that day hoping that Europe runs out of steam.

            • By braincat31415 2026-02-2823:382 reply

              ww2 history begs to differ. The USSR has seen massive economic growth in 1946-1950s.

              • By simonh 2026-03-016:031 reply

                That was a very different situation. The USSR was still catching up in industrialisation, and despite its huge losses still had vast reserves of labour in the countryside to tap. It was much more like the process of industrialisation in China that’s seen huge growth there over the last generation. Russia has already industrialised so it doesn’t have a catch-up growth opportunity in the same way. They are much more labour and resource constrained these days.

                • By braincat31415 2026-03-0115:051 reply

                  "still had vast reserves of labour in the countryside to tap"

                  There was a huge shortage of labor in the countryside after the war.

                  • By KPGv2 2026-03-0116:472 reply

                    This labor was, pre-war, a bunch of poor, uneducated serfs (basically slaves). But leading up to WWII, they were transformed into educated, literate, laborers. Also the USSR had invested leading up to WW2 in agriculture outside Ukraine (since the Nazis controlled it).

                    So while there was less labor, they were far more productive labor thanks to post-revolution, post-WWI measures

                    • By braincat31415 2026-03-0117:38

                      So one person says, USSR was still catching up in industrialisation, the other one says, they were far more productive... what is it? The whole argument still feels far-fetched at the very least.

                    • By lII1lIlI11ll 2026-03-0121:23

                      > This labor was, pre-war, a bunch of poor, uneducated serfs (basically slaves).

                      This is incorrect. Serfdom in Russian empire was abolished in 1861, long before the revolution. Peasant literacy rates, while still poor, had been gradually improving after that.

                      > Also the USSR had invested leading up to WW2 in agriculture outside Ukraine (since the Nazis controlled it).

                      What? Not only Ukraine was controlled by Bolsheviks at the start of WW2 its territories have also been extended with parts of Poland and Romania annexed by Soviets between the start of WW2 and the so-called "Great Patriotic" phase of the war.

              • By KPGv2 2026-03-0116:36

                The USSR's (well, Russia's) growth had begun before WW2, and it was in response to pre-WW1 Russian being severely underdeveloped. There was a ton of room for growth that started before WWII, and it continued unabated.

                Basically, Russia up to WW2 had economic growth because it was "catching up" to the West. Industrialization was one place. Literacy was another. There was a huge effort to improve literacy after the Tsar was killed.

                Finally, because the Nazis occupied Ukraine during WW2, Russia/the USSR had to develop other places during WW2 just to feed its people, which accelerated growth post-war.

                These conditions do not exist today, I don't think. But this isn't my area of expertise. I just know that Russia was a feudalistic shithole until the Tsar was overthrown, and then they worked hard to turn the serfs into educated and literate people, right as they were forced by invasion to economically develop previously overlooked lands.

                If you want a very pro-1% take on this, check out Anna Karenina. The "good guy" main character of the novel is a large landowner with a lot of serfs (read: slaves) whom he visits and instructs, based on latest science, how to farm better.

                Same thing happened in Japan about a generation or two earlier. There's ar eason tiny, flyover Japan beat Russia in the Russo-Japanese war. Russia was totally backwards, even by "barely industrialized Japan" standards.

    • By unsupp0rted 2026-02-2819:117 reply

      Another aspect of a WW3 is that people- pretty much ALL people everywhere- who have nothing to do with the war will find their lives threatened or completely changed by it.

      I'm less concerned about nuclear escalation than about biological escalation.

      It's quite hard to destroy the human world with nukes: you can only blow up big chunks of it, maybe take out enough power plants and supply chains to drop us into a multi-decade or multi-century dark age, or maybe cause a nuclear winter, although the actual risk of that is unclear.

      Whereas a year into a major war a kid in his/her basement can release something that is functionally the end of the human species.

      We currently have no real safeguards against this. If we ever have descendants, they'll think we were insane during this time period and they'll be right.

      • By XorNot 2026-03-011:301 reply

        > Whereas a year into a major war a kid in his/her basement can release something that is functionally the end of the human species.

        Urgh. "No tests, no prototypes".

        Imagine trying to write "Hello, World" but there's no programming language. The compilation cycle takes a week. And you can't actually control where the program runs. And also the storage device will be destroyed by light, air, and other programs on your computer if you don't handle it just right.

        It is very very clear when people with no molecular biology experience start talking about biology, because it's clear you all have no idea what any part of the process looks like.

        Even the vaunted DNA synthesis machines...only synthesize DNA. Which will be completely destroyed if you so much as breathe at it the wrong way (in fact don't breathe on it at all). And that's like step 2, because step 1 is "grow up a candidate organism in sterile conditions, isolate and characterize it".

        That stupid longtermism movement is god damn obsessed with this concept, and it's stunning how clueless they are.

        • By Otterly99 2026-03-0216:25

          It is so frustrating indeed reading about these wildly exaggerated biological claims.

          The whole synthesis pipeline requires so much specific equipment and knowledge that at your kid in his/her basement would actually need a whole lab. By the way, good luck purchasing any consumable on sigma from your basement without accreditation. And I hope you have deep pockets because cell medium is expensive.

      • By lukan 2026-02-2823:473 reply

        "Whereas a year into a major war a kid in his/her basement can release something that is functionally the end of the human species."

        How?

        If a a virus is so deadly, everything it touches dies soon, it would not spread quickly but die out. If it is very contagious .. but very, very slow incubation time, so it infects the whole world, before becoming a deadly disease ... then I would say it is far beyond the possibility of a basement workshop to remotely design anything like this. I doubt the professional state labs can create something to wipe out humanity. Dramatically disturb? For sure. Covid was not really deadly in comparison, but already problematic.

        • By totetsu 2026-03-017:481 reply

          These are plenty of people worried about this. Just one example https://openai.com/index/preparing-for-future-ai-capabilitie...

          • By orbital-decay 2026-03-018:253 reply

            This type of research requires experimentation (mostly failures) on extremely complex real-world equipment. Same with the nuclear weapons. AI being able to magically figure it out without experimental grounding is pure and absolute fantasy, used by companies like OpenAI and Anthropic as a justification for monopolizing AI R&D. In a sense it's not surprising this idea comes from rationalism-adjacent folks, as rationalism is mostly about the idea that experimentation is irrelevant and you can infer anything using just logic alone.

            • By KPGv2 2026-03-0116:521 reply

              > In a sense it's not surprising this idea comes from rationalism-adjacent folks, as rationalism is mostly about the idea that experimentation is irrelevant and you can infer anything using just logic alone.

              Yeah IIRC Yudkowski famously said something about a super intelligence could derive the theory of gravity correctly by seeing only three frames of a video depicting an apple falling from a tree. This is the same Less Wrong nonsense, rejecting how vital and irreplaceable experimentation is.

              There's an infinite number of explanations for the location of an object in three equally time-spaced instances. Not to mention limitations of the measuring equipment itself.

              • By Otterly99 2026-03-0216:18

                There has been a lot of research into discovering new physics (starting by discovering old physics) since the last 5-6 years and it always require:

                - A lot of high-quality data - Some careful design - (Not always) some external knowledge to guide the solutions

                And this is using specialized NNs for physics, where you often know underlying equations. Kind of crazy that some people are so delusional about that.

            • By totetsu 2026-03-0110:29

              Okay, I’m inclined to agree there.. but I can’t find the reference now, I also read that the worry is that the complexity required is coming down fast, and while maybe it’s not going to happen in a basement , there could be a small scale lab, not subject to rigorous certifications and checks that offers crisper as a service, and ai could be used to .. just perturb a protein a little bit so it doesn’t trigger some known virus black list, and people could just be ordering things online.

            • By dennis_jeeves2 2026-03-0117:05

              >rationalism is mostly about the idea that experimentation is irrelevant and you can infer anything using just logic alone.

              Thanks for putting it the way you did. I didn't knew it was meant be that way, but it sort of confirms my suspicion that people who use the term 'rational' and 'logic' loosely often to dismiss an opposing view never really seek experimental results before having a point of view.

        • By unsupp0rted 2026-03-0120:14

          Viruses are perhaps the 3rd or 4th thing down the list of scary biological things people might make in their basement to end the human world.

        • By estearum 2026-03-011:111 reply

          > If a a virus is so deadly, everything it touches dies soon, it would not spread quickly but die out. If it is very contagious .. but very, very slow incubation time, so it infects the whole world, before becoming a deadly disease ..

          This is a made up equilibrium that actually does not need to exist in nature.

          Viruses and bacteria can in fact be both extremely, extremely contagious and extremely, extremely lethal.

          > If a a virus is so deadly, everything it touches dies soon,

          Trivially: you actually can have a virus that kills everything it touches not soon. Nothing in biology or chemistry or physics prevents it.

          • By kcplate 2026-03-013:592 reply

            > Viruses and bacteria can in fact be both extremely, extremely contagious and extremely, extremely lethal.

            Sure, but those two things would tend to work against it becoming a pandemic— unless it managed those two things but also kept its host healthy enough for long enough before becoming lethal to adequately spread it.

            • By card_zero 2026-03-016:041 reply

              I looked into this once, it depends on how splashy the death is. A virus that made people explode instantly into a fine mist of airborne virus particles could be perfectly adequate for a pandemic (although holding off until help arrives might work even better).

              • By lukan 2026-03-016:511 reply

                "A virus that made people explode instantly into a fine mist of airborne virus particles could be perfectly adequate for a pandemic"

                And what existing virus comes close to this trait?

                • By Closi 2026-03-017:402 reply

                  I think we can safely assume that OP was picking a bit of a ridiculous hypothetical example to make a point that it’s possible for something to be deadly and transmissible, although in nature Baculovirus in Caterpillars has a similar mechanism (encourages their host to eat a lot, then climb to the top of a plant so when it turns to ooze it infects others) or cordyceps although both of these aren’t as highly transmissible as they hypothetical explode virus.

                  But the Black Death mixed high contagion and high mortality as an actual example that shows they aren’t mutually exclusive.

                  • By lukan 2026-03-018:111 reply

                    Oh, I would never say biological weapons are harmless, but the wiping out humanity claim I debated.

                    • By estearum 2026-03-0114:22

                      What? That's your second strawman in two comments.

                      Nobody said you claimed they were harmless. People are taking issue with your assertion that biological agents can be either contagious or lethal (not both), and therefore you discount its risk. This implied tradeoff between contagiousness and lethality simply is not enforced by anything in nature.

                      The natural emergence of a pathogen that's both highly contagious and highly lethal would be a much rarer event than the natural emergence of one that's either contagious or lethal, but we're talking about engineered pathogens. There is no reason to think that pathogens cannot be deliberately created that are both of those things.

                  • By hsbauauvhabzb 2026-03-019:421 reply

                    None of you have seen ‘The Beauty’, I’m guessing.

                    • By lukan 2026-03-0110:441 reply

                      No, but I have learned that sometimes there is a difference between fiction and reality.

            • By estearum 2026-03-0114:18

              > unless it managed those two things but also kept its host healthy enough for long enough before becoming lethal to adequately spread it.

              I am clearly referring to this specific scenario. There is nothing in chemistry or biology or physics that prevents it.

      • By LorenPechtel 2026-02-2820:341 reply

        Disagree: Most people live in areas dependent on the supply chain. And when the supply chain gets disrupted they aren't going to go peacefully. And there will be enough mobility that areas that could be self-sufficient get hordes descending on them.

          • By LorenPechtel 2026-03-020:28

            Haven't read it, from what Wikipedia says it sounds quite optimistic. Maybe more realistic back when it was written. I also wonder at the President dying when Air Force One went in--there's good reason it's impossible to jump from civilian airliners, but I would be amazed if Air Force One lacked some means of emergency egress--I'm not talking ejection seats, just a door.

      • By Imustaskforhelp 2026-03-017:53

        (I don't know too much about nuclear level situations so I can be obviously wrong perhaps but here's my take on it)

        > supply chains to drop us into a multi-decade or multi-century dark age,or maybe cause a nuclear winter, although the actual risk of that is unclear.

        It's defintiely gonna be a hard life if WW3 ever happens but I think with hydroponics and other advancement, a localized community can still have chances of making sense of things.

        It definitely wouldn't be this life where we can eat almost anything but it won't be starvation either, hopefully.

        For water, we might have to do reverse osmosis or boiling+condensing to remove radiation.

        The biggest issue to me seems energy. Solar energy might be hard to get if nuclear storms are made over any region which I do think iirc can even stay till decades.

        Temporarily Windmills and then primarily Hydroenergy is still possible tho but it might take some time to rebuild it if it got destroyed by Nuclear attack so energy to just produce food/water is possible but everything to me feels like it would be strictly rationed. You might have some spare energy for Radio.

        I am not sure how food is gonna be distributed, perhaps a new system of work would be designed within community where community gives food and you give what the community might need to get work done.

        I feel like though we are gonna slowly improve our Energy situations and as we do that, society can progress back to say a mathematician who can work on theorms which might require computers/energy and just computers in general back.

        The quality of life would drop but I would consider tho that the people already in war-struck regions where they don't know if they are gonna be the next target of a messy war have their Quality of life significantly dropped as well.

        Now the virus point is something that I don't exist similar to Lukan's comment tho.

      • By NetMageSCW 2026-02-2819:394 reply

        There’s no chance a kit in a basement can produce a biological weapon that will be successful.

      • By mlsu 2026-03-013:143 reply

        Covid, ahem, could have been designed in a lab to be an "ideal" bioweapon. As far as viruses go it approximated just about the best bioweapon we could have made with current technology.

        - very deadly

        - asymptomatic spreading for a couple days

        - spreads easy

        - no tests/vaccine (early on)

        It did kill a lot of people, that's for sure, and caused a huge disruption. But was far less disruptive, imo, than e.g. a nuke in multiple big cities would have been, even if the death toll was similar.

        • By drnick1 2026-03-013:261 reply

          > very deadly

          Covid wasn't "very deadly" at all.

        • By thfuran 2026-03-013:461 reply

          It was too contagious and not nearly virulent enough to be an ideal bioweapon.

          • By eszed 2026-03-0112:45

            GP put "ideal" in inverted commas, and qualified with "best we could make with current technology". I doubt they disagree with you.

        • By femto 2026-03-015:412 reply

          This paper puts some numbers around that, looking at death rates before a vaccine was available.

          https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S120197122...

          Without a vaccination, it killed 12.9% of people who were infected, killing mostly older people and people who had multiple pathologies (eg. hypertension).

          • By thfuran 2026-03-028:00

            That’s 12.9% of hospital inpatients. All estimates I’ve seen for infection fatality rate — that is, mortality rate among all those infected — place it around 1–2%

          • By cthalupa 2026-03-0123:091 reply

            Something that contagious that kills ~13% of people infected is something I would argue is quite deadly.

            Especially when half of adults in america are hypertensive.

            • By thfuran 2026-03-028:09

              It doesn’t kill 13% of people infected, only about 1%. Just look at the number of cases reported compared to the number of deaths. That paper was reporting 13% mortality rate among those admitted to the hospital, not among all those infected.

      • By jjtheblunt 2026-02-2819:173 reply

        > It's quite hard to destroy the human world with nukes

        what about bio weapons? smallpox in the americas, for an example of many at the page below.

        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Population_history_of_the_Indi...

        • By kgermino 2026-02-2819:241 reply

          Isn’t that their entire point?

          • By jjtheblunt 2026-03-013:11

            yes, i think you're right that such was the point, and i misread it.

        • By smegger001 2026-02-2820:032 reply

          Smallpox, which the only remaining samples exists in a couple of secure facilities controled by superpowers for use making vaccinations in case they are wrong about their only being a few samples controled by superpowers. Everyone with an ounce of sense knows bioweapons infect both sides and nuetral parties who are no longer neutral once you infect them. It like mustard gas but worse no one other than suicidal terror groups want them and they dont have the facilities equipment samples or knowhow.

          • By laughing_man 2026-03-017:381 reply

            >Smallpox, which the only remaining samples exists in a couple of secure facilities controled by superpowers...

            I used to believe that, too, until the Russians found a few vials in a random storage cabinet. The fact is we have no idea how many samples exist and where they all are.

            Fortunately, we already know how to make a smallpox vaccine.

            • By piperswe 2026-03-018:45

              Not only that, but we have currently functioning distribution networks for pox vaccines. AIUI, the MPox vaccine is just a smallpox vaccine that happens to also work for MPox.

          • By estearum 2026-03-011:131 reply

            There are a lot of suicidal terror groups in the world

            • By jacquesm 2026-03-011:401 reply

              A good chunk of Christianity would turn around to bring about the rapture in a heartbeat if you let them. Death cults come in all shapes and sizes.

              • By estearum 2026-03-012:35

                Yep! I count sects of Christianity among those groups and you're right that there are many more just waiting for the right situation and leader to really push them into full blown eschatology.

        • By XorNot 2026-03-011:35

          You mean the same smallpox that ran rampant in a world without vaccines and failed to destroy the world, and was still present while a humans fought a bunch of conventional wars?

    • By throwthrowuknow 2026-02-2813:112 reply

      Check your thinking. Korea currently has a DMZ dividing it from a war that never really ended and was fought to a stalemate. Their nuclear program didn’t result in military action because they currently have a gun to the head of every South Korean citizen and the backing of a large nuclear neighbour. Those are circumstances you can’t easily recreate elsewhere.

      • By doubletwoyou 2026-02-2815:463 reply

        Adding to your point, Seoul is visible from North Korea, and vice-versa, and likely has enough conventional artillery aimed at it that even without nukes an invasion would be Very Bad for the Korean people.

        • By jmward01 2026-02-2819:024 reply

          North Korea is in such poor shape that they probably can't maintain much of the equipment much less keep the personnel trained and ready to use it effectively. Not a reason to go to war, but the threat to Soul and SK in general is likely massively overstated.

          I think the strategic rational for unification completely swapped about 20 years ago. Up until the early 2000s it was likely in South Korea's, and the US's, interest to find a way to topple NK and unify the peninsula. The two populations had blood ties and common culture. Technologically the gap was growing but still reasonable. It would have been close to an east/west Germany type of situation where unification took effort but ultimately was clearly beneficial. China (and Russia) would have been losers in that unification would have brought a western friendly government even closer to their border. Additionally, NK still had a chance of re-energizing and becoming a real threat to SK.

          Now however NK is in such bad shape that unification would be traumatic. South Korea would take on a problem of epic proportions, caring for and bringing a population of that size back into the broader world would be exceptionally costly and definitely not guaranteed to end well, possibly destabilizing SK in the process. Their cultures have grown apart making it hard for them to understand each other. The blood ties are not really there anymore. China and Russia would likely be the winners in that everyone sees NK as crazy and anyone helping them is hurting the world so they could get rid of that baggage. China especially would gain by having rail access to massive shipping assets to deliver goods even cheaper to the world. Finally, the US would loose a major rationale for stationing forces that close to China. They could, rightfully, say that NK isn't a threat and the massive US assets in South Korea and Japan should be drawn down.

          • By jopsen 2026-02-2819:302 reply

            > North Korea is in such poor shape that they probably can't maintain much of the equipment

            Sadly we know from events in Ukraine that NK artillery works and that they have plenty of it. Yes, it's poor quality, but far from harmless.

            Also to be clear: artillery is not exactly rocket science. They idea that NK doesn't have huge stockpiles is ludicrous.

            • By jmward01 2026-02-2819:421 reply

              It takes more than stockpiles of shells to be able to use it and maintain offensive positions capable of causing harm. From the reports I have seen NK military in Ukraine has been mostly cannon fodder and they are very untrained. That being said, joining the war effort in Ukraine is likely increasing their readiness.

              • By ericmay 2026-02-2820:052 reply

                Right... shells age. They blow up in the barrel, things like that. Maybe they even intentionally blow up in the barrel. Not that I would suggest sabotage. There's no way South Korean intelligence could possibly infiltrate North Korea ;)

                But even so, if there was a serious threat of war, which is unlikely because China would stop North Korea, the US would place assets in the region and as we got close to a confrontation the US and South Korea (and as things are looking, probably Japan) would begin an aerial and missile bombardment to destroy in place North Korean offensive capabilities. Some would get through of course, perhaps thousands or tens of thousands of South Korean casualties, but in the context of a conventional war North Korea's capabilities would be quickly overwhelmed, at least in my opinion.

                But honestly, the current status quo works pretty well for everyone except the people of North Korea, but there's not much we can do. It's a tragedy and the blame for that falls squarely on the Soviet Union and Chinese Communist Party.

                • By KPGv2 2026-03-0117:111 reply

                  > Some would get through of course, perhaps thousands or tens of thousands of South Korean casualties

                  This seems rather optimistic considering an incredibly dense South Korean city of 10M people is 20–30 miles from North Korea.

                  • By ericmay 2026-03-0119:46

                    Yea I'm being optimistic - but the buildings themselves provide shelter, plus Koreans can take to the subway.

                • By kelipso 2026-02-2823:361 reply

                  ... And the US, who razed every building in North Korea and killed more than 10% of the entire population of North Korea (that's entire population, including civilians).

                  • By ericmay 2026-03-010:19

                    Nope. US was there under a UN banner, and the UN force was winning until China threw manpower into the war. Never mind Soviet support. The blame goes to the communists and them alone. Without them Korea would have been likely unified under what is now the democratic South Korea we know today, but the communists in China couldn’t have a democracy so close to them, so they fought to win and establish the brutal regime that we have today in North Korea.

            • By I-M-S 2026-02-2821:292 reply

              Isn't artillery precisely rocket science?

              • By jacquesm 2026-03-011:41

                No, it is precisely ballistics.

              • By dtj1123 2026-03-018:051 reply

                Propellant stored in the projectile vs propellant stored behind the projectile.

                • By I-M-S 2026-03-0110:09

                  Thank you.

          • By fakedang 2026-02-2819:171 reply

            The only way unification can ever happen will be with Chinese blessing, with or without democracy. That would mean a full exit of US forces from the peninsula, and substantial pandering to the CCP and influence in Seoul. Which isn't that far off a thought honestly - for the most part, Korea was a tributary of China. With rapidly changing demographics and economic heft in both countries, it's even more likely SK will gravitate towards China, to the point that the Chinese will find more persuasion in unification and predictability.

            • By jmward01 2026-02-2819:32

              All probably close to correct. I wasn't arguing that unification would, or should, happen (especially by force). I was arguing that the strategic value to China, SK, the west, etc have flipped as well as the actual capabilities of NK are likely vastly overstated.

          • By rpcope1 2026-03-0116:03

            The joke here is that in 20-50 years I'll bet worst Korea will be begging best Korea to reunify given the absolutely apocalyptic state of TFR south of the 38th parallel.

          • By s5300 2026-02-2821:34

            [dead]

        • By iwontberude 2026-02-2819:23

          Another fun trivia: Seoul and Pyongyang are closer than Washington DC (Union) and Richmond VA (Confederacy) by a considerable margin.

        • By leptons 2026-02-2818:131 reply

          None of that would stop the current US administration from launching a sneak attack as we've seen several times in other countries. They simply do not care about consequences.

          • By 627467 2026-02-2818:291 reply

            What is the analogous example or your argument? Was iraq sitting next to a china-grade neighbor? Who's venezuela china?

            • By MarsIronPI 2026-02-2819:40

              I assume you mean Iran rather than Iraq, but your point still stands.

      • By petre 2026-02-2820:51

        The DPRK is a nuclear armed buffer state and shall remain so for the forseeable future.

    • By foobarian 2026-02-2816:501 reply

      > Reminds me of Blaise Pascal's quote: 'All human evil comes from a single cause, man's inability to sit still in a room.'

      Ah but this is where modern technology comes in! Social media, Tiktoks, video games, porn...

    • By righthand 2026-02-2813:251 reply

      “The revolution will be livestreamed” is not used correctly and not what “will be televised” means. You are using it in the opposite manner actually.

      • By throwpoaster 2026-02-2816:351 reply

        Op made an evocative point but then immediately betrayed it.

        It is interesting to think about the difference of livestreaming versus television.

        • By M95D 2026-02-2821:041 reply

          You can stop fighting. Nobody's going to livestream anything. The truth it too important to risk making it known/visible by accident.

          • By oAlbe 2026-02-2823:552 reply

            And what's the truth?

            • By fuzzfactor 2026-03-0115:391 reply

              The Vietnam War was the first one to be "televised" on pretty much a daily basis.

              While more average US citizens and service members recognized the folly in greater numbers through time because of it.

              It was the somewhat more extreme faction of the anti-war crowd that would have been in favor of a revolution of some kind, mainly because Nixon needed to be toppled ASAP without a doubt, they were just the most disruptive when it comes to "whatever it takes."

              That's why the old saying was coined, "The revolution will not be televised."

              • By disgruntledphd2 2026-03-0116:201 reply

                No, my friends, the revolution will be live.

                • By fuzzfactor 2026-03-0119:391 reply

                  Exactly what they were talking about if it comes to that, too bold, sensible, and popular to be spun by media any other way.

                  • By righthand 2026-03-0123:272 reply

                    You’re all still misinterpreting the statement it has nothing to do with whatever the current fad is or current tech is. Or what tech was used when the phrase was coined.

                    • By fuzzfactor 2026-03-024:10

                      I guess nobody will ever know unless somebody more knowledgeable steps up to the plate :\

                    • By disgruntledphd2 2026-03-029:46

                      > You’re all still misinterpreting the statement it has nothing to do with whatever the current fad is or current tech is. Or what tech was used when the phrase was coined.

                      I mean, I'm just quoting the Gill Scott Heron song (well worth a listen, if you like 60s spoken word protest music). https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XUi580gA5BQ

    • By sethev 2026-03-010:13

      >Contained conflagration, short targeted exchanges, probability of contamination low, material possibility of nuclear escalation.

      That's describing something that's not a world war, though. The Russian invasion of Ukraine is already far worse than what you're describing as WW3. (setting aside nuclear escalation)

    • By mandeepj 2026-02-2818:513 reply

      > 'All human evil comes from a single cause, man's inability to sit still in a room.'

      old men's*

      • By copx 2026-02-2819:411 reply

        Alexander "the Great" (mass murderer) began his conquests at the age of 20 and had conquered the largest empire the world had ever seen at the age of 26.

        Hannibal was in his 20s when he lead the Carthagian campaign against Rome.

        Napoleon began at 26 and had conquered half of Europe at 35.

        War being a business of old men sending young men to die is a modern thing.

        • By watwut 2026-03-017:582 reply

          Young men eagerly vote for old men that promiss them war. Many young men see it as a chance to prove their masculinity and worth.

          • By netsharc 2026-03-0213:20

            This anthropologist talked about radicalization among "lost" Muslim youth, but you can draw parallels to "lost" White youth...

            https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qlbirlSA-dc

          • By KPGv2 2026-03-0121:19

            not the last few election cycles

            trump got young men's votes by, inter alia, chanting "no new wars"

            evne during obama's presidency, trump (and others) suggested obama would start a war to distract from dropping poll numbers

            young men haven't voted for dulce et decorum est in a loooong time

      • By fuzzfactor 2026-03-0115:21

        That's very backwards when you consider one of the things keeping WW3 from starting for so long was the continued existence of WWII veterans and the citizens of the countries they came from who sacrificed everything.

        If we only still had a few hundred million of them still alive, it's the proven most effective thing anybody has ever had to prevent mindless war and/or nuclear war.

        And they would all be between 100 and 150 years old by now.

        Now that's elderly, and if the human race were to have been blessed with such a miracle it would be so good for them to continue teaching their lessons to those who never had the chance, and are just not mature enough to have any other clue yet.

      • By chupy 2026-02-2823:31

        You say this because young men use TikTok as a distraction?

    • By phendrenad2 2026-02-2814:521 reply

      I'm surprised such a superstitious reply is so highly-upvoted. There's no "WW3" any more than there is time travel or blue smirfs. It's a hypothetical, but you're talking about it like it's an inevitability. That's just not logically-sound thinking.

      • By throwpoaster 2026-02-2816:391 reply

        WWII, contemporaneously, was thought of as several small regional wars: “wow, that Hitler guy has started a bunch of small limited conflicts.”

        It was only when one stood back to regard the whole picture that it became clear that something larger was happening.

        OP is making the same point.

        • By decimalenough 2026-02-2818:143 reply

          When Hitler invaded Poland, it took all of two days for basically all of Europe to realize that they were about to replay the Great War (which we now call WW1).

          https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Declarations_of_war_during_Wor...

          Of course it took longer for it to blow up into a truly global war (Pearl Harbor etc), but a conflagration across Europe is hardly a "small regional war".

          • By lukas099 2026-03-0113:29

            Japan was already in China weren’t they?

          • By shimman 2026-02-2821:16

            Declaring war is one thing, but if you look at how leaders actually responded it's another (notice the 8 month gap from the declaration of war, into actual fighting). They were still willing to negotiate with Hitler, because most western leadership also wanted the communists to be destroyed and thought Hitler would do just that without attacking them. They were willing to push for this literally until the tanks were invading their streets.

            Once Hitler invaded France the "phoney war" turned into a real war. [1]

            https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phoney_War

          • By throwpoaster 2026-02-2818:45

            Hitler attacked several countries before attacking Poland.

    • By yowayb 2026-03-012:08

      There has never been a moment in the known history of humanity without war going on somewhere in the world.

    • By ergocoder 2026-03-017:201 reply

      I'd bet on WW3 not happening in the next 20 years.

      US's military power is too strong. Russia is in such a bad shape that it can't even win Ukraine. China never goes to any war; their equipments suck as we saw in the Venezuela occurrence.

      Nobody is going to help Iran. China and Russia only see Iran as the enemy of my enemy. Other than that, Chineses and Russians are likely disgusted by Iran's culture e.g. how they treat women. It would be like wtf why are we helping people like this?

      The world will continue being policed by US and Europe.

      • By dwd 2026-03-026:491 reply

        The US has shown very quickly that it is not a spent power. Compare what they have done recently in Venezuela and Iran to Russia's botching of taking Kiev and the mess ever since.

        But to quote Fiona Hill in regards to China, Russia and iran.

        --------------------

        The Chinese have told the Europeans many times when they've been asked, 'Why are you continuing to support Russia? And why do you want Russia to win?' that, 'Well, if we wanted Russia to win, they would have won.'

        Also, if they wanted Russia to lose, Russia would probably have lost.

        China is, again, just gauging their support and playing all of this out, gaming it out, really, as to how it affects the United States one way or another.

        The same is true of North Korea and Iran, she says: support for Russia has been built on antipathy towards the United States and their own beef with the United States.

        • By ergocoder 2026-03-026:59

          > Well, if we wanted Russia to win, they would have won.

          Good joke.

    • By londons_explore 2026-02-2823:501 reply

      > North Korea developed nukes without being invaded

      This one always interested me. I assume they were given a lot of the tech from China, and China probably told diplomats that if NK is invaded China might get involved.

      • By simonh 2026-03-010:03

        The Soviet Union helped them build some research reactors, but they got the weapon tech from Pakistan.

    • By neves 2026-02-2823:37

      It makes sense. Now is the perfect time for China to invade Taiwan.

    • By rayiner 2026-02-2818:544 reply

      What's missing here is the complex network of alliances that led to WWI. The Iranian regime has alienated virtually everyone, including many of its Muslim neighbors. Nor is the regime part of some overarching international movement, like the communist countries were. Who is going to lift a finger to help Iran?

      I'm not supportive of these strikes. Iranians created this government, and if they want to topple it they'll have to be the ones to do it, without foreign intervention.

      • By petre 2026-02-2821:172 reply

        > I'm not supportive of these strikes. Iranians created this government, and if they want to topple it they'll have to be the ones to do it, without foreign intervention.

        Well, foreign intervention kind of worked in Syria, Libya and Iraq after a few backstops, didn't it? All three countries reduced to rubble and virtually eliminated as threats to the US and Israel. Iran is next on the list, now that they're close to obtaing nukes. Let's not kid ourselves, they're not doing it for the Iranians, the're doing it for themselves. Regime change on their own terms, or if that isn't possible, yet another civil war.

        • By rayiner 2026-02-2821:262 reply

          If they were meaningful threats to the U.S. it would be legitimate to eliminate them, without regard to Iranian sovereignty. It’s not clear to me that was true.

          • By petre 2026-02-2822:10

            They're an existential threat to Israel and it also puts China's oil suppply chain under pressure as a bonus. Also, the US does absolutely not want them to get nukes. The regime is at its lowest popularity, so obviously this is the time to try and topple it. The problem is that it creates a power void ripe for terrorist factions to flourish in, as it was the case in Syria and Iraq.

          • By PixyMisa 2026-02-2823:481 reply

            Iran has been at war with the US since 1979.

            • By FilosofumRex 2026-03-010:58

              No, the US has been at war with Iran since 1953

        • By bigfatkitten 2026-03-0211:07

          The US spent trillions of dollars, 20 years and countless lives in Iraq and has nothing to show for it.

      • By zugi 2026-02-2821:40

        Interestingly Iran had moderately good relations with Russia, to whom they sold drones, and China, to whom they sold oil. But indeed not enough for either to help defend Iran.

        With Venezuela, Cuba, and Iran, the US is bottling up Russian and Chinese global influence into smaller regional influence.

      • By refurb 2026-03-017:36

        Indeed. The Gulf states didn’t want to get involved in this war for fear of upsetting local groups, but after the attacks have now jumped on board.

        Iran basically has no state allies in the Middle East. Russia and China don’t seem any more committed than just arms sales.

        What potential problem is upsetting the ethnic Apple cart in the region. We know countries like Iraq are a mix of Sunni and Shia with Iran supporting the Shia side quite significantly.

        If the main supporting of Shia in the region (Iran) gets wiped out, Shia in varies countries like Iraq may feel much more vulnerable and make political moves preemptively.

      • By jopsen 2026-02-2819:343 reply

        Agreed, nobody is going to help out Iran.

        If anyone does it'll be China giving them missiles to hit a US boat.

        That would make the US turn tail. Not start a war with China.

        As for Iranian leadership, they just need to dig deep and wait this out. I can't imagine they don't have plenty of hardened bunkers.

        • By anon7725 2026-02-2819:591 reply

          > If anyone does it'll be China giving them missiles to hit a US boat.

          > That would make the US turn tail. Not start a war with China.

          The right kind of missiles hitting the right kind of boat could lead to a very grave escalation.

          • By jopsen 2026-03-0221:08

            Short of hitting the US mainland.

            I doubt there is anything Iran can do that make the US put boots on the ground.

            There is no appetite for boots on the ground in the US. And no coalition behind the US.

        • By PixyMisa 2026-02-2823:47

          That scenario has played out before.

          Eight hours later Iran's navy was at the bottom of the sea.

          And there is no Iranian leadership right now as far as anyone can tell.

        • By twocommits 2026-02-2820:52

          [flagged]

    • By shevy-java 2026-02-2811:313 reply

      First, I don't think this leads to WW3 although I would agree with you that there is a general global tendency towards escalation. Still, I think we can not call this WW3 and I am not 100% certain this is a build-up to WW3 either.

      As for North Korea: I think the situation is not solely about North Korea itself but China. China is kind of acting as protective proxy here. I don't see North Korea as primary problem to the USA, but to South Korea and Japan. Both really should get nukes. Taiwan too, though mainland China would probably invade when it thinks Taiwan is about to have nukes; then again China already committed to invasion - this is the whole point of having a dictator like Xi in charge now.

      The situation Russia is in is interesting, because even though they are stronger than Ukraine, Ukraine managed to stop or delay Russia, which is a huge feat, even with support. As Putin does not want to stop, and Trump is supporting him (agent Krasnov theory applies), I think this has escalation potential. Putin is killing civilians in Ukraine daily - I think he does that because he already committed to further escalation against all Europeans. So Europeans need a nuclear arsenal, but european politicians are totally lame - see Merz "we will never have nukes". Basically he wants to be abused by Putin here.

      • By anonymous_user9 2026-02-2812:101 reply

        > So Europeans need a nuclear arsenal, but european politicians are totally lame

        Are France's 240 submarines-launched thermonuclear ballistic missiles not adequate? Despite the need for security, nuclear proliferation is extremely bad. It seems ideal for France continue to maintain their nuclear weapons while the rest of Europe keeps their hands clean.

        • By ethbr1 2026-02-2814:05

          Say what you want about France, but their military has generally been extremely pragmatic and forward thinking*.

          They've seen the writing on the wall about independent nukes for decades.

          * WWII front collapse being more of a political failure than a military one: politicians dictating unachievable military strategies)

      • By Rapzid 2026-02-2821:11

        China won't invade Taiwan because it would destroy their economy and thus their country. Would wreck the entire world economy and turn every country against them.

        It's nice nationalistic rhetoric, but there is literally no upside for them.

      • By DivingForGold 2026-02-2812:04

        Taiwan needs nukes on low flying hypersonic cruise missles now. Seems that would halt Chinese aggression.

    • By hedayet 2026-02-2821:401 reply

      Epstein files have more potent power in them than any nuclear arsenal.

      No way this many rich powerful people would go down without destroying at least half of the world.

      • By sriram_malhar 2026-03-014:251 reply

        It seems the admin would rather you focus on DoW or DOW. Any mention of Epstein is getting downvoted.

        • By kernal 2026-03-017:411 reply

          [flagged]

          • By sriram_malhar 2026-03-027:561 reply

            Is this a deflection? I'd be asking this question of any admin. I cannot stand what Obama and Biden let Merrick Garland get away with.

            • By InitialLastName 2026-03-0214:47

              With you on the other things (we wouldn't be in this position if the Biden admin had had any interest in enforcing laws), but, other than his purely symbolic nomination, what role did Merrick Garland have in the Obama administration that Obama could "let him get away with" anything?

    • By bcxdxc65 2026-02-2812:37

      We are not heading into WW 3. Those old rich men you worry about have to pay a much higher price in cash for their illusions of control. And that reduces what harm and how long wars can run. Keep an eye on what the markets tell everyone on Monday.

    • By kernal 2026-03-017:45

      How can you have WW3 when your opponent has the military power equivalent of a butter knife? Instead of wishing for a WW3, I suggest you look at all of the people celebrating in the streets of Iran and even the US.

    • By andrepd 2026-03-011:06

      Am I the only reading this comment as a incoherent vague rambling? In kinder words: what is your point/thesis exactly?

    • By xg15 2026-02-2812:081 reply

      > And essentially none of us will know the truth, even the reasons.

      Maybe not in the details, but the general geopolitical "axes" (USA/the "West" vs China/Russia/BRICS/"Global South"/etc) have become increasingly obvious in the last years. And so far, most of the recent conflicts fit pretty neatly into that pattern.

      Of course there are more things running in parallel, like the general shift to the right, Trump in the US, the specific situation with Israel/Palestine, the emergence of AI, etc.

      But I don't see why any of this needs any other "grand secret cause" to explain the current conflicts.

      • By ethbr1 2026-02-2814:013 reply

        BRICS is Russia wishing that China (much less Brazil, Egypt, Ethiopia, India, Indonesia, South Africa, and the United Arab Emirates) were aligned to its interests.

        A more accurate description of the way the world is trending:

        US / UK / Europe / Japan / South Korea (still tied by defense, if push really comes to shove) vs Russia vs China vs Non-Aligned Nations (India, Indonesia, Egypt, Bangladesh, Pakistan, Ethiopia, Nigeria, etc.)

        And historically (1960s), in a multi-polar world, middle powers are best served by being ambiguously aligned to force advantageous courting by major powers.

        • By plaidfuji 2026-02-2818:551 reply

          If this spreads into a broader conflict, it remains to be seen whether Europe sticks tightly with that block. They certainly won’t align with Russia, but they may be tied so closely to China economically that they can’t afford to be dragged into a direct conflict with them. I could see a situation where they try to remain non—aligned.

          • By jopsen 2026-02-2819:40

            Given that we now that to deploy troops to prevent the US from invading Greenland.

            I'd agree, it's not a given that the US can count on Europe in a conflict with China.

            But probably Europe wouldn't be trading with China or anything.

            It's just given the treatment of the US administration, the US probably can't build a volunteer coalition like I Iraq - unless there is an attack on US mainland.

        • By AnimalMuppet 2026-02-2815:343 reply

          Well, China, Russia, Iran, and North Korea seem to have a (fairly loose) "alliance of convenience" at the moment. "The enemy of my enemy", more or less.

          • By alex43578 2026-02-2823:48

            Bartering some e-scooters for oil is hardly an alliance. Other than China, you just have a list of outcast countries on America, Europe, or the Middle East's sh*t list.

          • By jopsen 2026-02-2819:421 reply

            Hmm, I'm not sure trading is an alliance.

            I doubt NK sent anything to Russia without payment in hard currency (gold).

            • By petre 2026-03-0110:19

              NK was getting some reactor hardware from Russia. 'Unfortunately' the ship that was deliveing it, Ursa Major, went under in the Mediteranean.

        • By xg15 2026-02-2815:251 reply

          Then have a look who is supporting whom with weapons, which militaries are running maneuvers together, who is cooperating - or not cooperating - economically, who is visiting each others' summits, etc.

          It's true that many countries are trying to have relationship with both sides or are trying to keep all options open - which is the most reasonable strategy, I think - but there are still two power centers emerging between which those countries are aligning themselves.

          • By marcosdumay 2026-02-2820:231 reply

            > but there are still two power centers emerging

            Yes. There is US and Israel in one side, and countries trying to maintain relationships with everybody on the other.

            The most ridiculous thing about people claiming that BRICS is a military pole is that it has both India and China right there in the name. I don't know if you noticed, but those two almost got in an open war just in the last 6 months.

            • By Rapzid 2026-02-2821:481 reply

              It's the West vs China with Russia as an also-ran with nukes now unfortunately.

              Otherwise you've got some regional issues which is where Iran falls. None of the major players in the region like them, even if they would prefer not to have a conflict they'd be pretty stoked if the volatile regime was gone.

              Most of those non-aligned nations are pretty much aligned with the west. Indonesia is absolutely aligned with the USA and the USA it. They are the "Indo" in Indo-Pacific Strategy!

              • By marcosdumay 2026-02-2823:261 reply

                What is the "west"?

                Anyway, here's a reminder that two weeks ago the big war on everybody's head was USA against NATO.

                • By Rapzid 2026-03-010:02

                  Western liberal democracies and those closely aligned with them is colloquially "the west" now when talking geopolitics.

                  Obviously it's not geographic as Australia and New Zealand are in the Eastern Hemisphere but would always be assumed to be part of the "west" when discussing geopolitics.

    • By dns_snek 2026-03-019:02

      > The revolution will be live-streamed

      I disagree with you on this. The revolution will never be live-streamed because the ability to do so is gated by the same people whom the revolution seeks to overthrow.

      What's being live-streamed is the evolution of the status-quo towards growing hostility, violence, wars, and indeed - fascism.

    • By asah 2026-02-2811:371 reply

      hmmm - but is it really "world war" 3 if it's a bunch of localized conflicts?

      I'm a little disappointed that the internet and social media had little impact on universal disclosure about geopolitical matters. My sense is that governments updated their playbooks to both defend against them (e.g. minimize leaking) and leverage them (e.g. bury inconvenient information with propaganda). By comparison, I'm more hopeful about cellphones and bodycams generally reducing excessive police violence and discrimination (emphasis on "reduce").

      prediction: the nuclear threat will look quaint compared with disposable million-drone swarms on land and in the air, targeting anything remotely interesting via onboard AI.

      • By throwpoaster 2026-02-2816:41

        “A bunch of localized conflicts” is what contemporaries thought WWII was before people realized the larger pattern.

    • By assaddayinh 2026-03-018:25

      [dead]

    • By AreShoesFeet000 2026-02-2811:40

      The revolution will be notably public, but not live-streamed. It will come as a swift and decisive reaction to a shock-and-awe deployment that will de-stabilize the state apparatus of a big nation outside of the “west”. The movement will be initially localized but it will spread until a perimeter of containment is setup around developed nations. Much more will come after.

  • By Arun2009 2026-02-2812:1717 reply

    I am just befuddled by how much of this violence is directly motivated by religious concerns, both on the side of Iran and on the side of Israel and USA.

    I have been reading on the topic of shunyata or emptiness in Mahayana Buddhism, and have been uncomfortably observing just how much of the artifacts we take to be real and substantial in the world are just "made up". They don't have an inherent reality of their own except what we attribute to them. And yet, made up stories can have very real consequences in terms human suffering.

    It ought to be possible to cut through the layers of reifications and simply defuse much of the strife in the world. And yet, we continue to inflict misery on each other unnecessarily.

    • By rambojohnson 2026-02-2816:295 reply

      You’re mistaking the packaging for the product. Religion is the language leaders use. Power, territory, oil corridors, regional dominance, and domestic political survival are what they’re actually fighting over.

      Tehran isn’t calculating missile ranges based on sutras. Washington doesn’t position carrier groups because of metaphysics. Israel’s security doctrine isn’t a meditation retreat.

      Spiritual narratives make clean moral theater for the public. They mobilize bodies. They sanctify retaliation. But the machinery underneath runs on leverage and deterrence, not theology.

      Wake up to the real world.

      Calling it primarily religious violence feels tidy and tragic in a philosophical way. It’s harder, and more uncomfortable, to admit that it’s strategic violence dressed in symbols people recognize.

      Shunyata is a beautiful lens for seeing through ego. It doesn’t dissolve geopolitics.

      • By pphysch 2026-02-2817:122 reply

        > Israel’s security doctrine isn’t a meditation retreat.

        "Security doctrine" is quite a euphemism for aggressive territorial expansion and ethnic cleansing, which is tightly wrapped in religious rhetoric.

        • By rayiner 2026-02-2819:041 reply

          Territorial expansion and ethnic cleansing boils down to "more resources for me and those most closely related to me genetically." It's difficult to think of a course of action that is more materialist and less abstract.

        • By rambojohnson 2026-02-2817:152 reply

          religious rhetoric is for the fools they've indoctrinated to their cause. it does not drive policy. I was being sardonic with "security doctrine".

          • By thisislife2 2026-02-2819:261 reply

            Israel today is run by a group of religious fundamentalists who do believe it is their "promised" land. And then we have an American ambassador publicly supporting this because he thinks that as a Christian he needs to support Israel's "Biblical rights" over the all of middle-east!

            • By dlubarov 2026-02-2819:551 reply

              "a group of religious fundamentalists" led by... Netanyahu, who is completely secular if not an atheist. How does this narrative make sense?

              (Of course some Israel politicians are religious; that's true of any country.)

              • By thisislife2 2026-02-2820:351 reply

                You don't judge a person by what they say, but what they ultimately do - Netanyahu is a right-wing religious fundamentalist as is evident by the kind of right-wing identity politics he practice, his support for the assassination of Israeli (and Palestinian) leaders who didn't support his political ideology and sought peace (Israel PM Netanyahu denies incitement before murder of Rabin - https://www.middleeasteye.net/news/israel-pm-netanyahu-denie... , Will Israel ever have another leader who truly wants peace? - https://forward.com/opinion/780946/yitzhak-rabin-assassinati... ), his attempts to usurp democracy in Israel and become a dictator (If Benjamin Netanyahu and his coalition have their way, my country could deteriorate into a dictatorship. - https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2023/03/israel-ben... ), his calls for the genocide of the Palestinians in Gaza, and the military sanction for the actual ongoing genocide in Gaza (and now in West Bank). The Likud party he leads emerged from a terrorist organisation that conducted Hamas like massacres of the Palestinains. ( The Terrorist Forefathers of Israel: The Irgun and Lehi - https://dissidentvoice.org/2023/03/the-terrorist-forefathers... ).

                If it looks like a duck, quacks like a duck, and does what a duck does, it is a duck.

                • By YZF 2026-02-2820:561 reply

                  Netanyahu is not religious. He is, as the parent says, secular. If my cat quacked he's still not a duck.

                  There is "religion" in the broader sense which can be any set of beliefs but Netanyahu is as secular and logical as can be. He may be overly logical in the sense of advancing his personal agenda (avoiding standing trial) over the interests of his country but he's still very different than the religious crazies in Tehran where logic plays no role and g-d is everything.

                  • By I-M-S 2026-02-2821:491 reply

                    I agree that one must be quite illogical and committed to some grander creed to issue a prohibition on nuclear weapons while Israel and USA are doing everything in their very much nuclear power to destroy you.

                    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ali_Khamenei%27s_fatwa_against...

                    • By YZF 2026-02-2822:201 reply

                      It's definitely illogical to enrich materials to nuclear grade and invest immense amounts in bunkers with centrifuges while saying you don't mean to have nuclear weapons.

                      • By tovej 2026-02-2823:531 reply

                        No, those are both rational actions in this case. Iran getting nukes is less dangerous than only Israels current nukes. If both Iran and Israel had nukes, the region might have a chance at peace.

                        • By YZF 2026-03-0117:51

                          If Iran had nukes it would nuke Israel without any consideration for Israel's nuclear retaliation because in their thinking becoming a martyr in the course of killing the infidels is a good outcome.

                          The region will have chance at peace once the regime of Iran is removed.

          • By 2snakes 2026-02-2818:37

            I do this too. I think it is basically simulation out of fear. (modeling because of uncomfortableness with thinking with System 1 fast emotional / System 2 slow rational)

      • By andrepd 2026-03-011:05

        On the contrary, you're mistaking the means with the ends. Yes the regimes and their leaders think about oil corridors and regional proxies. Yes probably a chunk of the apparatchiks don't believe in the spiel and just care about enriching themselves off of corruption and so forth.

        But religion, and not pure materialism, is absolutely at the center of the motivation of these people, the leaders and the population alike. It's not just, as you say, a sham that the leaders use to control and mobilise the masses. Religious fanaticism is at the source of the actions and the very existence of the Islamic Republic. Just as religious fanaticism is at the heart of the worst excesses of Zionism and the at-worst-genocidal, at-best-apartheid policies of Israel. It's not just materialism! It's not just prosaic greed! These people are moved by a holy fervour.

        Like, this is the central mistake of Marxism, for all its merits in analysing the "capitalist mode of production", it is absolutely false that material conditions and class struggle are the engine of history.

      • By asdfe3r343 2026-03-012:24

        > Religion is the language leaders use.

        Yeah. Because people believe in in and leaders take advantage. DUH. Its not so peaceful religion all the way.

      • By frogperson 2026-03-0113:11

        That was very well said. Thank you.

      • By Rapzid 2026-02-2823:16

        IMHO you're still making it too complicated; knives out GOT, titans of industry..

        Sure, but it's even simpler.. The Ayatollah Regime funds regional terrorism. It destabilizes the region, gets people killed, and holds back progress.

        Also, they are always seemingly always almost done building a nuke.. Which frankly nobody wants(not even them because they know they'd be obliterated the instant the world thought they actually had one or were about to for-reals have one).

        They are BAD FOR BUSINESS both private AND PUBLIC.

        As long as the rest of the region was developing eventually their number would be up. The recent uprising and massacre was the signal their number is up. Time to go, honestly signed all their neighbors.

    • By ozgrakkurt 2026-02-2815:231 reply

      It makes a lot more sense if you picture a bunch of organized, strong and merciless chimps attacking some other chimps to plunder what they have.

      Chimps generally agree war is bad and horrific. But some smart, opportunistic and hard-working chimps can create situations that make war possible. Even though the war will only bring losses to most chimps on both sides.

      • By lioeters 2026-02-2819:09

        The best political insight in this thread. This is the planet of the apes. If any future historians are reading, some of us primates were aware of the absurdity of the situation, horrified by the senseless violence that erupts again and again, led by sociopathic chimps that somehow managed to organize whole societies against each other and profit from the whole primitive enterprise. What a waste of human potential.

    • By AbstractH24 2026-02-2812:564 reply

      > I am just befuddled by how much of this violence is directly motivated by religious concerns, both on the side of Iran and on the side of Israel and USA.

      Can you provide an example of this in 2026?

      It seems a little tenable with the ayatollah and Iran. But even here you don’t hear much talk of this being a war in the name of religion anymore. Nowhere near a few years ago and certainly nothing like 9/11 and the Taliban.

      And I hear nobody in Israel or America talking that way. Just a war defending people against attackers at the gates.

      • By thisislife2 2026-02-2819:341 reply

        > And I hear nobody in Israel or America talking that way.

        The American ambassador to Israel recently publicly said that Israel has a "biblical right" to the whole of the middle-east! (Watch these two interviews to understand how cleverly, and strongly, Israeli politics is tied up with American evangelical Christianity to keep American polity tied to Israel's existence - https://tuckercarlson.com/tucker-show-fares-abraham-021826 and https://tuckercarlson.com/tucker-show-mike-huckabee-022026 . Both these interviews give you a very insightful picture of how religious fundamentalist Israelis in power are total nutcases, supported by the American Christian fundamentalist fruitcakes).

        • By dlubarov 2026-02-2819:591 reply

          Can you offer a source that wouldn't require us to listen to hours of Tucker Carlson?

          • By thisislife2 2026-02-2820:28

            The source is not Tucker Carlson - it is the person(s) he is interviewing. And if you don't want to listen to the interview, you can pay him to get a transcription of the interview and search through it. (Meanwhile, you may find this equally insightful - The Terrorist Forefathers of Israel: The Irgun and Lehi: https://dissidentvoice.org/2023/03/the-terrorist-forefathers... - supporting my arguments on how Jewish religious fundamentalists have captured power in Israel. Without getting rid of them, peace is not possible in that region as they are the other side of coin that was Hamas in Palestine).

      • By kubb 2026-02-2814:036 reply

        The land promised to the Israelites generally extends from the Nile River in Egypt to the Euphrates River in Iraq/Syria, encompassing modern-day Israel, Palestine, Lebanon, Jordan, and parts of Syria and Saudi Arabia.

        If you're a religious Jew, then you believe you have a mandate from God (so an irrefutable right, or even obligation, needing no justification) to settle and rule not only the West Bank but the entire region. So there will always be that motivation, as long as religious Judaism exists in Israel.

        • By azernik 2026-02-2814:232 reply

          That is not the ruling Likud ideology in Israel nor the allied national religious ideology; both refer to Israel+Palestine+Golan as "the Whole Land of Israel".

          And in any case, the "most religious" (ie those whose politics are most totally driven by Judaism) bloc in Israel are at best ambivalent about the Israeli state and the settlement enterprise, and actively hostile to military service.

          Israeli hostility to Iran is driven by a "defensive" paranoia, not a religious mission.

          • By tsimionescu 2026-02-2818:45

            Israel literally has minted coins with the image of Greater Israel (they claim this is only in reference to some ancient coin designs). The US ambassador to Israel, Mike Huckabee, has just a few days ago given an interview where he explicitly stated that Israel / the Jewish people has a right to that entire land, from the Euphrates to the Nile. The Israeli opposition leader was then asked about this, and he agreed with the US ambassador that yes, they do have this right, but that of course it must be viewed realistically given security and operational limitations.

          • By kubb 2026-02-2816:021 reply

            Of course it needs to be approached pragmatically. If Israel stated that its number one goal is to rule the entire region, they wouldn't have been as successful as they are.

            Also God didn't say when. But he did promise, according to the Book.

            • By azernik 2026-02-2818:392 reply

              This is insane conspiracy theory nonsense, and is also not how actual Jews read the Tanakh.

              (Which is also not referred to as "the Book", since it's a collection of books. This may seem like a nitpick, but I think is indicative of you getting your information from non-Jewish conspiracy theorist circles rather than anything related to Jewish theology or culture.)

              • By thisislife2 2026-02-2819:451 reply

                I agree with you for the most part. But we aren't talking about the ordinary spiritual Jews or Christians or Muslims. We are talking about religious fundamentalists who have a very distorted view of their religion, and mix it with identity politics. Israeli-right religious fundamentalists have captured full power in Israel, and are now even threatening their own democracy. Don't forget that the Likud party that Netanyahu leads was once a terrorist organisation in its previous avatar, that used to do Hamas like massacre of Palestinians and assassinate Israeli leaders that didn't subscribe to their ideology and wanted peace with Palestine. Indeed, if the Israelis were freed of these religious fundamentalist leaders peace is very likely. (The Terrorist Forefathers of Israel: The Irgun and Lehi - https://dissidentvoice.org/2023/03/the-terrorist-forefathers... ) .

                • By azernik 2026-03-0116:151 reply

                  Benjamin Netanyahu is a rabid nationalist, not a religious fundamentalist.

                  • By thisislife2 2026-03-0912:401 reply

                    It's the same thing in Israel. Israeli-right nationalism is imbibed with ideas of a Jewish theocratic state, from the religious fundamentalism of the Israeli-right - that is why it religiously discriminates by giving preferential treatment to the Jews and proclaims itself as a "Jewish state".

                    • By azernik 2026-03-0917:25

                      It gives preferential treatment to Jews regardless of their religious practice or lack thereof.

                      Its self-definition as a "Jewish state" is deliberately vague about its definition of "Jewish", and is in practice closer to Western ideas of ethnicity/nationalism than to "religion".

              • By kubb 2026-02-2818:591 reply

                Try to resist the temptation to lump me in with the conspiracy theorists. If you can, provide facts. Thanks for your nuance about the Books. I was using the terminology I learned for the Bible (which also consists of multiple Books, but is referred to as the Book), but I'm happy to switch to "scripture".

                The Dati Leumi, the Religious Zionists, who constitute the ideological backbone of the settler movement, and have a lot of political influence in Israel, absolutely believe in their duty to govern the biblical land. For many, holding the West Bank is a religious obligation, and they consider the Golan settled and annexed. Religiously, the same principle that justifies them holding Golan applies to these territories.

                Here are some recent statements from political leaders:

                Bezalel Smotrich (Finance Minister, Religious Zionist party) "it is written that the future of Jerusalem is to expand to Damascus."

                Daniella Weiss (prominent settler leader) said in 2024: "We know from the Bible that the real borders of Greater Israel are the Euphrates and the Nile."

                Benjamin Netanyahu said he's on a "historic and spiritual mission" and that he is "very" attached to the vision of Greater Israel, which includes Palestinian areas and possibly also places that are part of Jordan, Egypt, Syria, and Lebanon.

                Yair Lapid, the secular centrist opposition leader (!). "I don't think I have a dispute on the biblical level about what the original borders of Israel are... I support anything that will allow the Jews a big, vast, strong land."

                Mike Huckabee (US Ambassador to Israel) "It would be fine if they took it all."

                • By YZF 2026-02-2821:091 reply

                  Huckabee speaks for himself and maybe some Christians.

                  I would say a lot of Jewish people and Israelis get upset at what you're saying and so maybe our reply will be a bit adversarial. Here's trying to be more factual (I used Gemini to research though I'm personally familiar with these figures as well).

                  Rabbi Ovadia Yosef (1920–2013): The highly influential former Sephardic Chief Rabbi of Israel. While his political party (Shas) later shifted rightward, Rabbi Yosef issued a landmark religious ruling in the late 1970s stating that Israel is permitted to cede land in exchange for a genuine peace treaty, prioritizing the sanctity of life over holding territory.

                  Rabbi Menachem Froman (1945–2013): An Orthodox rabbi and resident of a West Bank settlement who famously engaged in direct dialogue with Palestinian leaders, including the PLO and Hamas. He supported the creation of a Palestinian state, arguing that shared religious reverence for the land should be the foundation for peace rather than an obstacle.

                  Rabbi Michael Melchior: An Orthodox rabbi and former Israeli cabinet minister who leads the Mosaica religious peace initiative. He actively works on "track-two" diplomacy, fostering dialogue between Israeli rabbis and Palestinian imams.

                  Rabbi Yeshayahu Leibowitz (1903–1994): A highly influential Orthodox Jewish philosopher and scientist. Immediately following the 1967 Six-Day War, he became a vocal opponent of the military occupation of the Palestinian territories, warning that it would corrupt Israeli society and Judaism itself.

                  Rabbis for Human Rights: An active Israeli organization made up of over a hundred Orthodox, Reform, Conservative, and Reconstructionist rabbis. They physically protect Palestinian farmers, advocate against settler violence, and largely support a two-state solution based on the biblical mandate to protect the vulnerable.

                  On the question of the applicability of religion: "Does Judaism Mandate a Specific Political Solution?

                  No. Judaism predates the concept of the modern nation-state, so the religion does not explicitly mandate a "one-state" or "two-state" political framework. Instead, different religious camps emphasize competing core values within Jewish law (Halakha) and scripture to justify their political stances"

                  There's a lot more to explore and I encourage you do that on your own.

                  • By kubb 2026-02-2821:263 reply

                    Remember, the claim wasn't that all Israelis believe or support this. The claim was that religious motivations for violence exist. And a stronger claim that I think I have sufficiently defended was, that many influential people have these motivations.

                    • By YZF 2026-02-2821:47

                      If the weaker claim is that some Israelis have religious motivations or feel like religion supports their position - sure. But big picture religion doesn't play as large as a role for Israelis as it might play for Iran or let's say Hamas or the Houthis. Even with those more religious actors I don't think religion is the only driver, e.g. with Iran this is probably partly just a way to control the population vs. a religious belief held by everyone in the regime (not sure about the ex-supreme leader)

                    • By azernik 2026-03-0116:23

                      The claim was that all religious Jews believe this. The motte-and-bailey is unseemly.

        • By weatherlite 2026-02-2818:371 reply

          > If you're a religious Jew, then you believe you have a mandate from God (so an irrefutable right, or even obligation, needing no justification) to settle and rule not only the West Bank but the entire region.

          Well not really , most Orthodox definitely don't believe this in fact some of them are anti Zionist and the ones who accept Israel's existence definitely do not think Israel needs to expand its borders like that. So no to that.

          • By kubb 2026-02-2818:482 reply

            Israeli have a diverse spectrum of religious denominations. This includes religious, non Orthodox Jews. Dati Leumi (the religious Zionists) are by far the most hawkish. They absolutely believe that the biblical land belongs to the Jewish people. They account for about 15% and are incredibly politically influential.

            The Haredim (the ultra-Orthodox) are more complicated, and in general don't want all the promised land (they believe that the state established militarily/politically isn't the "spiritual" state that was promised). But, when it comes to the currently occupied land, they have been shifting right in recent years. They vote in coalition with the nationalist right, and their communities increasingly overlap geographically with settlements.

            • By YZF 2026-02-2821:161 reply

              The Dati Leumi camp isn't as uniform as you portray it. There are many examples (e.g. Avrum Burg, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Avraham_Burg ) do not think Israel should be over the entire historical/biblical region ("Eretz Israel Ha-Shlema").

              More examples are:

              - Rabbi Yehuda Amital and the Meimad Party

              - Rabbi Aharon Lichtenstein

              You are confusing politics and religion.

              • By kubb 2026-02-2821:291 reply

                > You are confusing politics and religion.

                Religious Zionism is a religious denomination.

                National Religious Party–Religious Zionism is a political party.

                It feels unfair and unjustified that you are accusing me of confusing them without substantiating your accusation. I am still open to learn anything that you might want to share with me that you think is important.

                • By YZF 2026-02-2821:441 reply

                  So Avrum Burg I mentioned in another comment is historically affiliated with the "Mafdal", the religious party. That religious party, just like religious zionism in general, isn't one uniform block. It has different opinions and it evolves.

                  I feel like I lost track of the discussion. At some point I thought you were claiming something along the lines that says religious Jews believe they are under an order from God to expand Israel to its maximal biblical geographical area.

                  If your claim is that the current day Mafdal's political (not necessarily religious) position is that Israel should annex the West Bank and Gaza. Ehm, sure, maybe. I think it's a bit more nuanced even than that but I won't argue on this point.

                  It's possible I just lost the thread, and if I did I apologize. HN isn't very good at facilitating this sort of discussion. If I mis-stated your position above and am agreeing with the wrong thing I'm sure you'll correct me.

                  [EDIT: correcting myself a little bit Burg actually ended up as a member of the Labor party in politics, but his politics did originally align with the Mafdal, the party is/was supposed to represent all Zionist Religious people but has obviously diverged a bit from that)

                  • By kubb 2026-02-2822:271 reply

                    > At some point I thought you were claiming something along the lines that says religious Jews believe they are under an order from God to expand Israel to its maximal biblical geographical area.

                    I just meant that there's a part of the religious spectrum prone to that interpretation, and it mixes very well with nationalism, and expansionism. And that it isn't a meaningless fringe, but has a significant political representation. What I wrote was a reasonable way the scripture can be interpreted by someone who believes it's a true word of God.

                    If I'm wrong, and e.g. the Miflaga Datit Leumit party explicitly rejects this kind of intepretation then I stand corrected, but judging by what its leader says publicly this isn't the case...

                    • By YZF 2026-02-2823:44

                      Unlike Iran what the leader says isn't some ultimate mandate to the followers. Party leaders, and members, come and go and their platforms changes over time.

                      Smotrich, e.g., says and does lot of things. Some of them resonate with some members of his party, others don't.

                      As to the party's platform you can read it here: https://zionutdatit.org.il/en/party-platform/

                      I would push back on the idea of expansionism. I don't think that's a mainstream view in the party at all. The party does support annexing the West Bank and Gaza which to be honest is the only workable solution anyways regardless of where you're coming from and really the best outcome for Palestinians as well if they become full Israeli citizens.

            • By weatherlite 2026-03-016:32

              Well you gave it more nuance here than in your original message that determined "If you're a religious Jew...".

              Bennet is dati leumi and represents a big chunk of the mainstream/modern dati leumis. Any signs he's after conquering Saudi Arabai and Egypt ? Not really. Even Smotrich "only" wants the West Bank.

        • By nyc_data_geek1 2026-02-2818:251 reply

          Tell that to the millions of Hasidic Jews in the United States who do not believe that a Jewish nation should exist at all.

          • By kubb 2026-02-2818:38

            Thanks for this information, I'd like to offer something in return.

            Only certain Hasidic groups oppose Israel, including Satmar Hasidim (over 100k followers), and Neturei Karta (fringe, only about 1k supporters). That's less than millions, and a minority within the Hasidic world.

            Theologically, they oppose it based on an interpretation a Talmudic passage saying that establishment of Israel has to happen after the coming of the Messiah.

            Additionally, there are a lot different denominations of Jews within Israel, some of whom have more pragmatic views. But a significant, politically influential minority believes in their duty to govern all biblical land.

        • By dlubarov 2026-03-015:56

          A belief that Jews were given lands millennia ago does not imply a justification, let alone an obligation, to violently reconquer those lands today.

          Consider that we haven't had a Sanhedrin (supreme Jewish council) for a while, which makes a bunch of Jewish law unenforceable. While there's some fringe interest in reinstituting the classical system, there's no scripture that would clearly obligate Jews to do so. Most just accept that times have changed.

          Similarly while there's some fringe interest in recapturing all historic Jewish lands, there's no scripture that would clearly obligate Jews to do so. Most just accept that times have changed.

          You can find a few weird individuals anywhere if you look hard enough, but portraying "religious Jews" broadly as aspiring to conquer the whole Middle East is way off base.

        • By YZF 2026-02-2821:031 reply

          > If you're a religious Jew, then you believe you have a mandate from God (so an irrefutable right, or even obligation, needing no justification) to settle and rule not only the West Bank but the entire region. So there will always be that motivation, as long as religious Judaism exists in Israel.

          I would say this is generally false.

          There are many religious Jews who believe there should be no state of Israel until the Messiah comes. Judaism is very open to interpretations and certainly within the question of modern state politics doesn't have as much to say as you seem to think it does.

          There are many different Rabbis in Israel with different political opinions and generally their followers will tend to hold similar beliefs. There are right wing Rabbis and left wing Rabbis, it's not uniform at all. During the Oslo peace process there were many religious people supporting and many opposing, pretty much the same as secular.

          What is true is that some Israelis view their right to the land in the context of the biblical promise God made our people. That is not the same thing. Funny enough I'd say more Christians believe the literal promise and it's implication on current day politics than Jews. It's also true that religious people these days tend to be more right leaning politically. But the religion isn't mandating those world views it just that they can align.

          • By kubb 2026-02-2821:34

            I will grant you this: there are many Israelis that don't believe this, and some of them are religious.

            Will you grant me this: religious motivations for violence exist within Israel, including the ruling political class?

        • By _DeadFred_ 2026-03-010:12

          Imagine making such a blanket claim of religious Muslims. It is wild how people can assign with authority jews motivations/behaviors. If you make the same claims of conquest but with regards to Muslims, it wouldn't be acceptable. Should we allow such claims to understand Muslims behaviors, or have you stepped over a line in your defining religious Jews?

      • By samrus 2026-02-2813:201 reply

        The evangelicals support isreal due to religious obligation.

        Project 2025, a christian nationalist policy advisement widely followed by the current regime, prescribes supporting isreal

        • By swingboy 2026-02-2821:16

          Evangelicals point to Genesis 12:3 as justification but never seem to have ever read any of Galatians 3.

      • By sosomoxie 2026-02-2818:382 reply

        [flagged]

        • By azernik 2026-02-2818:411 reply

          That tweet does not support your claim, and it is in fact not Purim yet.

          • By sosomoxie 2026-02-2818:511 reply

            How does that tweet not support my claim? It's CNN reporting, here's the actual article: https://edition.cnn.com/world/live-news/israel-iran-attack-0...

            • By azernik 2026-03-0116:081 reply

              The tweet and article say the timing comes with symbolism, not that the symbolism was the reason for the timing.

              Correlation is not causation, and the article does not even claim causation.

              • By sosomoxie 2026-03-0116:42

                Why would a mainstream media article be correlating war crimes with niche religious symbolism? It's Jewish supremacy propaganda at the very least.

        • By keeda 2026-02-2822:31

          I feel like this sort of symbolic planning means you don't even need to leak to the wrong Signal chat group to telegraph your attack? Especially when enemy warships have already been hovering for a few days...

    • By nonethewiser 2026-02-2819:341 reply

      I have a very hard time understanding how the US is attacking Iran because of Christianity. I cannot even anticipate the hypothesis.

    • By violentapricot 2026-02-2813:402 reply

      It's not said in polite company, but Israeli concerns are racial, not religious. If you meet a Jewish zionist, then you've also met an athiest. An explanation of Christian Zionism deserves much longer discussion than can be made here, but how and why such an obvious contradiction to Jesus' ministry gained popularity is something worth studying.

      • By cogman10 2026-02-2813:52

        Once you realize the gospels and the epistles disagree, it becomes a lot easier to understand. Christianity is the practice of cognitive dissonance. The bible, due to the nature, has a lot of mixed messaging.

        Imagine, for example, you wanted to write the religion of Liberalism, so you collect the works of all the major thinkers on the subject of liberalism into one book. Now imagine someone gets the bad idea that all these authors must actually have a unified view on what liberalism is, means, and implies. You'll end up seeing that person teach a form of liberalism that's easily countered with other passages from their book and they'll mostly just wave it away because they have their passages and the others are simply you misinterpreting an "obvious" metaphor.

        That is christianity in a nutshell, just replace liberalism with god. That's why there are so many sects. Because it's just too easy to yell "Context context context!" when a difficult passage comes up you don't agree with and use "spiritual" as the excuse for why you don't actually have to follow that passage.

      • By azernik 2026-02-2818:47

        Not entirely accurate:

        1. Many Israeli Jewish Zionists are either "traditional" (religious but not that much) or Religious Zionist, and they are generally part of the right wing coalition. Actual atheists tend to be in the Israeli (still-Zionist) left.

        2. The Zionist conception of Jewish identity is not "racial" in the American sense. The most obvious sense in which this is true is that it considers converts and their descendants full members of the nation. Probably the closest analogies are some Native American nations' identities or Armenian nationalism.

        But you're directionally correct - Zionism is not a particularly religious ideology within the Jewish world, and outside of the Religious Zionist minority the political class is (openly!) on the less observant end even on the right.

    • By HerbManic 2026-02-2820:50

      When it comes to battles of religion, Alan watts said it best.

      "Since opposed principles, or ideologies, are irreconcilable, wars fought over principle will be wars of mutual annihilation. But wars fought for simple greed will be far less destructive, because the aggressor will be careful not to destroy what he is fighting to capture. Reasonable–that is, human–men will always be capable of compromise, but men who have dehumanized themselves by becoming the blind worshipers of an idea or an ideal are fanatics whose devotion to abstractions makes them the enemies of life."

    • By jackcosgrove 2026-02-2822:20

      Complexity can lead to "more is different" outcomes at higher strata. I would not say reified concepts are "made up" as they can have very real effects on both higher and lower strata.

      The fallacy of reification is treating something emergent as a thing-unto-itself rather than a process or interaction born from constituents at a lower stratum. A reified thing can be recognized and changed for this reason. A mental concept needs only a change of mind to mutate, or to be destroyed.

      Religion may well prove to be a reification that is destroyed once it is recognized as such. But I do believe that you cannot reduce that which is real and not real to only those things that have physical antecedents at lower strata, as we see emergent phenomena in the physical world as well.

    • By monarchwadia 2026-03-022:39

      It is rare to find a comment on shunyata on HN. I wanted to deepen the discussion on that, instead of move into geopolitics or the justification of status quo reality. I think youre very correct that war is unnecessary, if only we realize the illusory nature of many of the things we desire or hate.

      Shunyata means everything is empty. Empty of what? Empty of inherent, independent existence. That means everything is connected -- not only connected, but mostly illusory, sitting on top of a reality that cannot be understood in terms of objects, processes, distinctions, or boundaries between objects. Sometimes, this connection takes on strange forms.

      For example: The horrible reality of war was a direct cause for your compassionate unease. I.e. war acted as a cause for compassion. This is strange. How do we reconcile this disturbing relationship, where a compassionate response is directly the child of war? In other words, horrific war has given rise to compassion, and this is a causal relationship, in the same way that a child arises from a mother. So, violence and love can arise from each other? What? Are they not supposed to be opposites?

      The next step is a bit more provocative. Shunyata seems to imply that, since everything lacks inherent and independence existence, then suffering is not a part of the human condition. Instead, it is a mental construct. It isn't that the suffering of humanity does not exist; it's that it is constructed by the mind.

      Deleuze and Guattari offers an interesting viewpoint on this. There are various intensities that do arise naturally. Injury, for example, is an intensity. But, suffering itself is not "really-real" unless we reify the intensities as suffering. And eliminating suffering partially involves the non-reification of intensities into suffering.

      Obviously, easier said than done.

      Anyway I'll leave it there. It's probably quite easy to destroy my points here, so I would appreciate it if people steelmanned my comment instead of strawmanning it. Shunyata is a genuinely useful discussion from a mental health and human flourishing standpoint. And has some very interesting and rigorous logic behind it. (see Mulamadhyamakakarika by Nagarjuna)

    • By mkoubaa 2026-02-2813:53

      Fallacy.

      (Wrong) Knife fight: a fight between people about knives

      (Right) Knife fight: a fight between people using knives

    • By vcryan 2026-02-2812:251 reply

      It had nothing to do with religion, that element is used to distract.

      • By merelythere 2026-02-2812:43

        They are following their books like a self-fulfilling prophecy.

    • By philistine 2026-02-2814:161 reply

      Religion poisons everything.

      • By lukifer 2026-02-2818:191 reply

        Examples abound; but for good and ill, the language-using ape seems to be a religious animal, having co-evolved with mythological memeplexes.

        There's the old salt from DFW, "one can't choose whether to worship, only what to worship". Less apologetics, perhaps, than a realmythos (akin to realpolitik).

        Nature abhors a vacuum, and something inevitably fills the void: the "god-shaped hole" in individuals, and the game-theoretic basin of attraction, the actual realpolitik of loyalty-signaling, load-bearing fictions which bind an "imagined community". (The first might be manageable, but the second is a doozy: a faith which could not be more explicitly anarcho-pacifist mutated into justification for brutally violent hierarchies of domination and exploitation. So it goes.)

        • By philistine 2026-02-2819:491 reply

          Mythology does not equal religion.

          And the fact you feel a hole that religion fills for you doesn’t mean it’s there in everyone. Enforced religious participation is never proof that religion is what people crave.

          • By lukifer 2026-02-2821:22

            I don't disagree. I trimmed "religious and mythological memeplexes" down to avoid repetition. (Also worth considering: de-facto religious behaviors need not be supernatural or "mythological"; you can substitute your own examples of political ideologies that are difficult to distinguish from religions in practice.)

            It is obviously a deeply complicated and complex phenomenon. Even the Dennett/Dawkins model of selfish replicators aren't necessarily sufficient, in addition to my claim that the relationship between genes and memes can sometimes be mutually symbiotic (and I'm aware of the great many counter-examples).

            To be clear, I don't hold to a particular faith myself (and I've spent time at both ends of the spectrum). I suspect that the so-called "god-shaped hole" is one of many characteristics that varies in the human animal, not unlike those who have a mind's eye and those who don't, or those who hear their thoughts audibly and those who don't.

            > Enforced religious participation is never proof that religion is what people crave.

            While what people crave obviously varies, I think most people do crave something like meaning and community (or flipping it around: selection pressures seem to have selected for meaning and community, presumably at least in part from a green-beard effect [0]). While those can exist independently of faith, we can empirically observe that they tend to overlap quite a lot (again, for good and ill).

            While I'd agree with you regarding illiberal theocracies and religious totalitarianism, I'd problematize your framing in two ways: (a) "forced" implies that someone is doing the forcing, meaning presumably someone craves it, or is at least willing to play along [1]; but more pertinently, (b) there is a middle ground between the extremes of "explicit individual choice", and "forced participation": norms, culture, emulation, etc.

            No one "forces" anyone in the business world to wear suits, or use LinkedIn jargon; but the incentives are in favor of doing so (and against not doing so), so people play along: some cynically, some internalizing norms sincerely. If we hit a magic History Randomizer Button that shuffled historical contingencies, I don't think we'd have an absence of those norms, but other norms with different details. And I suspect we'd see different churches and myths and holy books, not an absence of them.

            To reiterate, I'm just talking Darwinian functionality here, not whether religion is good or bad in a normative sense. If the niche exists, "nature finds a way".

            [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Green-beard_effect

            [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0iEWTx_APQ4

    • By cies 2026-02-2813:431 reply

      Religious concerns are, IMHO, always a facade for the underlying economic/territorial/geopolitical reasons. These religious facades help sell the war effort: get young men to enlist and fight to the death for "preserving their identity". And "muh freedom" is just as much a religious motivation to me (unsubstantiated, indoctrinated, unthreatened).

      • By eleventyseven 2026-02-2814:50

        Religion isn't the facade, it is the medium through which other reasons are transmitted

    • By misiek08 2026-02-2814:21

      There is also point of view that remembers that always right behind US military there is a team building next oil pipeline. US tried to used China as cheap labor, lost a lot of intelligence and now - look at how much oil Iran has and who is it exporting to and what is the percentage at the destination. The numbers add up and only the funny (?) thing is - China is (going to) be most eco country, because they already use nuclear power a lot and were forced to work on that.

      What a time to be alive, again! And please, downvote me, comment that US is fighting for some country’s civilians freedom. It’s fun too.

    • By gib444 2026-03-018:27

      It makes you wonder about religion's true purpose. It's a really convenient framework for creating peoples/regions that hate each other, isn't it, as history has shown for millenia

    • By throw0101c 2026-02-2819:55

      > Buddhism

      No one lives up to their ideals on a day-to-day basis:

      * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rohingya_genocide

    • By jmyeet 2026-02-2813:303 reply

      > I am just befuddled by how much of this violence is directly motivated by religious concerns, both on the side of Iran and on the side of Israel and USA.

      This just isn't true. Religion is never the reason for these conflicts. It's the excuse. It's how that conflict is sold to the rest of the world. It's how civilians are manipulated into dying in a conflict.

      The source of these conflicts is always material. Always.

      Reagan's Secretary of State, General Alexander Haig once said [1]:

      > Israel is the largest American aircraft carrier in the world that cannot be sunk, does not carry even one American soldier, and is located in a critical region for American national security.

      In 1986, then Senator and future president Joe Biden said [2]:

      > [Israel] is the best $3 billion ivnestment we make. Were there not an Israel, the United States of America would have to an invent an Israel to protect her interest in the region.

      Much of US Middle East polciy was aimed to sabotaging and undermining Pan-Arab Nationalism (particularly under then Egyptian President Nasser) [3].

      Nothing about any of this has anything to do with faith. In this case it's about oil.

      Whatever crimes you think Iran might've done, I'll stack up the US crimes against Iran and it won't even be close, including:

      1. Iran was a liberal democracy that the US deposed in 1953 at the behest of the British because BP didn't want to have to pay higher royalties, ultimately leading Mossadegh wanting to "nationalize" their own oil;

      2. In 1978, then US-puppet Saddam Hussein expelled Khomenei from Iraq. This was about the time the US realized that Iran was likely lost. it is believed that the reason for this was that a fundamentalist regime was preferred to a Communist one (which was otherwise the likely outcome) as the US didn't want Iran to fall into the Soviet sphere of influence. So all this pearl-clutching about the current regime rings hollow when you realize the US helped created it;

      3. As punishment for the Revolution, the US supplied weapons to Iraq and fueled the Iran-Iraq war for almost a decade that killed over a million people; and

      4. Crippling economic sanctions, which is a fancy way of saying "starving people and denying them medical care", for daring not to be a US puppet.

      If you point me to any conflict you think is based on faith, I'll show you the material interests behind it.

      [1]: https://archive.ph/tMTBd

      [2]: https://www.c-span.org/clip/senate-highlight/user-clip-joe-b...

      [3]: https://history.state.gov/historicaldocuments/frus1958-60v12...

      • By marcosdumay 2026-02-2820:411 reply

        > The source of these conflicts is always material. Always.

        Since the beginning of the Green Revolution¹, no. The source of these conflicts are always ideological. Always. Ideology may come through religion or some other medium.

        Countries don't go occupying land because they need crops or slaves anymore. Material is always cheaper to buy than to get from an occupation. The desire to annex some land is always for somebody's pet project, it doesn't make economic sense.

        1 - In a very wide sense. Agriculture stopped being the bottleneck for human populations at some point in the 18th or early 19th centuries.

        • By jcstk 2026-02-2823:19

          Religion is a subset of ideology, and both are a mechanism to recruit labor to fight and not the reason for conflict. Material isn't cheaper to buy, the "owner" of the material has all of the leverage - lock them in like a SaaS contract and them jump the price up, and the buyer can't do anything. Crops and slaves are no longer valuable as port worthy coast and natural resource deposits, but the fight is still over land and power.

      • By gpderetta 2026-02-2815:09

        > Israel is the largest American aircraft carrier in the world that cannot be sunk,

        Airstrip one is disappointed.

      • By GorbachevyChase 2026-02-2822:29

        I think the praise of the strategic value to US military interests are rationalizations and poor ones at that. The Gulf monarchies are allies in a meaningful sense and provide useful material support to the United States. Our “ally“ on the other hand was recently caught running a child prostitution ring and money laundering operation to control business and political leaders in the United States. Kidnapping children and removing their teeth so they can’t bite their rapists for political leverage is going to be remembered by future generations with the same horror and disgust as medieval torture and 20th century concentration camps.

    • By ifwinterco 2026-02-2812:292 reply

      [flagged]

      • By azernik 2026-02-2814:261 reply

        Hey there I'm Israeli and I'm quite politically informed and moderately religiously educated and I have never heard of this "curse of the eighth decade" thing you've heard of.

        • By ifwinterco 2026-02-2814:451 reply

          You probably know a lot more than me but my understanding is there have been two previous Jewish states in the Levant, the ancient Kingdom of Israel ruled by King David and then the Hasmonean dynasty during the Second Temple period.

          Both of those states lasted for around 80 years before collapsing. My (probably worthless) 2c is there's nothing magical or surprising about that, a lot of people have pointed out that political entities often last around the length of a human life before change occurs.

          The most prominent current theory is the Strauss–Howe "fourth turning" one but the idea goes back further than that

          • By azernik 2026-02-2818:36

            Huh. Interesting.

            This is not a common narrative in Israeli discourse (especially since in that discourse David's kingdom is considered to have continued in the southern Kingdom of Judah, and to have lasted several centuries).

      • By samrus 2026-02-2813:261 reply

        Isreal did have some polarization among liberal-conservative sides recently. Protests and all that. Could be

        • By ifwinterco 2026-02-2814:04

          I'll know from how many downvotes I get whether I've touched a nerve or not

  • By adverbly 2026-02-2811:2311 reply

    Well hopefully this is short, minimally lethal, and leads to regime change for all those involved.

    • By Zealotux 2026-02-2811:299 reply

      >leads to regime change for all those involved

      Including for the U.S. and Israel?

      • By Revanche1367 2026-02-2811:59

        Pretty sure he chose his words carefully.

      • By scoofy 2026-02-2817:519 reply

        It is difficult to instigate regime change for democratically elected governments.

        Iran has an unelected supreme leader.

        Israel has a large portion of its population completely disenfranchised.

        The US has a generally democratically elected government.

        If one of these governments is going to fall during military instabilities, it would most likely be Iran. The US will have significant regime change in November if polling holds.

        • By shykes 2026-02-2819:262 reply

          > Israel has a large portion of its population completely disenfranchised.

          Care to elaborate? As far as I know, this is false. All Israeli citizens 18 or older can vote; there are no voting restrictions based on race, religion, gender or property; prisoners can vote (unlike in many US states for example); permanent residents who are not citizens cannot vote in national elections but may vote in municipal elections (not the case in the US). National turnout ranges between 65% and 75%.

          Minorities are well represented: Arab and Druze citizens vote and have representation in the Knesset.

          I struggle to find any dimension in which your statement is correct.

          • By scoofy 2026-02-2819:382 reply

            Very obviously, I’m referring to the Palestinians in the “Palestinian Territories” being de facto governed by Israel and are not allowed to vote in Israeli elections.

            • By shykes 2026-02-2820:096 reply

              There is nothing obvious about that statement. In fact it's catastrophically wrong.

              Palestinians in Gaza have been governed by Hamas since 2006. Before that, they had been governed by the Palestinian Authority (Fatah) since 1994.

              Palestinians in Judea and Samaria ("West bank") have been governed by the Palestinian Authority continuously since 1994, with the exception of Area C.

              Palestinians who live there are NOT "de facto governed" by Israel. They pay taxes to the Palestinian Authority; receive birth certificates, IDs, business licenses and social security payments from the P.A.; Go to schools, hospitals, courts, police stations and jails run by the P.A. And most importantly, they vote in elections run by the P.A. To say that they are "de facto governed" by Israel is ridiculous, and shows a lack of basic understanding of Israel and Palestine, and the conflict between them.

              • By mtsolitary 2026-02-2821:541 reply

                "The exception of Area C" is doing a lot of work in this argument. That's 61% of the territory of the West Bank ("Judea and Samaria") (those scare quotes also doing a lot of work).

                To counter your list of things that the PA does de facto control, I will add: who controls the criminal court system? The checkpoints which lead to the outside world? The airspace? The ability to import and export goods? The roads? The territorial contiguity of Areas A and B? The decisions on building new settlements?

                Aside from the municipal things you mentioned, which in most places in the world are controlled by subnational entities, Israel is in de facto control of the lives and futures of all 15 million people "from the river to the sea", roughly half of them Jews and half of them Arabs, while only one of those groups has what anyone in the West could consider to be a normal existence.

                • By shykes 2026-03-010:221 reply

                  > "The exception of Area C" is doing a lot of work in this argument. That's 61% of the territory of the West Bank

                  Area C is less than 10% of the Palestinian population in the West Bank, 6% of Palestinian population if you count Gaza. Interesting that you chose to focus on territory! Last I checked, square kilometers do not vote, people do.

                  In any case, you are right that Area C is more complicated, since it is controlled by Israel and there are Palestinians who live there.

                  However, Palestinians living in area C can also vote in Palestinian elections. So although it is true that they live in a territory governed by Israel (unlike the other 94% of Palestinians), it remains false that they are a "large part of the Israeli population that is disenfranchised" (the original statement).

                  > ("Judea and Samaria") (those scare quotes also doing a lot of work).

                  Obviously the choice of name for this region reflects a political preference. But that works both ways. I prefer to call it Judea and Samaria because that's what it was called until 1948, when Jordan invaded and annexed it. "West bank" is a relic of Jordanian occupation, chosen by King Abdullah to absorb the region into his kingdom, not just politically but semantically. Jordan hasn't controlled the region in 60 years - longer than the occupation itself. It seems reasonable to stop calling it by its colonial Jordan name.

                  You seem to take particular issue with my use of the term "Judea and Samaria". That is also a political preference. Do you care to explain it the same way I explained mine?

                  > To counter your list of things that the PA does de facto control, I will add: who controls the criminal court system?

                  In areas A and B, the Palestinian Authority.

                  > The checkpoints which lead to the outside world?

                  On the Israeli side: Israel. On the Jordanian side: Jordan.

                  > The airspace?

                  Israel

                  > The ability to import and export goods?

                  The Palestinian Authority, but subject to stringent security control by Israel.

                  > The roads?

                  In Areas A and B: the Palestinian Authority.

                  > The territorial contiguity of Areas A and B?

                  That was jointly defined by the bilateral agreement at Oslo. So, both sides agreed on that.

                  > The decisions on building new settlements?

                  In area C: Israel.

                  In areas A and B: there are no settlements (Jews are not allowed to live there).

                  > Israel is in de facto control of the lives and futures of all 15 million people "from the river to the sea"

                  We're straying from the original topic of disenfranchisement... I will just say that, in my opinion, your view is simplistic and manichean. The closest we ever got to a resolution of the conflict, in 1994, was with a bilateral agreement. Neither side is fully in control of the outcome. Denying that Palestinians, too, have responsibilities and agency, is the surest way to perpetuate this conflict.

                  • By revenant718 2026-03-012:131 reply

                    >> Israel is in de facto control of the lives and futures of all 15 million people "from the river to the sea"

                    > We're straying from the original topic of disenfranchisement

                    What a laughable statement. This is entirely the point of the disenfranchisement claim.

                    • By shykes 2026-03-012:521 reply

                      In what way is it laughable? Please contribute something of substance.

                      • By webstrand 2026-03-018:131 reply

                        To wit, if you get to vote for the HOA board but not for the government that can override every decision the HOA makes, are you meaningfully enfranchised?

                        They're arguing that due to the failure/stalling of the two-state solution, the PA is effectively not a national government. It administers local services, like policing, courts, infrastructure. But it doesn't control borders, tarrifs and duties, or airspace. The Israeli military operates a parallel legal system that can detain and prosecute them, all under a legal framework that they have no vote or say in. I think its fair to call this a kind of disenfranchisement?

                        • By shykes 2026-03-019:44

                          I understand where you're coming from, but this is a flawed analogy.

                          The legal framework for the Palestinian Authority's existence is a bilateral treaty. Israel did not unilaterally create this flawed administrative entity: it was jointly created with the PLO, as an interim step towards a fully sovereign Palestinian state. The negotiations that followed were also bilateral. These negotiations failed, leaving both sides with an incomplete interim solution. As a result Palestinians are neither citizens of Israel, nor of a wholly sovereign state. They are stateless, that is undeniable. But the reason they are stateless is not that they "have no vote or say". They had a say at the negotiation table in Oslo. They also had a say in Camp David in 2000, when Yasser Arafat walked away from a deal that would have given him a state with its capital in Jerusalem, and started the second intifada instead. They had a say in 2005 when they elected Abbas over reformist alternatives. They had a say in 2006 when they elected Hamas in Gaza. And they have a say now, as Abbas maintains the "pay to slay" program that rewards attacks against Israeli citizens with welfare payments to the attacker's families. There's a reason Israel insisted on overriding security control in the interim state. They couldn't trust the PLO, the very group that killed countless Israeli civilians in shootings, stabbings and bombings, to become the sole guardians of Israeli safety overnight. In Oslo the Palestinian Authority accepted the responsibility to prevent terrorist attacks against Israel. They are free to deliver on that commitment anytime.

                          My issue with your framing ("the PA is like an HOA"), the parent comment's framing ("Israel solely controls the fate of Palestinians"), and the original comment that started this whole debate ("Palestinians are a disenfranchised part of Israeli population"), is that it strips Palestinians of agency and shared responsibility. It's annoying when you do it. But it's tragic when Palestinians do it to themselves. By perpetuating this myth that they are helpless, blameless victims of external forces, they are making internal reform impossible ("what is there to reform? All our problems are Israel's fault") and any resolution to the conflict impossible ("we are the rebels, Israel is the empire. The only resolution is to blow up the death star").

                          To tie this back to the original topic of disenfranchisement: even in the flawed interim state created in Oslo, Palestinians have had the opportunity to vote. Not in a state, but in an institution created specifically to chart a path to a state. They elected a president, who then proceeded to cancel presidential elections (the last one was in 2005). They elected a legislative body, who started a civil war and established one of the most violent theocracies in the world. None of this was Israel's doing. To the extent that Palestinians are disenfranchised - denied the opportunity to vote - it is by their own leaders. If anything, it makes me glad Palestine isn't a full-blown state: with leaders like that, the more limits to their power, the better.

              • By scoofy 2026-02-2821:211 reply

                I shouldn’t even have to argue here. Access to the West Bank is controlled by Israel. That is de facto governance.

                At best the Palestinian Territories have “quasi-governmental control.” I’m saying this as someone who isn’t particularly pro-Palestine. Pretending that Israel isn’t de facto the government of the Palestinian Territories is an unserious position.

                By de facto I mean explicitly not de jure.

                • By shykes 2026-02-2821:571 reply

                  > I shouldn’t even have to argue here

                  If you don't like to argue, may I suggest not making controversial claims on controversial topics, in a place that encourages constructive debate?

                  > Access to the West Bank is controlled by Israel.

                  That is mostly true. On the border with Jordan it is jointly controlled by Jordan and Israel (like most international borders).

                  > Pretending that Israel isn’t de facto the government of the Palestinian Territories is an unserious position

                  I already explained in great detail the specific ways in which the Palestinian Territories are, in fact, governed by the Palestinian Authority. Taxation, elections, justice, police, education, healthcare, roads, sewers, business regulation, population register...

                  So far your counter-argument is that Israel controls the border... and therefore Palestinians should vote in Israeli elections? Should they also vote in Palestinian ejections? Or should the P.A. simply stop to exist? What point are you even making exactly?

                  Calling me "unserious" doesn't make you automatically "serious", or right.

                  • By scoofy 2026-02-2822:161 reply

                    You are confusing de facto control and de jure control. That’s why I’m arguing the position is unserious. I don’t know anything about you personally.

                    You’re making my point anyway, by conceding that the West Bank is effectively governed without representation in the governments controlling them.

                    • By shykes 2026-03-010:55

                      I don't think the terms de facto and de jure mean what you think they mean. At this point it appears you're just throwing fancy words at me, and are not able to make a coherent point or meaningfully address mine. So, let's just agree to disagree.

              • By squibonpig 2026-02-2820:452 reply

                The person you're responding to said they were unable to vote in Israeli elections. You said "no, they're able to, uhh, not vote in the case of those under Hamas and they're able to vote in elections held by the Palestinian authority in the case of those in the west bank." I don't know a ton about this, but I don't believe the Palestinian authority elections are the same as the Israeli elections. As I understand it, the right to vote is gated behind a citizenship process that is restrictive enough to generally prevent Palestinians from obtaining it.

                • By shykes 2026-02-2821:151 reply

                  > The person you're responding to said they were unable to vote in Israeli elections.

                  They said Palestinians are "a large portion of the Israeli population [that] is disenfranchised". That is a wrong statement. Palestinians are not part of the Israeli population and there is no expectation (on either side) that they would participate in Israeli elections. That issue has been largely settled by the Oslo framework in 1994.

                  > As I understand it, the right to vote is gated behind a citizenship process that is restrictive enough to generally prevent Palestinians from obtaining it.

                  I'm not sure which elections you mean.

                  - Israeli elections are for Israeli citizens. The 20% of Israelis who are Arab (sometimes loosely referred to as "Palestinians" as a loose synonym for "Arab living in former mandatory Palestine") can participate normally

                  - Palestinians in the West Bank vote in Palestinian elections. ' not aware of any citizenship-related restrictions there. Possible issues might be: logistics of getting to polls because of Israeli checkpoints; or simply the absence of elections (PA hasn't held a national election since 2006, although there are municipal elections).

                  - Specifically in East Jerusalem, on which Israeli claims sovereignty, Palestinians are classified as permanent residents of Israel. They may apply fot Israeli citizenship but that's probably a difficult process. As permanent residents they can vote in Israeli municipal elections, and as Palestinians they can vote in Palestinian national elections. But not being Israeli citizens they cannot vote in Israeli national elections. Perhaps that is what you're referring to?

                  • By pyrale 2026-02-2823:551 reply

                    > That issue has been largely settled by the Oslo framework in 1994.

                    A process that's alive and well, just like Yitzhak Rabin.

                    • By shykes 2026-03-010:57

                      The peace process that Oslo initiated is certainly dead. But Oslo itself, as the last bilateral agreement between Israel and the Palestinian Authority, is de facto the law of the land, even though it was meant as an interim agreement. For better or worse...

                • By mvdtnz 2026-02-2820:592 reply

                  This is like saying Australians are disenfranchised because they can't vote in New Zealand elections. They're not governed by Israel in any meaningful way.

                  • By scoofy 2026-03-010:01

                    It would be like if Native American tribes could not vote in American elections, but the federal government still controlled the ability for those nations to access the external world.

                  • By hirako2000 2026-02-2821:25

                    Correction: It is like saying Australians can't vote in general elections after being pushed out of 75% of the territory, except a small percentage who are tolerated in the major land since they won't make a difference.

                    The ostracized Aussies then can vote for their own leaders but will be blamed if they vote for the wrong ones and embargoed, regularly shot and even bombed from time to time to remind them who the place belongs to.

              • By datsci_est_2015 2026-02-2820:471 reply

                Counterpoint, Palestinians (many of whom were not alive in 2006, as they are children) are not exactly drenched in sovereignty at the moment.

                • By shykes 2026-02-2821:181 reply

                  I agree. But it is not Israel who is disenfranchising them - it is the Palestinian Authority (in West Bank) and Hamas (in Gaza).

                  • By tovej 2026-02-2823:451 reply

                    Oh yikes, that is either the most ignorant or the least honest argument I've seen anyone make on this topic.

                    Shame on you.

                    • By shykes 2026-03-010:321 reply

                      In the absence of a counter-argument I can only assume that you don't have anything of substance to offer on this topic.

                      • By tovej 2026-03-017:231 reply

                        This is a little bit like arguing against someone saying the earth is flat, or that the sun isn't in the sky.

                        There's not really any point. They are too far gone.

                        • By shykes 2026-03-019:57

                          Thank you for confirming that my assumption was correct.

              • By iw2rmb 2026-02-2821:08

                Nakba.

            • By bbshfishe 2026-03-011:311 reply

              Wow can you stop spreading misinformation.

              • By danny_codes 2026-03-012:122 reply

                Palestinians living in the Palestinian Territories are not Israeli citizens and cannot vote. I would say the Palestinian Territories are occupied, not part of Israel (though Bibi definitely has a sizable camp in his government that would love to make it so).

                Do we expect occupied peoples to have a vote? sort of depends how you define democracy. Under an American interpretation (no taxation without representation, 1 person 1 vote) there’s a good argument that you should count occupied peoples.

                It’s never so simple is it

                • By shykes 2026-03-013:00

                  > Under an American interpretation (no taxation without representation, 1 person 1 vote) there’s a good argument that you should count occupied peoples.

                  Palestinians are not taxed by Israel. They are taxed by the Palestinian Authority, and participate in Palestinian elections. So they do have representation - just not in Israel.

                • By scoofy 2026-03-015:011 reply

                  If we are talking about Democracy—which is where I started this—then yes. If occupied peoples don’t have representation in the government occupying them, yes, that’s very obviously less democratic than if they did. Quite literally by definition. This shouldn’t be controversial.

                  • By bbshfishe 2026-03-019:121 reply

                    Prior to October 7th. Gaza was not occupied. Israel left in 2005.

                    Stop spreading misinformation.

                    • By scoofy 2026-03-0115:391 reply

                      I’m talking about Gaza and the West Bank. Israel blockading the Gaza is very obviously de facto governance.

                      If you can’t enter and leave your country freely, you don’t that autonomy.

                      I’m not even some Palestinian political advocate. We still cannot pretend that Israel isn’t effectively in control of the Palestinian Territories.

                      • By bbshfishe 2026-03-0117:271 reply

                        How many times were they offered statehood. How many times did they attack Israel? Why is there a wall? You know what happened when the wall went up and security blockades went in? The number of Palestinian suicide bombings dropped. Palestinians have decades of history of terrorism. They could have been like Singapore. But they chose terrorism.

                        • By ImPostingOnHN 2026-03-046:171 reply

                          Palestinians already have statehood: Palestine is a state, just like israel is a state. They are exactly equal in value and in their right to exist free from coercion by the other.

                          The issue is that israel is attacking, invading, occupying, annexing, and genociding the state of Palestine.

          • By skywhopper 2026-02-2822:37

            Yes, but how many adults in land controlled by Israel are Israeli citizens?

        • By robin_reala 2026-02-2819:114 reply

          The US is at “flawed democracy” in the Economist Democracy Index: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Economist_Democracy_Index

          • By edgyquant 2026-02-2819:481 reply

            The US is a republic with some democratic institutions, but the economists index isn’t some platonic indicator that gets to define who’s a good government and who isn’t. Several of its higher ranking countries have outright banned extremely popular political parties in recent years.

            • By tovej 2026-02-2823:47

              Care to tell us what the politics of those parties were?

              Because a functioning democracy would ban a nazi party.

          • By nebula8804 2026-02-2820:061 reply

            So is France.

            • By seszett 2026-02-2822:42

              And both have a similarly executive-centric form of government where the president and the majority party hold a disproportionate amount of power. Although the US is even worse than France on this regard as far as I know.

              I think it makes sense that both are categorised as flawed.

          • By groundzeros2015 2026-02-2821:071 reply

            democracy is a lower form of government in the ancient world

            • By Andrex 2026-02-2821:551 reply

              I wonder who those critics were and what they were motivated by. (Rhetorical)

              • By groundzeros2015 2026-02-2822:491 reply

                If you want to talk about rhetoric look at the idea of a “democracy index” - a score suggesting a scientific approach for determining how good/free a nation is.

                We can play the “whose saying it game”, or look at the arguments. Democracy is rule by the lowest - and it’s easily manipulated by the popular. Buying votes, focus on the carnal, and immediate is a clear sign of democracy in decline.

                • By Andrex 2026-03-0123:211 reply

                  I was more wondering about these emperors, kings, barbarians, and those in their influence who were casting aspersions at Athens. Why are we giving these historically incorrect people the time of day?

                  • By groundzeros2015 2026-03-023:45

                    Once again, looking at incentives can help you find hidden motivations. But at some point you have to look at the arguments at see if they make sense or not.

                    The US founders didn’t believe in democracy. More people do today, mostly out of a sense that it’s moral obligation. Very few actually will argue it leads to better government outcomes.

          • By refurb 2026-03-017:391 reply

            I wouldn’t assume some any index from a magazine is the end all authority on what a nation state is.

            I mean I can start my own magazine and create my own index however I want. Doesn’t mean it’s right.

            • By hedayet 2026-03-018:561 reply

              I guess if your magazine's index reaches the height to have its wikipedia page, then, although it might not be right, but it will be pretty credible.

              • By refurb 2026-03-0113:40

                Anyone can have a Wikipedia page? There is no hurdle.

        • By austin-cheney 2026-02-2821:561 reply

          The US and Israel are elected governments, but that should certainly not presuppose democratic. The Roman Republic was, for example, fully elected but simultaneously it was intentionally autocratic to the elite. That is why it fell to a dictatorship which then increased the liberty and standards of the people.

          Democracy is the directness by which social participation equates to governance. The US is a federal republic with only two parties each bound by the same hostile funding system that benefits political contributions over the vote. That is far from democratic.

          • By scoofy 2026-02-2822:591 reply

            Democracy and Republic both mean “normal people are in charge of government” and are in opposition to monarchy. The distinction you are referring to was a contrived interpretation in the federalist papers to make a point.

            • By austin-cheney 2026-02-2823:09

              No. Democracy and republic are fundamentally different. You want to equivocate them because there is a vote. They have always been different going back to the Ancient Greeks and Romans who each invented those terms.

        • By pedalpete 2026-02-2821:121 reply

          For democratically elected governments, doesn't regime change occur when any sitting politician loses the next election to their oponent?

          In my thinking regime change doesn't only refer to the complete collapse of the political system, just change in direction of the leaders.

          • By scoofy 2026-02-2823:04

            If the legislature changes party, that party —-“the regime” if we can use that term—- will be unseated from power.

        • By petre 2026-03-0110:22

          > Iran has an unelected supreme leader

          Had. Israel probably has a list with the next 3 or 4 in line to replace Khamenei and is currently working towards eliminating them, like they did with the Hezbollah.

          Regime change could also be triggered through impeachment or PM losing support and government coalition getting dissolved in the case of Israel.

        • By chinathrow 2026-02-2819:53

          You still believe the US regimes will allow elections as the they know it?

        • By kgwxd 2026-02-2823:47

          > if polling holds.

          And The Constitution.

        • By throw0101c 2026-02-2819:46

          > It is difficult to instigate regime change for democratically elected governments.

          Just ask the folks who tried on January 6.

          > The US will have significant regime change in November if polling holds.

          Assuming elections are held fairly. "Trump, seeking executive power over elections, is urged to declare emergency":

          * https://archive.is/https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2...

        • By diordiderot 2026-02-2819:262 reply

          > Israel has a large portion of its population completely disenfranchised.

          Does it?

          • By scoofy 2026-02-2823:081 reply

            The Israeli government has de facto control of large sections of the Palestinian Territories. The people in those territories, however cannot participate in the elections of that government.

            The distinction being de jure and de facto control is something worth debating, but it’s trivially true that Israel controls large swaths of territory where people are not eligible to participate in that government.

            • By bbshfishe 2026-03-011:301 reply

              Prior to October 7th this is simply not true.

              • By scoofy 2026-03-015:10

                It is very obviously true. Literally movement in the West Bank is controlled.

          • By runako 2026-02-2819:46

            Consider the meanings of the following words:

            - sovereignty

            - border

            - population

            In that order, in the context of that region. Then consider their meanings in the context of (say) Canada. Consider how conventional applications of those terms are different for the two.

      • By nyc_data_geek1 2026-02-2818:23

        He said what he said.

      • By hedayet 2026-03-018:58

        don't know about Israel, but for the USA, it means "midterm is coming"

      • By FuckButtons 2026-02-2818:46

        Did he stutter?

      • By michaelteter 2026-02-2818:14

        One can only dream.

      • By methyl 2026-02-2811:591 reply

        It’s possible

        • By ActorNightly 2026-02-2818:30

          Possible but unlikely. The midterms are going to get actually stolen by Republicans, 100%.

      • By gambiting 2026-02-2811:40

        We can only hope.

      • By reliabilityguy 2026-02-2815:009 reply

        [flagged]

        • By nullocator 2026-02-2815:543 reply

          The US mostly isn't interested in butchering it's own citizens, slavery is the approach we went with À la the U.S. prison system.

          • By sosomoxie 2026-02-2818:35

            We killed far more Indigenous Americans than that. I agree with you on the prison system though.

          • By reliabilityguy 2026-02-2816:093 reply

            > The US mostly isn't interested in butchering it's own citizens, slavery is the approach we went with À la the U.S. prison system.

            I hate to break it to you, but US prisons, while maybe worse than Scandinavian ones, are on par with France, and way better than like 70% of the world.

            This is not a competition who has it worse. You can acknowledge terrible things that IR does without trying to portray yourself as a victim.

            • By nullocator 2026-02-2818:00

              You are conflating issues. As a foregone conclusion the U.S. bombing the sovereign citizens of Iran is acceptable to you, only afterwards are you and other's justifying this by cherry picking recent events. If Iran hadn't just killed protesters, it'd be because they were working on nukes, or because they've launched missiles across borders.

              You blind yourself to the dozens of countries around the world doing these things and worse every day while picking and choosing enemies that are acceptable for the United States to attack like al la carte menu items. Justifying those attacks is an after thought.

            • By runako 2026-02-2819:491 reply

              > on par with France

              The US per-capita incarceration rate is ~5x that of France.

              • By tt24 2026-02-2823:321 reply

                How is this related to what the person you’re replying to said?

                • By runako 2026-03-011:22

                  They were responding to this:

                  > The US mostly isn't interested in butchering it's own citizens, slavery is the approach we went with À la the U.S. prison system.

                  To the extent that one is addressing slavery, the point is generally the number of the enslaved and not particularly their conditions (there is not a "good" way to own people).

            • By watwut 2026-03-018:13

              > are on par with France, and way better than like 70% of the world.

              French system is quite different from USA one. And the 70% of the world claim is based on what exactly?

          • By jumpman_miya 2026-02-2819:19

            [dead]

        • By cosmicgadget 2026-02-2816:341 reply

          Your threshold for desiring regime change is the murder of 30,000 people?

          • By LtWorf 2026-03-0110:54

            Then israel is way past it…

        • By lm28469 2026-02-2815:24

          Nah you just bully your allies and illegally tariff the entire world, no biggy

        • By sosomoxie 2026-02-2818:342 reply

          You didn't see anyone butchering 30k protesters in 2 days, because that didn't happen.

        • By unethical_ban 2026-02-2815:321 reply

          Protesters that took to the streets, according to what I read, because the US president said he would back them. Sounds like he led them to a slaughter to generate justification.

          • By reliabilityguy 2026-02-2815:441 reply

            Protests started way before Trumps tweet.

            Second, why are you legitimizing gunning down thousands of people?

            • By unethical_ban 2026-02-2816:031 reply

              I'm delegitimizing the US president saying things he can't back up, causing death, and getting the US into another war that the American people didn't ask for.

              • By reliabilityguy 2026-02-2816:111 reply

                > I'm delegitimizing the US president

                No. You are saying that these people died because of Trump's tweet, and not because the IR goons gunned people on the streets. Seems to me that you place the fault on Trump, rather than on those who pulled the trigger.

                • By FilosofumRex 2026-03-011:121 reply

                  you, Trump & Satanyahu are not entitled to your own peaceful counter-revolution - if you want to overthrow the democratically elected government of Iran, you must bear the necessarily sacrifices

                  • By Jensson 2026-03-011:34

                    Ali Khamenei won one election and has sat there as a supreme leader ever since, that is not democracy. Deposing him is needed for democracy, there has been many protests against him.

                    Iran is not a democracy, it is a fake democracy since the supreme leader cannot be voted away.

        • By greggoB 2026-02-2818:05

          > And no, stop your American exceptionalism

          I don't think you intended to use this the way you did

        • By tim333 2026-02-2815:25

          True but a lot of people would like to see Netanyahu and Trump replaced with other leaders.

        • By alex43578 2026-02-2823:51

          You don't understand: they are getting held in civil detention before being sent back to the country they came from on a chartered plane!

        • By danny_codes 2026-02-2816:183 reply

          [flagged]

          • By waffleiron 2026-02-2816:36

            [flagged]

          • By almosthere 2026-03-015:49

            I'm so over the reddit shit on hn.

          • By qup 2026-02-2816:482 reply

            [flagged]

            • By helaoban 2026-02-2818:351 reply

              If you instigate a war you are responsible for all casualties.

              • By qup 2026-02-2819:28

                I can understand that viewpoint, but the stories are reading as if the school was targeted.

                I'll wait for some non-iranian confirmation.

            • By sosomoxie 2026-02-2818:36

              [flagged]

    • By jari_mustonen 2026-02-2814:161 reply

      There is nothing ideal about that outcome. The "regime change" people talk about is intended to look like what happened in Libya: A failed state that falls in anarchy.

      • By reliabilityguy 2026-02-2815:013 reply

        > look like what happened in Libya: A failed state that falls in anarchy.

        This comment just shows that you have no idea what Iran is, and how it differs from Libya.

        Libya is a loose conglomerate of tribes. Iran majorly Persian that see themselves as one nation. Completely different dynamics.

        • By thisislife2 2026-02-2818:212 reply

          It doesn't matter - when a strong and stable political structures suddenly collapse, the state fails and disintegrates due to the political infighting. While I agree with you that the chances of Iran becoming a completely failed state is unlikely, I do see an imminent civil war in Iran's future if a regime collapse happens, and the Americans and Israelis install their Shahi (royal) puppet there. A regime collapse will of course mean Iran will lose its sovereignty (probably for a decade or more), till a truly independent stable polity emerges form the ashes.

          • By littlexsparkee 2026-02-2823:30

            I could see the water crisis, notably absent here, being what tips it. Iran is facing water bankruptcy and acquifers / groundwater recharge takes decades to centuries.

          • By enraged_camel 2026-02-2818:351 reply

            Iranian regime is neither strong nor stable though. Or did you miss the recent round of nationwide protests that led to a desperate brutal crackdown?

            • By thisislife2 2026-02-2818:532 reply

              That's just simplistic western propaganda. Sporadic protests, nationwide or otherwise, don't mean anything unless they are backed by long-term-opposition with strong grass-roots and singular political goals. Iran's regime remains strong and stable - it controls all the political institutions, it controls the civilian government at the local level, it controls the religious / cultural institutions, it controls the military and it has substantial support from the people. Why do you think Israel or the US isn't sending boots to the ground? Apart from the official military, the IRGC has a voluntary civil force, that can be armed by the Iranian military, in every district - if Israel or US send their soldiers to Iran, they will face a very brutal urban warfare with a high death toll.

              • By reliabilityguy 2026-03-013:26

                > Iran's regime remains strong and stable - it controls all the political institutions, it controls the civilian government at the local level, it controls the religious / cultural institutions, it controls the military and it has substantial support from the people.

                I see two issues with this assessment. First, I am not sure how substantial is the support from the people. And second, Assad also had all this control over the military, the local governments, etc., etc., and then his rule collapsed in a week.

                While Islamic Republic's repressive machine in the form of IRCG and Basij are in much better shape than Assad's, it is not that great if they had to bus in Iraqi militias to help with the suppression of protests.

                I do agree that it is not clear if there are viable opposition figures inside Iran, on the other hand it is naive to expect it to be the case given the tight grip IR had on the country.

                I guess we can hope that all this war is not for nothing.

              • By Jensson 2026-03-011:40

                All of that was true for Japan as well but it went very well there, so your analysis is flawed. The more organized a country is the easier it is to change it, the more primitive the harder it is.

        • By root_axis 2026-03-013:53

          > Iran majorly Persian that see themselves as one nation

          This reductionist narrative is absolutely ridiculous and does not at all reflect reality.

        • By sudo-umar 2026-03-0413:32

          You dont understand Iran either then

    • By Aeolun 2026-03-016:572 reply

      > minimally lethal

      The US and Israel are involved. The only way it’s going to turn out is maximally lethal to all those not involved at all.

      See… basically any military operation participated in by those nations in recent history.

      We got a couple strikes and already managed to hit an elementary school. Nothing I’ve seen in Gaza or Iraq leads me to believe this will be any different.

      • By cman1444 2026-03-0219:37

        Wouldn't you consider the Maduro capture a minimally lethal operation?

      • By throw102225 2026-03-019:55

        See Israel’s take down of Hezbollah.

    • By shevy-java 2026-02-2811:271 reply

      Iraq? Afghanistan? Vietnam?

      I don't think any of these were short.

      • By thomassmith65 2026-02-2811:325 reply

        Desert Storm was short. The second Iraq War, the stupid one, was not.

        • By invader 2026-02-2812:274 reply

          However, to be fair, Desert Storm hasn't resulted in regime change. The Coalition bombed the shit out of the Iraqi army, but never committed to the ground operation deep inside Iraq. And Saddam's regime survived until the next war.

          That alone hints that it is very hard to bring a dictatorship down with just aerial attacks - the ground component is also essential. Something tells me it is going to be the same here.

          Only a land operation or a total collapse of the government, with the armed police and military joining the opposition, can topple the Iranian regime.

          • By datsci_est_2015 2026-02-2820:58

            > That alone hints that it is very hard to bring a dictatorship down with just aerial attacks.

            This has been painfully obvious since aerial bombing became possible, but we’ve had so many generals and executives obsessed with the concept that it continues to be a core doctrine, like Kissinger and Curtis LeMay, neither of for whom I have anything but deep contempt.

          • By platinumrad 2026-02-2817:532 reply

            Was Saddam's Iraq (post Desert Storm when he no longer had the ability to wage offensive war) really that bad compared to what came after?

            • By marcosdumay 2026-02-2820:30

              For a large share of the population, yes, by a huge margin. For an even larger share, no, by a large margin.

              Both regimes were deeply racist.

              Anyway, I don't think that information entered on the US decision making in any way.

            • By Marsymars 2026-02-2820:26

              You mean immediately post Desert Storm when this happened? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1991_Iraqi_uprisings

          • By AbstractH24 2026-02-2812:582 reply

            Counterexanple would be Venezuela

            • By djeastm 2026-02-2814:56

              Are you sure? They removed one guy they didn't like but the regime remains.

            • By Braxton1980 2026-02-2814:141 reply

              What was the regime change there? The vice president is in charge.

              • By ericd 2026-02-2820:00

                Well, she started releasing lots of political prisoners. So it does seem like the regime acts a bit differently now?

        • By torlok 2026-02-2814:48

          That's because Desert Storm was launched by people who remembered the Second World War. Current wars are started by draft dodgers.

        • By UncleMeat 2026-02-2812:091 reply

          Desert storm didn’t attempt regime change. Iran is not currently invading anyone.

          • By Jtsummers 2026-02-2817:291 reply

            I'm glad someone else remembers. Desert Storm was fast (kind of) because it had a limited objective: Repel an invading army from another nation. It did not lead to an invasion (long term) of Iraq. Comparing any war with the objective of regime change to Desert Storm reveals that the commenter is grossly ignorant of recent history (36 years ago, it's not that far back to be so ignorant).

            Desert Storm also wasn't really fast, it led to containment operations lasting a bit over a decade in total, ending only when we decided to invade Iraq with the objective of regime change and nation building. And that one, predictably, turned into a quagmire.

        • By fuzzfactor 2026-03-0116:26

          Desert Storm was mainly the US fighting for the Kuwaiti way of life.

        • By ponector 2026-02-2812:511 reply

          This does not look like a smart one. A bit smarter would be to strike a month ago to support street protests.

          • By thisislife2 2026-02-2819:19

            It would have confused the Iranians as the regime would then claim that the foreign military attacks prove that the protests are artificially engineered by the same foreign enemy with the support of the Shah. It would also mean the automatic imposition of martial law in Iran, thus making protests even more difficult to organise.

    • By markus_zhang 2026-02-2815:051 reply

      You can’t be short, minimal lethal AND regime change. Gotta be pretty bloody to make that happen.

      • By tim333 2026-02-2815:312 reply

        • By jasomill 2026-02-2823:451 reply

          Fomenting a coup is very different than toppling a regime through military force.

          My biggest concern has always been that US military action against Iran would undermine domestic factions pushing for democratic reforms, at best leading to the installation of a different autocratic regime more amenable to US interests, at worst leading to a wellspring of support for the existing regime both internally, and externally in the form of alliances with other nations who stand to benefit from a reshuffling of the existing world order.

          • By alex43578 2026-02-2823:571 reply

            "At best leading to the installation of a different autocratic regime more amenable to US interests" seems like a pretty fine outcome in US eyes, doesn't it? Outside of Israel, is democracy in the Middle East even realistic?

            An autocrat regime friendly to US interests, who we could do business with, who won't pursue nuclear weapons, and who won't imperil US allies or the Strait of Hormuz would be a drastic improvement over the current state of affairs.

            We don't need to nation-build to have a good outcome for the US: that's something we should've learned after Iraq and Afghanistan.

            • By jasomill 2026-03-017:12

              Sure, and probably no worse for the world at large, or for the majority of Iranians.

              An improvement over the current regime isn't exactly a high bar.

              Even speaking as a someone who generally detests the policies of both Trump and the current Israeli administration, while I don't expect the entirety of the IRGC to go quietly into the night, I can't help but see the removal of the Ayatollah as a good thing.

              As for the broader question of democracy in the Middle East, I believe the answer is yes, though not quickly or easily. But an independent, democratic Iran coexisting peacefully with Israel and the US, however unlikely, would certainly be a good start.

        • By tokai 2026-02-2817:361 reply

          Nothing even close to regime change happened in Venezuela.

          • By BurningFrog 2026-02-2821:39

            It's the same regime, but they now take orders from Marco Rubio.

    • By Bender 2026-02-2814:056 reply

      Well hopefully this is short, minimally lethal, and leads to regime change for all those involved.

      That would be ideal but unfortunately not likely. Nobody will like this comment but US ships are sitting ducks. They have minimal ammo per the pentagon and no oilers. No oilers and low ammo means no prolonged conflict. Only two of the ships are nuclear powered not counting submarines. Most of Iran's military and weapons are deep underground in a massive series of underground cities and tunnels. The US would require boots on the ground if they manage to breach the tunnel openings under the mountains. Should that fail the only viable targets are civilians and that won't win favor with anyone or accomplish anything.

      Iranian military could just wait it out if they wanted and then smoke Israel with supersonic missiles when the US leaves. Then we find out if Israel does have the nukes for the Samson option and that would result in the destruction of Israel. Iran's military could survive a nuclear strike but would have to clean up the fallout and I am not sure they could. Anyone not underground would likely get Acute Radiation Sickness and Cancer.

      On a positive note if the US can manage to get into the tunnels and send in enough munitions to start detonating the missile stockpile a chain reaction could crack all the concrete and collapse the tunnels. Satellite could detect which tunnel they try to evac from. They have less than 5 days to accomplish the chain reaction assuming this is the plan. From the videos I have seen the missiles are literally lined up like a double-strand fuse.

      • By tim333 2026-02-2815:291 reply

        The US military has seldom had problems with the blowing up the enemy bit. It's providing peace and stability after that happens where they tend to run into problems.

        • By Bender 2026-02-2815:383 reply

          The US military has seldom had problems with the blowing up the enemy bit.

          True however AFAIK they have never once been in this situation. Iran has spent 40+ years digging in and hunkering down. There were plenty of bunkers in WWII but this is a whole new setup, deeper under mountains, higher quality concrete assuming they knew what they were doing and dug in much deeper. To get this done in 5 days will be quite a feet. If they manage to do it I will be very impressed.

          It's providing peace and stability after that happens where they tend to run into problems.

          I think you are correct, what happens afterwards is usually a crap-fest. That would require a lot of boots on the ground to maintain stability for a very long time. It's not a great example but Korea is one such example. The payoff may be worth it if many of the Iranian funded terror groups are drained of resources as a result. Keeping boots on the ground for years will require funding from congress. Short of that it will just be another power vacuum filled by yet another zealot. The "if's" are doing a lot of heavy lifting in my comment.

          • By TulliusCicero 2026-02-2820:001 reply

            They don't necessarily have to kill all the Iranian military, just suppress internal security enough to where the Iranian people came rise up in rebellion. It's hard for the IRGC to suppress widespread protests/rebellion if they're constantly stuck hiding in bunkers and tunnels.

            I imagine that's the strategy, anyway.

            • By Bender 2026-03-022:36

              I think you are right. I imagine they take shifts. Some above, some below for R&R. IRGC have been offered immunity or certain death.

          • By tim333 2026-02-2817:17

            I think the crap-fest bit could go better with Iran. The Iranians are closer to European in culture than many places.

      • By Bender 2026-02-2819:052 reply

        [Update]: It seems my dear leader is hitting all the cities... [1] I am not OK with this. Save the handful of leaders and scientists for ground recon instead of whacking all the citizens. Take out the missiles first. Most of the military and religious leaders are under ground. Take out those underground complexes and Iran is yours.

        [1] - https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2026/2/28/us-and-israel-attac...

        • By YZF 2026-02-2820:50

          I wouldn't trust Al Jazeera here (or anywhere else) but "hitting all cities" doesn't really say much. If the attacks are going after the IRGC and the Basij then presumably you need to go after them fairly broadly. If the attacks are going at ballistic missiles and drones the same applied. The question is what are the targets and what's the plan. I'm sure they're going after those complexes as well.

        • By arunabha 2026-02-2820:531 reply

          > Take out those underground complexes and Iran is yours.

          And how exactly would Iran be 'ours' without boots on the ground in this scenario?

          • By Bender 2026-02-2823:28

            Yes just like all the other places we have to maintain control congress would have to authorize boots on the ground, quite possibly for many years. Otherwise some other zealots just fill the voids.

      • By cosmicgadget 2026-02-2816:383 reply

        I can't imagine a world where the US military only has the logistics for a five day offensive.

        • By thisislife2 2026-02-2819:10

          There are some factors - this is an offensive being done to prop up Netanyahu's regime in Israel and distract the Americans from the Espstein files. The US thus means to keep it short-term. Moreover, in the middle-east, the American logistic chain runs through its Arab allies in the middle-east, and Iran has explicitly said that it will not hesitate to target its Arab neighbours, hosting American military bases, if the US attacks it. (And that's why it has retaliated against these American allies when it was attacked). Except for Saudi Arabia, these countries do not wish to get into a war with Iran for Israel, and have no interest in joining the war because Iran's missiles are quite precise and effective at short ranges (meaning they and their people will be facing the brunt of the war that they have no interest in). Thus, the US military is actually hampered because it cannot do anything without the host governments permission. (For example, during the last Iran attack, some allies did not allow the US to implement a nationwide jam of the GPS over its airspace). All this highlights the really hard balancing the US has to do to even agree to bomb Iran for a few days - one wrong move and the whole of middle-east can explode, and both the US and Israel will find itself on the receiving end as American and world public opinion turns against it.

        • By Bender 2026-03-022:52

          Related HN discussion [1]

          [1] - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47211487

        • By Bender 2026-02-2817:011 reply

          It is odd. Trump has been receiving advice on Iran from General Dan Caine. It was suggested Caine warned of risks and limited munitions Trump refuted these stating Caine believes a conflict would be easily won. Other senior officers were in shock that he said this could be done. The pentagon objected due to the lack of ammo and oilers. This is one case where I wish he would listen to the senior officers with substantial experience instead of the guy that often agrees with him.

          • By petre 2026-03-0110:56

            As perfectly echoed by Bob Dylan's Highway 61 song.

            "Now the rovin’ gambler he was very bored / He was tryin' to create a next world war / He found a promoter who nearly fell off the floor / He said I never engaged in this kind of thing before / But yes I think it can be very easily done / We'll just put some bleachers out in the sun / And have it on Highway 61"

      • By thisislife2 2026-02-2818:401 reply

        Yeah, the possibility of a regime collapse / change due to this military action is unlikely. The military goal seems to be to destroy Iran's military-industrial complexes to hamper its missile production. Note however that while Iran has potent missile capability, Iran's underground complexes where it is stored presents its own problems - in the absence of adequate air defence and an Air Force, its enemies can just bomb the openings of these underground complexes, making it very, very difficult for the Iranians to use its missile arsenals from there. (This is what Israel did the last time). As for the scenario you outlined, I highly doubt the US would be willing to send boots to the ground to blow up their missiles manually - urban warfare takes a heavy toll and I doubt if the Trump administration can withstand the criticism if body bags start coming home. Even the MAGA crowd has been unexceptionally hostile to Trump's attack on Israel.

        • By Bender 2026-02-2819:10

          I highly doubt the US would be willing to send boots to the ground to blow up their missiles manually - urban warfare takes a heavy toll and I doubt if the Trump administration can withstand the criticism if body bags start coming home.

          You could be entirely right. Honestly I hope you are right. We lost far too many in Iraq and Afghanistan. I was probably just being cynical. I trust the decisions of the senior leaders in the military but their commander and chief tends to trust the wrong advice.

          The only possible correction I might add is the Air Force probably will not drop bombs but would have to fire missiles. The openings are on the sides of mountains and require horizontal access or I suppose incredibly massive bombs. Earth shattering bombs. Something closer to tactical nukes which the US has not stockpiled in a long time AFAIK.

      • By scrollop 2026-02-2816:211 reply

        What yt channel?

        • By Bender 2026-02-2816:451 reply

          It's hard to find them now with all the AI slop being propped up but the best search terms may be "Iranian tunnel bunkers full of missiles". It is mostly YT channels run out of India. The oldest video I have seen was from CNN ten years ago. Iran will occasionally let journalists see their latest tunnel.

          This is a short one showing the 2nd to last generation of tunnels. [1] The latest tunnels are painted white including some that are under water. The older tunnels are not painted and one can see what appears to be reinforced concrete. When completed every tunnel is lined on both sides with missiles. This one [2] shows a couple generations of the tunnels. Found the old CNN video. [3]

          [1] - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6YQ1R7ZAKxE [video][1m]

          [2] - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MQtSPFrnKvo [video][5m25s]

          [3] - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7_Gu_TjmV0E [video][2m12s]

          • By InMice 2026-02-2822:571 reply

            Seriously? Those videos look like they were made with Blender

            • By Bender 2026-02-2823:29

              Quite possibly. All of the propaganda films I've seen in the last decade look like they were generated and staged on a very low budget and in a hurry.

      • By weatherlite 2026-02-2818:331 reply

        I know you won't believe me here but dude you are absolutely full of shit

        • By Bender 2026-02-2818:59

          I clear it out with Cheesecake and Beer. I'll save some for you my friend.

    • By franktankbank 2026-02-2814:07

      Won't there be boots on the ground? We already bombed their facilities and at the time they said best that bombs can do is fuck up the entrance to these tunnels.

    • By sschueller 2026-02-2823:021 reply

      There is no such thing but I guess the US still has not learned this after so many conflicts.

      • By steve-atx-7600 2026-02-2823:52

        Regime change is not the same thing as a "forever war". I don't think you read the post that you replied to.

    • By plaidfuji 2026-02-2818:581 reply

      > Minimally lethal

      “Israel strikes two schools in Iran, killing more than 80 people”

      https://www.aljazeera.com/amp/news/2026/2/28/israel-strikes-...

      Welp, better luck next time

      • By shykes 2026-02-2819:113 reply

        This reminds me of the Al-Ahli hospital incident in Gaza, when a mysterious explosion at a hospital was immediately blamed on an Iraeli strike - first by Hamas, then by the international press. A precise death toll was immediately available: 500 killed. Israel urged caution as they investigated, but were ignored.

        Eventually, it was established that 1) the casualty number had been a fabrication, 2) the explosion was in the parking lot, 3) it was NOT caused by an Israeli strike, but by a Palestinian Islamic Jihad rocket that had fell short.

        Soon the press was forced to issue corrections - New York Times [1] , Le Monde [2], BBC [3]...

        This incident looks VERY similar. Which is not surprising, since Hamas was trained in information warfare by the IRGC. Note that Al Jazeera (the media arm of Qatar, who funds Hamas and hosts their leaders in Doha) is enthusiastically amplifying this story with no apparent effort to cross-examine Iran's official source.

        I predict that this story will turn out to be fabricated as well.

        UPDATE: preliminary reports from the OSINT community seem to indicate that the story was indeed a fabrication... https://x.com/tarikh_eran/status/2027784301840846939

        [1] https://www.poynter.org/commentary/2023/the-new-york-times-e...

        [2] https://www.lemonde.fr/international/article/2023/10/24/a-no...

        [3] https://deadline.com/2023/11/bbcs-international-editor-grill...

        • By I-M-S 2026-02-2821:432 reply

          What the comment fails to mention is that Al-Shifa hospital was ultimately destroyed by Israeli forces, with grave civilian casualties, and no Hamas tunnels ever found: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al-Shifa_Hospital

          • By Sabinus 2026-02-2823:09

            The Wikipedia article you link says that Hamas tunnels were found under the hospital, and did have entrances near the hospital, but that no proof was provided that they were using the hospital and nearby tunnels as a 'command and control' centre.

          • By shykes 2026-03-014:01

            My comment is about Al-Ahli, not Al-Shifa. Those are two different hospitals.

            > Al-Shifa hospital was ultimately destroyed by Israeli forces

            It was damaged by a series of battles between Hamas and IDF, because Hamas militants embedded themselves within it - like they embedded themselves within all civilian infrastructure. That is the reality of urban war against a terrorist group.

            > with grave civilian casualties

            Hamas alleged grave civilian casualties. Israel contests it. Again, just like the Al-Ahli incident, Hamas rushes to publish suspiciously precise casualties and reframes an urban battle as a genocidal massacre; naive newsrooms uncritically publish it; wikipedia editors quotes it; then people with an axe to grind endlessly reference it in online arguments like this one.

            With Al-Ahli, we got lucky. Independent evidence made it impossible to ignore that Hamas was lying. In many other cases, it is impossible to independently verify how many civilians were truly killed in this or that battle. You have to either believe the IDF, or Hamas.

            > and no Hamas tunnels ever found

            Al-Shifa was controlled by Hamas and used as a military facility. Hostages were held there. After the ceasefire, Hamas used it as a jail and torture center for Palestinian dissidents.

            Or do you believe Israel sent troops inside a hospital in a warzone, at great risk to their safety, to destroy a random hospital with no military value?

        • By tovej 2026-03-017:56

          The Palestinian rocket story was never confirmed, and it seems unlikely that the rockets from PIJ were the cause. Their ballistic trajectory did not match with the hospital, and most or all their fuel had burned [1]. I recommend you read the whole text, it's quite short.

          In other words, the new "established facts" about Al-Ahli are also questionable, and part of Israeli propaganda. It remains to be seen what the truth is in either case.

          The fact of the matter is. Eventually Israel destroyed a fuckton of hospitals and schools in Palestine, on purpose. So this particular story in itself does not really matter.

          [1] https://forensic-architecture.org/investigation/israeli-disi...

        • By plaidfuji 2026-03-032:24

          > Analysis of the area shows the school is in a middle of a military area full of IRGC bases.

          Isn’t the far more likely explanation here that they (Israel / US) tried to strike an IRGC base and missed?

    • By Braxton1980 2026-02-2814:14

      Based on previous American wars in the middle east wouldn't you say that's unlikely?

    • By rambojohnson 2026-02-2816:26

      u sweet summer child.

HackerNews