Iranian commanders request permission for strike on Diego Garcia base ‘immediately’
Posted by tigerdogbearcat@reddit | PrepperIntel | View on Reddit | 223 comments
Well we are 1 step closer. Iranian commanders are requesting permission for first strike authorization on Diego Garcia base and Iranian ballistic missle forces have been instructed to launch on first sign of attack.
YeetedApple@reddit
While still an escalation, the headline seems a bit sensastionalist.
jessewoolmer@reddit
It will have the same effect, regardless. Any missile(s) in the air toward Diego Garcia will trigger and all out war and Iran will get decimated.
For starters, no one would ever know if they splashed down or hit hard targets, because they would be shot down mid flight. And second, the counterattack would be airborne within seconds, so it wouldn’t really matter anyway.
T8rfudgees@reddit
I am no friend of the Iranian regime but I think they are far more capable than we like to let on. Time will tell.
LeadOnion@reddit
I’m pretty sure Iran is a paper tiger. They, and all their proxies have been devastated multiple times. All of their counterattacks were repelled. Israeli Air Force was able to conduct operations in Iranian airspace uncontested.
numinosaur@reddit
Well, afghanistan was going to be a piece of cake too. Where the US has shock and awe, other countries have persistence and endurance that often outlives the spectacular high tech fireworks
Significant_Emu2286@reddit
Invading Afghanistan and trying to hunt down terrorists, underground and in caves, across thousands of square miles, is very different than launching an air and naval assault against Iran’s localized military installations.
md5md5md5@reddit
keep in mind the real end goal is to get Iran to stop supplying lebanon so Israel can roll in there too
Northern_Explorer_@reddit
Yup, the US wants it's one friendly Middle Eastern country to stay on their side so it'll do whatever it has to to keep Israel happy. And Israel is currently happy committing genocide, America's next favorite activity after propping up dictators.
bobs-yer-unkl@reddit
That genocide lie has not aged well. The IDF killed 65k Palestinians (0.008% of Palestinians) in 2.5 years. Is this genocide supposed to take 200 years to complete?
Northern_Explorer_@reddit
The definition of genocide by the United Nations does not set a hard number on how many people need to be killed for it to qualify as a genocide. It is the intent behind the killing. The intent by the Israeli government is to exterminate or extirpate all Palestinians from their homeland and settle it themselves.
Many, many reputable global organizations recognize what Israel is doing is genocide. But it you want to continue to be an apologist for the Israeli regime, go for it. History will remember this for what it was: a genocide.
Significant_Emu2286@reddit
At no point has Israel displayed the intent to destroy in whole or in part, the Palestinian people. They have gone to greater lengths to avoid civilian casualties in this war than any nation in history. Unfortunately, they’re fighting an enemy that is designing the war to purposely drive casualties up.
Israel has dropped over 60,000 bombs in Gaza to cripple Hamas’s infrastructure. That means the “casualties per airstrike” for this war is less than one per bomb. That is the lowest in the history of warfare, and it’s not even close. Global average for all modern wars is about 6-7 casualties per airstrike. In dense urban wars against terrorists who purposely try to blend in with civilians (in similar stations to Gaza, such as Mosul, Raqqa, Aleppo, etc.), that number is closer to 20 civilian casualties per airstrike. In Gaza, it’s less than 1. Can you even comprehend the monumental effort it requires to move that many civilians - literally millions of people, constantly out of the way of bombs and bullets? There’s no other example in history of an army doing this.
NecroRayz733@reddit
Your point is Israel has "gone to greater lengths to avoid civilian casualties than any nation in history." There are quite literally witness statements from neutral sources such as members of humanitarian organisations stating that Israeli drones would swoop in after missile strikes and target children and other civilians.
The entirety of the second paragraph is wrong, the bombing campaign in Palestine is one of the largest per capita bombing campaigns on par with that seen in Laos. Israel continues to maintain (according to several sources on wikipedia) a civilian to total death ratio of about 70-80%. They have destroyed about 80% of infrastructure already, I believe.
You think Israel is trying to save the civilians? How exactly are they doing that? The right to rape protests? Admitting to shooting ambulances?
bobs-yer-unkl@reddit
If Israel were acting on an intent to exterminate, you would see a meaningful effort in that direction, so you are still just lying.
Northern_Explorer_@reddit
The definition of genocide by the United Nations does not set a hard number on how many people need to be killed for it to qualify as a genocide. It is the intent behind the killing. The intent by the Israeli government is to exterminate or extirpate all Palestinians from their homeland and settle it themselves.
Many, many reputable global organizations recognize what Israel is doing is genocide. But it you want to continue to be an apologist for the Israeli regime, go for it. History will remember this for what it was: a genocide.
texteditorSI@reddit
Fortunately Iran is a smaller country than Afghanistan with an inability to build things underground and terrain favorable to invaders
gazuzu@reddit
You ought to research what you say before posting, Iran has 2x the population of Afghanistan and 3x the land square footage.
texteditorSI@reddit
Did you not get that my comment was sarcastic based on the one I was replying to? lol
gazuzu@reddit
No it wasn't clear, my apologies.
RaisedByHoneyBadgers@reddit
Also, Iran has no where near the military technology, air defense command and control or logistics that Afghanistan had in 2001.
Sasquatchii@reddit
The next generation of Iranians might outlast the American resolve, but America could pretty easily erase the current generation
md5md5md5@reddit
can't win a war by just dropping bombs, eventually you'll need boots on the ground.
Djaja@reddit
Im not expert, but they do have, and ive seen it argued as a counter, really good natural defenses. Obviously it's not the impediment it was in old days, but still significant from what I've ve seen said.
Bwunt@reddit
Natural defenses are great against outright invasion, but if US/NATO/Israel decides to just bomb them (think of Serbia or Libya), their natural defenses will be more of a hindrance then boon.
xSaRgED@reddit
It’ll be a counter for ground forces for sure.
However, any significant Iranian position would be glassed by US and Israeli air power way before any ground invasion would begin.
So, it’ll be guerrilla and insurgency tactics for another 20 years, after the initial invasion takes 6-12 months.
jessewoolmer@reddit
They are not. Their display of force against Israel was pathetic. No matter what they have in their arsenal, it’s not getting past US air defense systems.
Iran rolled out their most advanced “hypersonic” missiles against Israel and only a couple got through Israel’s air defense systems and one U.S. THAAD battery.
Diego Garcia is almost twice as far from Iran as Israel (equals more flight time to launch countermeasures), and if you think that the U.S. doesn’t have 10x the missile defense systems around $20 billion worth of aircraft, than we loaned to Israel, you’re delusional.
Wild-Lengthiness2695@reddit
The real threat from Iran is asymmetric warfare , it can potentially unleash a firestorm of terrorist attacks and regional attacks, including attacking shipping with greater intensity.
America cannot invade Iran. It can level it but that’ll kill millions in the process and destroy any moral legitimacy that’s left.
Sasquatchii@reddit
I think the move would be to erase their ability to sell oil and produce a nuke.
Wild-Lengthiness2695@reddit
Which is no different from the past 30 years and yet Iran is now likely to have enough enriched material for 6-8 devices. What it can’t do is get close to finishing a device because Israel and the CIA ensure that doesn’t happen.
Sasquatchii@reddit
It’s different - and I’m responding to your final point. American can quickly strike Iran in a way that kills almost no one, but still cripples the country from an economic and security perspective.
Wild-Lengthiness2695@reddit
It does, eventually.
There are only two outcomes for Iran , either eventually it ends up being ruled by moderates / democracy , or it goes down in flames whether that be a preemptive strike or a retaliatory strike / war.
It isn’t stockpiling material for fun or a deterrent.
Sasquatchii@reddit
Either there’s a groundswell of support inside Iran for a new type of country or there’s not, I think that would be the kicker
md5md5md5@reddit
say the real threat is $10 gas combined w/ the realization that all of this is for Israel not the us here in the US
Exotic-Rip-7081@reddit
All the modern wars haven't been for our homeland. Just saving somebody else's ass.
RaisedByHoneyBadgers@reddit
America doesn't save anyone's ass. The intention is always in their self interest even if it ultimately blows back on them.
Exotic-Rip-7081@reddit
Well I'd agree with all but WWII
RaisedByHoneyBadgers@reddit
Not even WW2. The U.S. saw an opportunity and walked away with Bretton Woods and firmly established itself as the Capitalist world's arms dealer, all while minimizing casualties relative to the losses in Europe and Asia. One could almost equate it to looting the dead on the battlefield.
bobs-yer-unkl@reddit
People forget that asymmetric warfare cuts both ways. If Iran succeeded in sinking a U.S. carrier, Trump would nuke Tehran. It doesn't get much more asymmetrical than that.
jessewoolmer@reddit
Iran is already waging asymmetric warfare via its proxies. If it were to engage in these strategies more directly, it would open the door to direct - and much more intense - counterattack. They are already maximizing their proxy capability and they can’t afford to engage in those tactics directly bc the response would be devastating.
AmaTxGuy@reddit
All we need to do is take out their offensive capabilities (pretty easy to do) also cut the head off of the government and mullahs (little harder to do)
Iran is barely not in a civil war because of the fear of the people.
Remember Iran was the funding source and weapon source of the resistance in both Afghanistan and Iraq. Who is going to support Iran?
Take out the leaders and let the people decide.
Ostracus@reddit
Seems quite a few might. Yeah, I know we wish everyone would hate our enemies, but the world is a little more complicated. That's why Middle east conflict is usually a bad idea.
jessewoolmer@reddit
The people of Iran hate the Iranian regime. If it weren’t for the threat of being imprisoned or hanged from a crane in the town square, they would revolt. All it will take is a little push - slightly tipping the scale in favor of the people. Weakening the IRGC and occupying them with a foreign enemy so that they take their boot off the neck of the public.
tigerdogbearcat@reddit (OP)
They don't have to have better missiles than US air defense missiles they just have to have enough that the patriot and thad systems run out.
Quantity has a quality of it own.
jessewoolmer@reddit
Wrong. For a whole bunch of reasons. But the two main reasons are: 1) if you think Iran has enough missiles to exhaust US missile defense systems, you’re high. And 2) every time they fire a missile, it gives off a massive heat and radio signal, exposing the location of each respective missile base or launch site…, so Iran will only have a few minutes to fire them before every single launch site is geolocated and destroyed by the US Navy.
tigerdogbearcat@reddit (OP)
Wrong. 😂 Who starts like that. You got strong feelings I guess.
Air defense missiles are expensive shahead drones are cheap and plentiful. They just have to exhaust the battery before it can be reloaded. They don't need to have more total missiles than the US. Reloading is a slow process. Russia has repeatedly used Iranian products to overwhelm patriot and thad batteries in Ukraine. It can be done because it is done daily.
No_Menu_6533@reddit
“From August 1, 2024, to March 1, 2025, Ukraine recorded that Russia launched 15,011 Shahed-type strike unmanned aerial vehicles (UAV).”
If I were Iran, I’d made some kind of demonstration against Diego Garcia and launch a real attack with 15,000 drones against an easier and closer target.
tigerdogbearcat@reddit (OP)
What that article leaves out is that the shahead are used in conjunction with better Russian missiles and drones. The shahead go first because they are slower and the missiles come quickly on their tail after missle interceptors are depleted and they know where the defenses were weakest. Many of the shahead are being found with a piece of wood instead of an explosive because they just need enough ones with a warhead to force the launch of much more complex and costly interceptor missiles. A carrier strike group or Israel may be a more appealing target to Iran but if they had a way to temporarily disable DG runways and destroy airframes they would slow the US response and get more time to reposostion and launch secondary strikes.
jessewoolmer@reddit
The U.S. Navy doesn’t use missiles to shoot down drones, for precisely this reason. They use the 20mm CIWS Phalanx Gatling Gun that shoots 4500 rounds per minute and literally shreds drones out of the sky. 1 single CIWS Phalanx gun can track, target, and shoot down up to 200 drones per minute… all for a few bucks, instead of $3m per missile.
Here it is taking out drones at night, in Iraq i believe.
tigerdogbearcat@reddit (OP)
No they have been using air defense missiles against the drones and missiles launched by houthis. CIWS is the last resort AD system.
Potential_Shelter624@reddit
Watch the 60 Minutes episode about that and think again. Israel wasn’t alone in the sky. Israel, the US the UK the Saudis, Jordan & UAE were also defending Israeli airspace because no one can know the iron dome is just for homemade hamas rockets. They also struck near Israel’s ‘secret’ nuclear arsenal base in Dimona from Syria, Lebanon, and Yemen. Russia and China aren’t including Iran because they want to be bestest buddies.
texteditorSI@reddit
Nearly all the hypersonics got through lol
OkGrab8779@reddit
Agree israel proofed they are a paper tiger.
jessewoolmer@reddit
😂 climb out of your bubble dude
Sasquatchii@reddit
There’s nothing in the Iranian arsenal that could reach that base should the Americans prioritize defending it.
The-Copilot@reddit
Iran's longest range ballistic missiles can get almost 1/3 of the way to Diego Garcia.
The last time Iran launched that volley of missiles and drones at israel, the US did an exo-atmospheric intercept with a ship launched interceptor of one of those ballistic missiles in its apogee phase. Aka, the US shot down one of those missiles while it was outside the atmosphere and moving at its top speed. That has literally never been done before and was most likely a flex.
zaevilbunny38@reddit
True but its nearly 3000 miles from Iran to Diego Garcia. The base has Patriot, THAAD, air patrols, AGIS equipped sentry vessels, and Phalanx anti missiles system. Iran would need 100+ long range ballistic missiles, to maybe break through and its unknown if they have that many. Add in it would be about 10 minutes from launch to impact due to distance and there are harden hangers all over the base. So even if they get through, what effect they have would be, limited. But the F-35 off carriers, the B-52 from Guam and the B-2 from Missouri won't.
RaisedByHoneyBadgers@reddit
They just unveiled a low cost drone with a 4000km range. They would lead with lost cost but can't ignore munitions to drain the AA batteries then hit with long range weapons.
zaevilbunny38@reddit
They are large and slow, about the size of a Cessna. It would take at least 16 hrs for them to hit the base if they can even go that far. If they launch them. US air patrols can take them down with missiles and guns. Literally go up expend all their ammo return, rearm and go again before they get close to the base. AGIS destroyers have the phalanx system along with, similar systems on shore. There is no way for those drones to get through.
Herr_Quattro@reddit
To a degree. Their navy? Absolutely. Within 24 hours we’d see a repeat of Operation Praying Mantis.
Their Air Force? Incredibly antiquated, including the last remaining F-14s. They do have some MiG-29, but they’re all but they’re useless against F-35s. They do have some very impressive hardened structures, but a JDAM would make short work of that. The B-2 would make short work of Iranian SAM sites.
Their army is also pretty antiquated, with no good infantry support weapons and antiquated armor like the T-72 and Chieftain.
Any direct action would be devastating for Iran. Their military is arguably equivalent to pre-Desert Storm Iraqs… and I mean that as in equivalent to the 90s equipment aswell.
Irans real strategic advantage is its deeply integrated insurgency logistics. Occupying Iran would make Afghanistan look like a cakewalk. Any level of direct conflict would almost certainly result in companies bailing on the Suez Canal. Because Iran would more or less still control the Red Sea with speed boats and missiles.
The infamous Millennium Challenge 2002, (while it is deeply flawed, but I won’t explain that here), outlined carrier group vulnerability to overwhelming speed boat attacks. Even without their navy, the strait of Hormuz would be a death sentence for basically any vessel except for US submarines.
Irans traditional military would get bodied in a night. But occupying Tehran would be a cataclysmic nightmare, not only militarily, but more importantly economically.
sorean_4@reddit
There was a war exercise where the US navy fought mock battle with Iranians. The US general put in charge cause have damage to US forces because he played unorthodox campaign. The US restarted the war games, told home to follow a script and officially made itself undefeated and victor.
It was sad to see. Now what happens during real war it’s really hard to predict.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Millennium_Challenge_2002
Ilexion@reddit
If the late 80s are any good predictor of what will happen if the worst comes to pass
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Praying_Mantis
America will probably be fine.
jessewoolmer@reddit
Exactly. Much smaller militaries and lower stakes, but nonetheless the U.S. destroyed half of Iran’s navy in 8 hours, without breaking a sweat. Iran’s military assets are exponentially larger now, but so is U.S. military capability.
Everyone seems to forget that, in addition to the most powerful and capable military in the world by orders of magnitude, the U.S. has an entire arsenal of classified, next-gen tech that no one knows about, that we wait to trot out until we’re in an actual war. We do this consistently, every time we go to war - there’s always some new shit that takes people by surprise. I have read musings about a multi-megawatt directed-energy (laser) weapon, similar to the declassified one already being used on naval destroyers to shoot down drones, but powerful enough to track and take out ballistic and hypersonic missiles in seconds. If something like that exists, you can bet it’s deployed around the $20 billion in aircraft we have sitting on a little island in the Indian ocean.
In_der_Welt_sein@reddit
Definitely not. They have been essentially humiliated in their proxy war with Iran and have nothing aside from the threat of eventually developing nukes.
ChallengingBullfrog8@reddit
Why do you all assume america will be successful against Iran?
jessewoolmer@reddit
Because it has a dramatically more powerful and capable military than Iran, by every measurable metric.
ChallengingBullfrog8@reddit
It lost against far, far less formidable adversaries
jessewoolmer@reddit
The only times the U.S. has ever “lost” a war was in instances of sustained ground invasions against enemy forces that had been digging in for a decade beforehand, like the NVA or the Taliban. And even in those cases, the outcomes weren’t binary losses.
A war with Iran would likely be far, far different. Very little boots on the ground presence and a very different enemy, with much more traditional military infrastructure and operational protocol.
RaisedByHoneyBadgers@reddit
Iran has massive underground infrastructure deeper than bunker busters can reach. It's common knowledge.
Temporary-Setting714@reddit
Those bunkers require... a network of infrastructure to function. Not including something every human needs every 30-90 seconds. Air.
Without a doubt, the USA knows about every "bunker" Iran has, how it functions and how to take them out.
Playful_Two_7596@reddit
Just like Vietnam.
Or Afghanistan.
maddsskills@reddit
They did this before when we killed their General. It was fine, they didn’t kill anyone, we shrugged it off.
https://www.nbcnews.com/news/amp/ncna1112171
AmputatorBot@reddit
It looks like you shared an AMP link. These should load faster, but AMP is controversial because of concerns over privacy and the Open Web.
Maybe check out the canonical page instead: https://www.nbcnews.com/news/world/u-s-base-iraq-comes-under-attack-missiles-iran-claims-n1112171
^(I'm a bot | )^(Why & About)^( | )^(Summon: u/AmputatorBot)
piponwa@reddit
Yeah, no way they leave any of those B-2 on the ground if missiles are incoming.
jessewoolmer@reddit
I’m sure the intention would be to get them airborne as fast as possible… I’m not sure how fast they can get them prepped, manned and in the air.
Iran’s longest range missile can’t reach Diego Garcia from the ground, so it would have to be launched by air, I imagine. It has a range of about 2,000km, flying at 10,000 km/hr (total flight time of 12 minutes at max distance). Diego Garcia is about 4,800 km from Iran, more than twice as far as the their missiles’ range.
Because it would have to be launched from a plane, the US would see the plane coming long before it launched the missile.
After a quick glance, it appears a single b-2 can get crewed and airborne in an emergency (assuming it’s in a ready state), in about 15-25 minutes. My guess is 5-10 min between planes, so prob 45 min to an hour to get all 6 airborne, moving at breakneck speed (that’s pure speculation on my part).
FWIW, the Iranian 2000km long range missile is not hypersonic and could likely be easily intercepted by the U.S. Navy’s guided missile destroyers, accompanying the two carrier strike groups in the Red Sea and Indian Ocean.
The bigger risk is all of the U.S. troops deployed at bases in Iraq, very close to the Iranian border. They are within range of Iranian hypersonic missiles and could be struck very quickly, with little time to defend.
SenatorAdamSpliff@reddit
Can you give an example - anytime in the last 100 Years - where air power alone forced an enemy of the United States into submission?
Any sort of “decimation” will involve two things: * US boots on the ground, and; * Heavy US casualties.
jessewoolmer@reddit
Well, the last time the U.S. and Iran tangled militarily (in 1988), the U.S. destroyed half of Iran’s navy in 8 hours.
Granted the stakes were much smaller, as were both militaries.
But I also wasn’t suggesting it would be a sustained war. Probably just a massive air and naval retaliation, aimed at destroying Irans military infrastructure and subterranean weapons manufacturing and nuclear enrichment facilities.
bobs-yer-unkl@reddit
We were trying to "send a message" to Iran via a "proportional" response. However, the U.S. military is not a messenger service, and doesn't train to be subtle.
SenatorAdamSpliff@reddit
I think that a “massive air attack” will accomplish next to nothing there at huge risk to our own pilots. Imagine for a moment instead we did the smart thing and reengaged the diplomatic efforts that Obama kicked off.
jessewoolmer@reddit
You mean the agreement under which they were supposedly not enriching weapons grade uranium? That worked out well.
Everyone seems to forget that in order for diplomacy to work, you have to have a negotiating partner that actually wants the same thing - namely peace. Iran does not, therefore it will, Inexorably, violate its obligations under any peace treaty.
They told Obama that they would honor the 2015 JPCOA and they had the world fooled for a while, but they stared violating the agreement almost immediately, and by the time we confirmed it, they were in full default by 2019.
They have no intention of not pursuing a nuclear weapon. They are extremely clear about their intentions to destabilize the region and attack US / Western interests, including and especially Israel, which is why they are funding terror groups on three sides of Israel to attack them relentlessly.
ColStrick@reddit
At whhich point before the US withdrawal in 2018 did they violate the agreement?
jessewoolmer@reddit
JPCOA required the IAEA to have unfettered access to Iran’s facilities and for the facilities to be certified as in compliance every 90 days. The last such certification was issued in July 2017.
Regardless, the treaty was entered into between Iran, the U.S. and 6 other nations as well as the EU. The treaty remained in effect for the other 6 partners, even after the U.S. withdrew, yet Iran stopped pretending to comply at that point and began openly acknowledging that they were pursuing a weapon.
FWIW, the fact that Iran openly acknowledged it after the U.S. withdrew is proof that they were previously violating it as well. It’s not something you can just start one day. These facilities and the equipment, such as centrifuges, to produce fissile material are extremely complex and take years to develop and build. They can’t just be repurposed overnight. They require different equipment with completely different specs, different processes, different facility designs, etc. So if they started enriching uranium in 2018 or 2019 or 2020, that means they necessarily had been working on developing the capability (i.e., the infrastructure), for many years prior.
ColStrick@reddit
Trump refused to issue further certifications, while the IAEA stated that Iran remained in compliance.
Of course, Iran developed the gas centrifuge technology and built enrichment facilities over twenty years ago. Before 2015 they were enriching uranium up to 20% U-235, which in terms of separative effort is most of the way towards "weapon grade." Under the agreement they continued to possess as substantial enrichment infrastructure of thousands of centrifuges and continued to enrich uranium to the allowed limit of under 5%. These same centrifuges could be used to produce highly enriched uranium. This requires reconfiguring of the cascades, but this would have been a relatively small technical step, especially since Iran already had experience with enriching to higher levels prior to the agreement.
You can think the agreement was a bad deal, but at least according to the IAEA and the US intelligence community Iran was in compliance with it until the US withdrawal in 2018.
Corrupted_G_nome@reddit
There is no such thing as an inpenetrable rocket defense. Counter fire can run out of ammo or be overwhelmed.
jessewoolmer@reddit
Are you suggesting that Iran has more hypersonic missiles than the U.S. has THAAD or Patriot missiles or highly classified next generation 500mW directed energy weapons that can track hypersonic threats?
Because if you are…. 😂
Maybe, maybe Russia or China could exhaust US air defense systems, but Iran? lol
Corrupted_G_nome@reddit
Do they have all those assets in that region? I know Irans weapons ae rin the middle east.
A patriot battery has 8 rockets. Therefore the attack needs at least 9 rockets/drones per patriot battery.
In fact Russia overwhelms Patriot systems reliably. Does the US have more than 6 batteries on the island?
Can Iran fire 200+ rockets, sure. Could they hit targets reliably or at that distance? Maybe not. Could they coordinate the proper wave effect to exhaust munitions? Maybe not. Would the US put assets in the air making it even harder? Probably.
Impossible? No. Probable? Also no.
jessewoolmer@reddit
The bigger problem for Iran is that as soon as those Iranian missiles are airborne, you’ve got two Carrier Strike Groups (each with 80-90 assault aircraft, numerous guided missile destroyers, at least 2 nuclear powered attack submarines, etc.) unleashing on Iran, and six B-2 bombers in the air dropping whatever they’re carrying on Iranian targets. It would be a bad day for Iran regardless.
tigerdogbearcat@reddit (OP)
More incentive for Iran to launch all at once before everything on the ground is lost
tigerdogbearcat@reddit (OP)
Exactly Russia currently overwhelms patriot batteries with IRANIAN drones and weapons.
FrozenBee44@reddit
A Patriot battery has way more rockets than that. A single launcher can hold between 8-16 missiles (pac-2 or pac-3) and there are 8 launchers in a typical battery. You also have to figure that there would be other air defense assets at Diego Garcia either on the atoll or at sea that would defend the base.
This is not a world ending event if Iran wants to send missiles or rockets at Diego Garcia. But it would devastate Iran for decades and could threaten oil coming out of the Gulf for the next 5 years
OkGrab8779@reddit
Defence launchers taken out first like what israel did.
God_is_a_failure@reddit
You drink too much MAGA kool aid.
Radio_Face_@reddit
Which Iran does periodically to many US assets.
CarlosDangerWasHere@reddit
Lolol let's fire middle into water
maddsskills@reddit
I hate the Ayatollah but I love Iranians, they’ve really handled this “pariah state” thing as well as they can. I remember when Obama asked for one of our drones that crashed back and they sent a scale model back lmao.
There’s no way we go to war with Iran. Iraq, Yemen, sure, but Iran? No way.
Aggressive-Raise-445@reddit
What happens when Biden gives hundreds of billions to a nation that has sponsored terrorism for decades.
Iran tries this, it will be extremely painful for them, and they will suffer by level of magnitudes. Fuck countries that fund terrorists.
AndWinterCame@reddit
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_and_state-sponsored_terrorism
NoMathematician9564@reddit
The US funds terrorists. Israel does too LOL
EinharAesir@reddit
In other words, it’s a warning shot.
More_Dependent742@reddit
Really though. I highly recommend people don't use The Telegraph for intel. There are very few British papers left that don't resort to sensationalism.
Ok_Cryptographer8549@reddit
We are serious too motherfuckers, quit pursuing genocide and it aint no thang
crc_73@reddit
Get-out clause for crappy missiles?
tigerdogbearcat@reddit (OP)
Yup sensationalt titles are just how news works... earlier in the article the discuss actual first strike and it also goes on to say that they are placed on high alert. You had to scroll past that part for the quote...
YeetedApple@reddit
It doesn't say anything about details of what that actual strike might be if it happens. The only actual details are what I provided from further down in the article.
Charchimus@reddit
Maybe there's a signal chat we can join for more details lol
ImpactPossible6384@reddit
I wonder how people could feel like we as Americans are winning if more of our own people die. We've been fighting for years now, and I,for one, although often disagree with my American brethren, I want them alive.
PersiusAlloy@reddit
Yawn, Iran go ahead. Just an FYI though, we steamrolled one of the most powerful armies in a few weeks in the 90's, took out half your navy in a few hours because you touched our boats, snuck up on your F4-Phantoms and told them to go home, and dropped two suns on Japan in the 40's.
Please let us see what our capabilites really are and where all our tax money goes too.
Blackie47@reddit
Our capabilities rely on competent leadership to get the ball rolling. We're sorely lacking anybody that could come up with a plan to fight colds much less a war.
jessewoolmer@reddit
The U.S. Navy doesn’t use missiles to shoot down drones, for precisely this reason. They use the 20mm CIWS Phalanx Gatling Gun that shoots 4500 rounds per minute and literally shreds drones out of the sky. 1 single CIWS Phalanx gun can track, target, and shoot down up to 200 drones per minute… all for a few bucks, instead of $3m per missile.
Here it is taking out drones at night, in Iraq i believe.
HistoricalWash6930@reddit
For everyone arguing blow by blow why Iran is too weak to accomplish this and would get destroyed. You’re right, ask yourself why British tabloids and fringe us news sources are pushing such a ridiculous narrative that Iran would attempt a first strike on Diego Garcia. It’s propaganda to drum up anger against Iran to justify us/uk strikes. How many times does this have to happen before people recognize the con?
Fantastic_Joke4645@reddit
Isn’t the Telegraph a UK tabloid? Such a stupid article. Their missiles can’t hit Diego Garcia. The US wouldn’t be dumb enough to place their bombers in harms way. And the idea to launch missiles that would fall short? Talk about provocation. They are screwed, they can’t hit an 900’ aircraft carrier moving at 30-40mph and they can’t reach Diego Garcia.
So in the Trump administration’s words… you don’t have any cards.
NoAdministration5555@reddit
You are a dummy. Diego Garcia is in the Indian Ocean less than 3k miles away from Iran. ICBMs can reach 6-7k miles
Fantastic_Joke4645@reddit
Nope. Thanks for the name calling though.
https://www.understandingwar.org/backgrounder/iran-update-march-31-2025
Individual-Dot-9605@reddit
Dont worry Iran like the White House is a Russian proxy. There won t be a war maybe Some sable rattling and ‘warning’. Putin would never give the go ahead (won t be on Signal) to seriously hurt his closest ally. Divide and Conquer.
xlq771@reddit
Iran must really want the US to make Terhan the third city to have nuclear weapons dropped on it.
NotHankPaulson@reddit
Is this the start of Cuban Missile Crisis 2.0? Because it sure seems like it is.
NoAdministration5555@reddit
I don’t see a parallel
NotHankPaulson@reddit
Cuban missile crisis started with the US putting Jupiter missiles in turkey to which Russia responded by sending missiles to Cuba. In my opinion the US moving assets to the area is gonna cause Iran to respond in kind with building up assets within the IRGC network, and then we’ll respond upping the ante, and so and so forth. The admin is “yes-anding” the world into a tricky spot.
I see the parallel in the tit-for-tat militarization. If Iran did launch missiles at the B2’s, even if they don’t intend to hit them like the article claims, Trump would respond with strong man bullshit and kill another person in top leadership like Soleimaini.
That’s just my two-cents, so take it as you will. I’m by no means an expert. Just a regular dude
General_Tso75@reddit
First sign of attack will be removing Iranian missile bases from threatening Diego Garcia. Thanks for adding us to the Signal chat.
NoAdministration5555@reddit
It’s on Snapchat this time
DueceVoyeur@reddit
Does anyone have the Signal channel that will give us Iran bombing time?
squeakycheetah@reddit
no this time we're clean on OPSEC
DueceVoyeur@reddit
So are they using Telegram this time?
NoAdministration5555@reddit
Might be Snapchat. It won’t be Twitter because Snap has more users
daronjay@reddit
Do they have anything at all that can teach that far?
NoAdministration5555@reddit
Yes. ICBMs can go 7k miles and Diego Garcia is only 3k from Iran
fueledbyjealousy@reddit
The US has some stuff you wouldn’t believe could exist
Corrupted_G_nome@reddit
I think they meant Iran.
daronjay@reddit
I mean Iran
OkGrab8779@reddit
A first strike will be a terrible mistake and playing into the hands of the US.
With the last attack by Israel the Iran defences did not work well
NoAdministration5555@reddit
What hope does Iran have defending an initial strike by the US. None. It makes sense for them to strike first if they really feel we will attack. They don’t have anything to lose
Free-Range-Cat@reddit
Most unlikely that the Iranians would tempt retaliation in a 'Pearl Harbour' type of strike. More likely a false flag operation if it were to occur
nathanjm000@reddit
If we go to war can we have Trumps kids and the leader of irans kids fight the war
s1gnalZer0@reddit
Why don't presidents fight the war? Why do they always send the poor?
Floppydongjohnson@reddit
Table
tigerdogbearcat@reddit (OP)
Because it culls them poor and indoctrinates them into capitalist nationalism by convincing them their enemies are actually poorer people with funny names religions and skin tones on the opposite side of the planet.
nathanjm000@reddit
War is for the one big corporate family to profit off
Shoxx2024@reddit
I know Republicans are kind of dumb, but they can't be this dumb and purposely spike the price of oil/gas.....
freedomfrylock@reddit
Raising the oil price would absolutely benefit Russia in funding their war in Ukraine.
User_OU812@reddit
Europe already does that.
aRatherLargeCactus@reddit
They need crisis to further consolidate power and justify even more overreaches. And it’s not like oil price spikes harm the rich, far from it.
Shoxx2024@reddit
It will harm the people that vote for them....
aRatherLargeCactus@reddit
That hasn’t mattered before and certainly won’t matter now.
You’re operating under the assumption there’s going to be free and fair elections under Trump. There won’t be. Even if there will be, worst case scenario (for them) is they get voted out and the Dems continue to institute most of their right-wing agenda anyway, nothing fundamentally changes because the Dems are entirely disinterested in systemic change, and Trump or an ideological twin wins again after 4 years, and the cycle repeats. They win either way.
Shoxx2024@reddit
That's a whole lot of assumptions.
aRatherLargeCactus@reddit
He’s a fascist, he’s not just gonna give up power freely. The Dems were already trying to attack him from the right on immigration, the border, military “lethality”, support of Israel, handouts to corporations and billionaires and more during the election, and the immediate lesson post-election seems to be more of that, while also blaming leftists for the loss, and courting more billionaires and leaving their instruments of power untouched- so I don’t see how 2028 will differ.
dustycanuck@reddit
Sorry, which Republicans? The Republican MAGA or the Republican Guards? I need a playbook
Noyaiba@reddit
Their dividends will pay... Well.... Dividends. They are banking on 1) mass casualty events 2) the ones who are left paying exponentially more than they did before for everything.
Cut ties with our closest neighbors whom American citizens run to when they can't afford their medical care, invade the countries nearest to us with natural gas, ally ourselves with the dickhead who is invading HIS closest allies for rare earth minerals.
This.... This sounds familiar 🤔
mremane@reddit
Why would this even be known?
tigerdogbearcat@reddit (OP)
Maybe the Iranian added the Editor of the telegraph to the Signal chat.
mremane@reddit
Lol no... But what I'm trying to say is that if war plans are found on the internet, they are either fake or choreographed.
DustComprehensive155@reddit
It’s like the Hamas attack; they must realize that the response will be immediate and massive and that they can not stand up to the USA and Israel. So I wonder what the game is here.
Dazzling_Analyst_596@reddit
Didn't knew that they were retarded like that
westonriebe@reddit
Air defense systems like THAAD and patriot work better if the missile directly heading towards them… like a tiny base in the middle of the ocean like DG… Iran certainly knows that so maybe they are in some sort of vulnerable position in the nuclear procurement right now and are trying to buy time… i dont know but with what we know, this isnt making any sense…
DueceVoyeur@reddit
Plus the fact that DG is British territory. They ain't going to do that.
Corrupted_G_nome@reddit
An attack on one is an attack on all.
endlesssearch482@reddit
Assuming NATO would still care about the US after the last three months of shenanigans.
Acceptable_Hope_6475@reddit
How is iran going to her hardware all that way
RoastMasterShawn@reddit
I just can't see this happening. It's like North Korea, where the actual threat of attack is worth wayyyy more than actually attacking. If they did a first strike on an American base, do you really think an egomaniac like Trump would just be cool with it and try to de-escalate? He'd send the full might of 'Murica and Israel's army.
Corrupted_G_nome@reddit
They have moved in significant assets. Iran might never have another chance to do such potential damage.
GreatScottGatsby@reddit
It is honestly better to start a war on your own terms than to wait to be attacked first
tsekistan@reddit
Their missiles can’t even reach DG?
ThatEndingTho@reddit
In their acknowledged inventory, no.
However, they have been working on derivative IRBMs from North Korea with a reported range of striking DG from basically anywhere in Iran. They also have rockets capable of putting satellites in LEO, so they're already in ICBM territory.
tsekistan@reddit
Houthi comment aside (as it seems they’re hunkering down to avoid another barrage), the LEO question begins to encroach on space treaties and should they pursue this course US satellite defence-tech should include a few tricks other countries may not know about. As a knock-on thought, surely the use of those rockets would assume quite a lot of pre-prep and with Israeli assets/assistance in sure those locations/pre-prep areas are tightly observed? Other than a lucky shot it’s a low probability that Iranian current rockets can reach DG…no idea if that’s the case….just guessing. (Ye olde thumb suck…)
volitans@reddit
I wouldn't put it past them to launch from Yemen. That puts DG more in range of known Iranian missiles, and I'm sure the houthis would be amped at the idea of striking a U.S. base. Also gives Iran some "plausible deniability" as to whom the attack came from.
ThatEndingTho@reddit
Yemen is farther away than Iran though.
Enough-Meaning-9905@reddit
Not saying they will try nor succeed, however an actual hit it would be devastating to the US military.
7/20 B-2s are there right now, likely 5 or more of the 20 MOB's publicly disclosed, and a lot of logistics aircraft and other bombers too...
great--pretender@reddit
It would be seriously costly. Would there be any backup locations to run sorties from? It seems like many countries are not interested in letting us project power from them
YeetedApple@reddit
We can run them from the US with midflight refueling. I really don't see the benefit of a few hours less travel time for putting all them potentially at risk sitting there.
tigerdogbearcat@reddit (OP)
I don't think you realize how costly a fight hour on a B2 is...
Every flight hour you put on a B2 causes 119 hours of maintenance. You have only so long that you can defer that maintenance. B2 have one of the earliest RAM coatings and its easily broken down by wind vibration and moisture. Once it has been degraded the entire plane is blasted with wheat starch and the coating must be reapplied.
They only have so many flight hours to plan with. They wouldn't be able to do many repeats sorties like that and would increase the risk of mechanical failure in conflict zone or on transit.
FreedomCanadian@reddit
When I woke up today, I did not expect to learn that you need wheat to maintain a strategic stealth bomber !
great--pretender@reddit
My guess is turnaround time. More sorties are possible with greater proximity to Iran. We can refuel in-air, but we can't rearm in-air.
YeetedApple@reddit
That makes sense, though potentially losing 35% of the fleet wouldn't exactly help turnaround time. They must either think Iran can't reach there, or they can defend it reliably enough if they try. Just seems like a very risky gamble.
AmaTxGuy@reddit
Pretty sure those planes would be gone before the missile lands, second 1 middle can blow up a building not an island.
great--pretender@reddit
You raise a good point, I agree
NoRevolution6516@reddit
Why do that when they got Israel, this will a great time for Israel to prove its usefulness
great--pretender@reddit
With surrounding countries not cooperating and closing their airspace to sorties against Iran, Israel may be willing, but would be unable to help
Enough-Meaning-9905@reddit
All of the gulf states have refused to participate in any activities against Iran, including forbidding use of their airspace for logistics and SAR operations.
Carriers can offer little compared to a land base...
NoRevolution6516@reddit
What? you have no Idea how the gulf states hate Iran. Saudi Arabia wouldn't give up the opportunity to take out the Iranian threat and its proxies in Yemen that have been attacking Saudi oil.
And let's say the gulf states won't cooperate, this will be more proof that Israel is a key ally in the region.
Enough-Meaning-9905@reddit
Source: https://www.middleeasteye.net/news/gulf-states-refuse-launching-pad-for-us-attacks-iran
You can be assured no NATO participation either.
NoRevolution6516@reddit
NATO was useless during the gulf war.
But yeah, you're right.
Enough-Meaning-9905@reddit
You mean the one where the US said "they have WMDs" and everyone else said "we don't think so" and the US said "trust me bro" and no one did and then there weren't any?
sagephoenix1139@reddit
Ha. Yup. My late father's description of your synopsis was that it was America's "Hold my Beer..." war.
Enough-Meaning-9905@reddit
I think "Hold my beer..." war might be a broader descriptor than gulf war honestly, but I'm no historian
improbablydrunknlw@reddit
Can't operate B2s off a carrier either and as far as I know they're the only aircraft capable of carrying the MOB. Only other option that I know of is out of England but I don't know how viable this would be with airspace restrictions in the Gulf.
great--pretender@reddit
That's a tough one, can't run huge sorties off carriers. Still plenty firepower available, but the operational range would be seriously limited, putting them well within Iran's strike range
DueceVoyeur@reddit
The master strategist accumulating all his troops in one tiny place like a noob playing Risk
NighthawkAquila@reddit
They would be able to get those B-2s in the air within minutes of a launch. Non-issue
AmaTxGuy@reddit
Exactly the SAC base in my hometown could launch every b52 before an icbm could get here from Russia.
I didn't remember much but Mom says it was a pretty cool sight to see them all takeoff seconds apart.
My house was in line with the runway and a fully loaded b52 was about 500 feet above my house on the scramble exercises
hustle_magic@reddit
The US only bullies weak countries with less ability to fight back. China can fight back.
Albine2@reddit
Maybe Iran should start it this way they would be so over and the middle east would become stable again minus Iran
wanderingpeddlar@reddit
I really doubt they are requesting permission to try and strike that base.
The only thing that will accomplish is a lot of dead Iranian pilots.
And that is before you start taking into account both carrier strike groups in the area.
Away_Advisor3460@reddit
They'd be using missiles, not aircraft.
However I can't find evidence of any publicly known/disclosed Iranian missile with the required range, although there is speculation they could buy/develop such from the North Koreans (and I guess now the Russians).
wanderingpeddlar@reddit
You are not wrong. Now when the US struck back what would they hit first?
Corrupted_G_nome@reddit
The now empty missile silos?
wanderingpeddlar@reddit
Or you know the airbases like the US does every time they start fighting?
Corrupted_G_nome@reddit
Also hospitals and water pumping stations and ambulances and all kinds of other targets the US likes.
Im still missing your point?
AmaTxGuy@reddit
Command and control, those underground supply depot, the air defense and probably the nuclear facilities
SmedlyB@reddit
Well, you know Trumps needs a war to suspend the midterm elections. So, Trump is going to pick a fight with everyone till he gets one.
RymeEM@reddit
Boy, oh boy, as soon as Trump learns there is a base called "Diego Garcia," he'll sign an executive order to rename it to Base of America.
thedayafternext@reddit
Can't Iran just have Putin have a stern word with Trump in a private call? That will soon pacify the US.
great--pretender@reddit
From what we know, they'll need to request some missiles that can reach "immediately."
tigerdogbearcat@reddit (OP)
Yeah Preper Intel surely has the scoop on what Iran has in its underground missile bases...
great--pretender@reddit
"From what we know" followed by a joke. Do you hate laughter?
No-Connection7765@reddit
They are just chicken littling.
Dick-Swiveller@reddit
Good point
SubstantialAbility17@reddit
That would be a disastrous move for Iran.
blackstar32_25@reddit
I don't believe for a second that Iran is going to strike first. The US has been aggressing constantly on Iran since 1979. This article is shoddy propaganda designed to manufacture consent for the US striking Iran
Unusual_Specialist@reddit
This President would use this attack as an excuse to nuke Iran.
Scottamemnon@reddit
I think that is the only unlikely outcome.. Trump has repeatedly stated his dislike of nukes. Radiation means you cannot use the land... he is a real estate developer.
twinzerfan@reddit
This would be a very bad idea. They are essentially playing into the administration’s hands if they do, although that probably won’t matter anyway
tigerdogbearcat@reddit (OP)
I think they are planning a first strike as soon as Russia tells them it's happening based on their reconnaissance satellites. Iran doesn't have the surveillance capabilities to tell when it's happening themselves but Russia will certainly give them as much warning as they are able to they want to make things as complicated for the US as possible. They REALLY wanna get back at the US for the pre-invasion intel sharing with Ukraine that prevented the fall of Kiev.
ProfessionalAd3472@reddit
smells like 2001 level bullshit to me...Israel and Trump want to invade Iran so bad but they can't do it without help. But that help isn't coming. Fuck them both.
JacksMicroplastics@reddit
Is it possible these inflammatory headlines are intended for one person, Trump?
We know Trump and Iran have a grudge against each other. Are these headlines intended to goad Trump into doing something stupid which in turn raises oil prices which benefits Russia?
jmalez1@reddit
zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz
Open_Bluebird_6902@reddit
Looks like fake from miles
Bilbo_Bagseeds@reddit
We've been shooting down their shitty missile and drone barrages for months just with a few naval assets. They aren't going to be able to touch one of our strategic bases we've dug into for decades
Rip1072@reddit
Interesting development, comical to see the Iranian General Staff commit suicide publicly. Please, I beg you, 1st strike DG. The fireworks will be glorious! The Reign of the Tomahawks shall provide the light show, and condemn the fools to external darkness.
phoneacct696969@reddit
lol the trump admin is pumping this stuff so they can justify an attack on Iran. Don’t fall for this shit, Iran knows if they attack they get crushed.
kite13light13@reddit
Most likely a scare tactic because this sounds like it would be classified info on the Iranian government level if it was serious.
Adept_Artichoke7824@reddit
They are likely discussing it on encrypted channels and not Signal
redditcat78@reddit
Does Iran have that attack reach? I can’t imagine the USA & UK not having robust air defense for such a valuable location.
Relative-Ad-6791@reddit
There are reports of the is withdrawing from Syria and moving to Iraq
semena_@reddit
They literally do not have the capability.
YeetedApple@reddit
From what I can find from public info, this would be about double the range of their current ICBMs. It's possible they have better than what we know, but double seems unlikely.
NoRevolution6516@reddit
even if they do reach, the bombers would've taken off long before, those drones aren't going at mach speed lmao.