upvote
Idk, I don’t think Europe has the capacity to do anything except launch their nukes. If missiles started falling on London they’d run to the UN and start writing letters. It would take months for NATO to start having planning meetings to figure out how to plan the response. I feel like the only military capability is maybe the SAS and nukes. There’s nothing in between.
reply
You didn't have to take their word for it. It was self-evident from the fact they never did anything like this before, and now they are.

Notably, the previous guy issued a religious decree against the development of nuclear weapons. Despite American's favorite propaganda tool for manufacturing consent, "but the WMDs", we have no reason to believe that was ever actually being violated. But you'd better believe it will be now if they think they can pull it off.

reply
There is a difference between not doing something and being unable to do something. Clearly there were able but only showed it now and their previous claim was BS (again, assuming those missiles did fly "far").

No-one believes that Iran is not pursuing nuclear weapons, either... or that they wouldn't if they had developed the capability.

reply
Ayatollah Khomeini admitted that he had lied about plans to make Iran democratic.

This practice is known as taqqiya. It’s ok to lie if you’re deceiving the enemy.

reply
Did he also released a religious decree stating as much?

Because otherwise you're comparing apples to mushrooms. Not even themselves kingdom.

reply
Do the missiles Iran has been raining down on other countries for decades not count as WMDs?
reply
No.

“ A weapon of mass destruction is a nuclear, radiological, chemical, biological, or other device that is intended to harm a large number of people”

https://www.dhs.gov/topics/weapons-mass-destruction.

reply
Oh, that would be quite a spin. We can probably see it in the Faux News soon.
reply
No. There’s a definition from the UN here if you’re interested:

https://unterm.un.org/unterm2/en/view/UNHQ/9626F6CEB2A92C9B8...

reply
AFAICT, not by any commonly accepted definition of WMD:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weapon_of_mass_destruction#Def...

reply
Like they flattened Afghanistan? It is funny people thinks land war in an huge mountainous country with 90 million people is easy.
reply
Never get involved in a land war in Asia but only slightly less well-known is never go in against a Sicilian when death is on the line.
reply
Inconceivable!
reply
I wrote "flatten", not "invade".
reply
flatten with what?
reply
Like what is happening now, completely decimating their army, navy, and air force. If that isn't enough, destroy their only source of revenue (oil fields), or go even further and destroy their electrical grid and send the country back to the stone age.

Finally, if the regime does not surrender after all this, a nuke could still be used.

reply
> destroy their only source of revenue (oil fields)

That’s the worlds source or revenue.

reply
Lmao, from "we're here to bring democracy" to "let's destroy their civilian infrastructure" to "let's nuke them" real quick

If that's the US way, why are Russians the bad guy again?

reply
You don't use nuke on the regime, you use it on the civilians, FFS.

Genocidal freaks. As if Hiroshima didn't teach you anything.

reply
> On the other hand if Iran was to fire a missile at continental Europe I would hope that the consequence for them would be to be flattened

Iran have been attacking uninvolved NATO member Turkey for a while now and nothing happens. The USA is already fully engaged into this war while Europe can hardly deal together with Russia, it is doubtful they'd do anything even if it rained down on their territory

reply
It should be noted that Iran has publicly stated that the attacks on Turkey were false-flag attacks launched by Israel.
reply
Attacking as in a couple of rockets heading US bases which were intercepted. Of course nothing would happen, why would Turkey (or other European countries) join this pointless war?
reply
This is an attack on Turkish territory regardless if there's a US base, and Iranian missiles usually miss the bases anyway.

Turkey is led by a strongman leader and these are very sensitive to acts of public humiliation. So that's unwise when thinking about any negligible strategic advantage they may gain from these attacks

reply
deleted
reply
What incentive would Iran have to lie? Their entire security model revolves around believable deterrence—apparently far more believable than either Israel or the US understood.
reply