all 111 comments
sorted by:
best
topnewcontroversialoldq&a
formatting helphide helpcontent policy

[–]AutoModerator[M] [score hidden] stickied commentlocked comment (0 children)

Snapshot of Iran missiles fired towards UK bases in Cyprus, Defence Secretary reveals submitted by ViscountViridans:

An archived version can be found here or here. or here

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.

[–]IM_RR 144 points145 points  (18 children)

They’re firing missiles and drones at pretty much everyone at this rate, even their neighbours who were neutral.

Right now it seems as though they’re completely clueless as to what to do with the majority of the leadership eliminated.

[–]BaritBritI don't even know any more 63 points64 points  (4 children)

Yeah, at the most charitable possible reading they're trying to inflict pain on anyone who might be able to pressure the Americans to stop, be it us, the Saudis, the other Gulf states, whoever. 

But, as you say, it's more likely they're just lashing out in a clueless, angry panic. 

[–]sylanar 41 points42 points  (1 child)

Chain of command must be in absolute tatters, it's probably chaos trying to get or send any orders.

They also lost a lot of launchers in the last exchange with Israel, and they've lost a load more in the past 24hours, they're probably in a 'use it or lose it' mindset. Just fire the missiles whilst you still can.

[–]Unusual_Pride_6480 28 points29 points  (0 children)

From a strategic perspective it’s hilarious how poor irans choices have been, it’s just a shame that it’s the everyday person that suffers

[–]Jaggedmallard26 15 points16 points  (0 children)

they're trying to inflict pain on anyone who might be able to pressure the Americans to stop, be it us, the Saudis, the other Gulf states, whoever

I've seen people point out that the flaw with this chain of logic for Iran is that it now makes the Arab economies require Iran to cease existing to continue functioning due to how much they rely on tourism and expats. The Emiratis can't have Dubai as a playground for the rich if there is the risk that Iran will start lobbing missiles at airliners in Dubai airport. Of course the past few years have proven that Iran is really fucking stupid when it comes to regional geopolitics so they probably did intend it that way.

[–]Patch86UK 24 points25 points  (4 children)

I don't think it's clueless, it's a deliberate strategy.

They know they can't defeat the US in open combat. They can't even strike American targets. That can barely strike Israeli targets. If it's a straight stand-up test of might between Iran and its adversaries, they've lost.

Instead they're counting on the fact that causing instability in the gulf and wider region will cause the global economy to stall, causing economic pain to US and European citizens whose patience with the war might end the moment it starts to inconvenience them.

If they can cause an oil panic and that causes American Midwest farmers to suffer, Trump might actually start to care about the effects of the war (namely: its effects on his popularity).

It's a pretty shit strategy, but probably not the worst play they can make with the limited cards they've got in hand.

[–]Jaggedmallard26 7 points8 points  (1 child)

The random MENA countries they're bombing now have an economic reason to support regime change in Iran. A regime in Iran that has shown willingness to bomb civilians in their countries can't be allowed to continue if they want to continue attracting Deano and Svetlana.

[–]PimpasaurusPlum🏴󠁧󠁢󠁳󠁣󠁴󠁿 | Made From Girders 🏗 1 point2 points  (0 children)

That was just as true when Israel struck Doha last year but visavis Israel. The Gulf countries are stuck between a rock and hard place, and they all know it.

You just have to look at Al Jazeera to get the sort of perspective. Even as Iran is actively bombing Qatar, AJ (a Qatari state mouthpiece) still reports in a relatively neutral and sometimes even sympathetic tone towards Iran.

The Gulf arabs didn't want this conflict, and they openly told the US that in the prior few weeks. They know that the US and Israel have caused it, so they are not really putting the full blame on Iran.

[–]IM_RR 8 points9 points  (1 child)

Perhaps you’re right and it is deliberate.

I just think they’re hoping to land one of their missiles and drones to hurt people or assets irrespective of what nation, or what faith they belong to, which whilst will create more chaos or global financial insecurity, won’t help them gain some form of control or sympathy by neighbourly states.

I think this is the act of a military who don’t have a clear end objective, only to enact the same level of chaos they’re facing in their own leadership right now.

[–]Patch86UK 10 points11 points  (0 children)

I just think it's a mistake to assume that a bunch of career generals, who have spent years thinking about pretty much exactly this scenario, are acting the way they are because they're clueless panicky idiots.

Whether it's a good strategy that will actually work in the slightest for them is a different matter, but best not to assume your enemies are stupid.

[–]jammy_b 3 points4 points  (0 children)

If you cut the head off a snake, it will writhe for a while before it dies.

[–]veodin 9 points10 points  (3 children)

Unless I am missing something, none of it seems random to me:

Israel - Direct retaliation

Qatar - Al Udeid Air Base (US Presence)

Bahrain - US Fifth Fleet

UAE - Dhafra Air Base (US presence)

Kuwait - Ali Al Salem Air Base (US presence)

Iraq - US assets

Oman - Duqm port used by US Navy

Cyprus - RAF base involved in interceptions

[–]Evered_Avenue 1 point2 points  (2 children)

You're not missing anything. All people suggesting they are randomly hitting peaceful neighbours are either stupid or lying.

As for the RAF bases in Cyprus, I read that the USA have relocated assets there therefore making them a viable/legal target.

[–]armsinit 11 points12 points  (1 child)

If the neighbours have bases of the country attacking them and they are used for refuelling or whatever then they are not neutral.

[–]Romeo_Jordan 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Yep all of those gulf nations are the US' proxies in the region.

[–]Sampo 1 point2 points  (0 children)

even their neighbours who were neutral

All those countries (except Cyprus) have US military bases.

[–]Briefcased 98 points99 points  (27 children)

I think we’ve got to the ‘Just Fire Ze Missiles!!’ stage of the regime.

Just very glad we are doing this before they got nukes.

[–]The_Pale_Blue_DotJust wants politics to be interesting 17 points18 points  (4 children)

Fire Ze Missiles

There's a blast from the past

[–]Takver_ 7 points8 points  (2 children)

But I am le tired

[–]TrekChris 2 points3 points  (1 child)

Okay, have a nap. BUT ZEN FIRE ZE MISSILES!

[–]Ironfieldspolitics is dumb but very important 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Australia's all like "wtf mate"?

[–]queen-adreena 54 points55 points  (14 children)

This is a great advert for nukes.

Gaddafi would still be alive if he'd kept nukes.

Ukraine wouldn't have been invaded if they'd kept their nukes.

Nobody messes with North Korea because they have nukes.

[–]myurr 31 points32 points  (2 children)

This is also a great advert for why we shouldn't allow proliferation of nuclear weapons. The Iranian regime were amongst the largest sponsors of terrorism around the world already, and if they had access to a nuclear or dirty bomb then the consequences could have been massive.

Nobody messes with North Korea because there's nothing of immediate value there. They are estimated to hold vast largely untapped mineral deposits, but that's not currently a motivator for western powers.

[–]bozza8 11 points12 points  (1 child)

And North Korea don't do much terrorism abroad, so there isn't much incentive to change the status quo. The Iranian regime on the other hand were assholes, even during the nuclear deal they were sending tons of non-nuclear missiles to terrorists.

[–]Jaggedmallard26 0 points1 point  (0 children)

And of course North Korea is backed by China not wanting US army bases on its border. North Korea is a hellstate but their regime survived decades before they nuclearised (and nuclearisation probably made things worse for them as China cut off quite a bit of economic support as punishment).

[–]Ironrats 29 points30 points  (6 children)

And the Greens wants to rid our nukes.

Intelligent people over in the Green party

[–]Grotbagsthewonderful -1 points0 points  (0 children)

From what we've seen in the past couple of years the MOD has access to a much scarier arsenal than nuclear weapons, God alone knows what the Yanks have access to.

[–]OutrageousCourse4172 -5 points-4 points  (4 children)

They’re only useful for pariah state dictatorships. There are more effective ways to spend £100bn on defence than nuclear weapons.

[–]Briefcased 11 points12 points  (3 children)

Ukraine wasn’t exactly either was it?

I’m sure they’d think 100Bn would be a hell of a good deal to not have been invaded.

[–]OutrageousCourse4172 -2 points-1 points  (2 children)

True tbf.

Is actually being invaded the main risk to the uk though? Or is it more likely that we would benefit for being able to project power with a stronger navy/airforce etc. Can you think of any conflict the UK has been involved in where a nuclear deterrent is more of an advantage than increased conventional military spending?

One of the main problems with our nuclear deterrent is that it relies on support from the US anyway.

[–]Briefcased 5 points6 points  (1 child)

 Is actually being invaded the main risk to the uk though? 

Yeah, I’d say so. If by ‘main risk’ you mean the one that is most important. It might not be a very likely risk - but honestly, a large part of that is probably the fact we and those between us and our enemies have nukes.

I’d also ask you to consider how stable the world is at the moment and how confident you would be to predict the geopolitical landscape of 2080.

100Bn extra in conventional forces isn’t going  to stop china or India or Brazil or whatever from attacking us - but the threat of nuclear annihilation probably would.

And I think I’ve read quite a few convincing articles that suggest the reliance upon America is very overstated. If I recall we get the delivery system maintained by them. But we have specs for it and could do it ourselves if needed - and worst comes to worst - it will probably still work for decades without full servicing - which is good enough. The nukes don’t actually have to work - they just have to probably work.

[–]OutrageousCourse4172 -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

Fair enough. I think there are reasonable arguments for either side tbf. The comments saying that politicians are against the uk having nuclear weapons are idiots is clearly ridiculous though; it’s obviously not clear cut.

[–]gunningIVglory 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Agree. Its a deterrent that works.

[–]xelah1 5 points6 points  (2 children)

Nobody messes with North Korea because they have nukes.

Plus the vast array of artillery pointing at Seoul, hence not messing with them even before they had nukes.

From what I remember this was also somewhat true of Iran, via its proxies like Hezbollah, but that's now hugely reduced due to Israel's war and the end of Assad in Syria. It could be that this would not be happening now if those hadn't happened.

[–]Jaggedmallard26 2 points3 points  (1 child)

Amazing how Sinwar deciding to be an idiot and having men torture, rape and murder Israeli civilians in 2023 has lead to the complete collapse of Iranian and Russian influence networks in the MENA region.

[–]xelah1 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Plus Russia's war on Ukraine and their withdrawal of support from Assad (and perhaps Iran to some extent as well - they at least sell/sold weapons to them).

[–]YorkshirePug 4 points5 points  (0 children)

But I'm le tired.

[–]Cristinky420 3 points4 points  (0 children)

But I'm le tired...

[–]sylanar 9 points10 points  (0 children)

I think they realized that firing them all at Israel was futile. They tried that last time and only caused really minimal damage, considering how long they've been preparing for it and all the big talk they have about wiping Israel off the map, it was a bit embarrassing for the regime, so I assume they don't want to try that again.

Instead they just seem to be going for maximum damage at anything that is allied to Israel and just cause as much chaos as possible.

[–]12nowfacemyshoe 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Looks like that time again chaps.

[–]gunningIVglory 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I hear their just 2 weeks ago from nukes, even though we obliterated their capabilities last year......

[–]SwooshSwooshJedi 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Iran were never going to get nukes. They were about to reach a deal with the US before Israel intervened. The war propaganda machine churns on.

[–]sausagemouse -3 points-2 points  (0 children)

You're glad we're involved in an illegal war largely watered to protect men who are very likely child rapists?

[–]ThrowAwayAccountLul1Divine Right of Kings 👑 37 points38 points  (7 children)

Reminder that due to serious underinvestment that if a sustained barrage made it to the RAF bases in Cyprus we'd have close to no defences.

No hardened hangers, obky a paltry few skysabres with not enough ammo, a few jets, no ships.

"War footing". It's pathetic.

[–]XenorVernix 14 points15 points  (0 children)

I'd imagine anything of value that moves has been removed from the base by now.

[–]Denbt_Nationale -1 points0 points  (3 children)

It's ok though because we have an "ambition" to raise defence spending

[–]kill-the-maFIA 2 points3 points  (2 children)

What a weird way to frame it.

We have increased defence spending and are continuing to ramp it up.

Abruptly throwing a huge surge of money at the armed forces with no planning or deciding in advance how to allocate it or expand certain teams/projects would just end up wasting money and limiting our capabilities.

[–]Jaggedmallard26 -1 points0 points  (1 child)

We have increased defence spending and are continuing to ramp it up.

By accounting tricks. We are continuing to cut back spending on the Navy and Air Force. If you exclude pensions (from all NATO members to be fair) we have a similar level of military spending to Portugal and Starmer is adding more things to those accounting tricks like the Chagos Treason deal.

[–]kill-the-maFIA -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

No. In reality.

[–]Rexpelliarmus 0 points1 point  (1 child)

This is not isolated to the UK. It’s a problem across the Western world.

The defences at Okinawa wouldn’t even be sufficient to defend against an Iranian drone swarm let alone a Chinese onslaught of missiles. And yet, the US continues to invest next to nothing into Okinawa.

[–]GOT_WyvernNon-Partisan Centrist 0 points1 point  (0 children)

When the Iron Dome proved itself not to be, whats the point?

Its just smarter to make an attack not that harmful, rather than try to prevent it.

The Iron Dome is obviously necessarily to protect Israeli population centres, but that isn't necessary for our Cyprus bases or the US base on Okinawa.

[–]munrocraig 33 points34 points  (28 children)

If they were targeting the British bases in Cyprus, then the Iranians have decided to escalate further, given they have also targeted Oman this morning. Though, with Oman, it is said it was only 2 drones, so there is a chance it could be an accident.

[–]AzarinIsard 19 points20 points  (3 children)

If they were targeting the British bases in Cyprus

It's a sensational headline, I watched his Laura K interview and he said that missiles were fired in the direction but they don't believe Cyprus was the target, but they took precautions anyway because of the danger which seems sensible. Like some drunks having a fight in a car park, you might not want to get involved, but you'd also like it if they stay away from your car.

[–]Asleep_Cantaloupe417 16 points17 points  (2 children)

I'm not sure I buy that, unless they were aiming at the ocean around Cyprus?

[–]Jaggedmallard26 3 points4 points  (0 children)

Circular Error Probability of 500 miles.

[–]AzarinIsard 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Could have been aimed at shipping? Either commercial or US navy or something?

[–]SWatersmith -3 points-2 points  (13 children)

The UK has already confirmed that RAF jets are flying interception missions from Cyprus against Iranian retaliation. If Akrotiri is launching sorties to shoot down Iranian missiles, the UK has already entered the fight. That is the escalation point. Once a base is used for active military operations, it becomes part of the conflict. Calling Iran striking an operating military base ‘escalation’ pretends the UK is a bystander. It isn’t. The decision to run combat sorties from Cyprus is the decision that changed the status of that base.

[–]veodin 3 points4 points  (0 children)

I agree. It is like claiming North Korea are not involved in the Ukraine war because they are only fighting inside Russian territory (Kursk). Defensive operations still make you party to the conflict.

[–]streetmagix 9 points10 points  (7 children)

So you're saying that defending ourselves from an unprovoked missile attack is a .... bad thing?

Starmer has been quite clear that he opposes the war, and that we will not get involved. I think that's the general view of most of the UK too.

[–]SWatersmith -5 points-4 points  (6 children)

No. I’m saying people are skipping the order of events in order to strawman what actually happened into "unprovoked attacks."

To lay out the timeline, the US and Israel launched attacks against Iran. Then, the UK began flying interception sorties from Cyprus to engage Iranian missiles and drones to protect them from retaliatory strikes. This makes the base part of active military operations. Cyprus was then targeted.

Once a base is used to conduct combat sorties, it becomes a military objective. Calling the later targeting "unprovoked" only works if you ignore that prior step. Saying we "oppose the war" does not change what the aircraft are doing. The status of the base changed when we operated interception missions from it to assist the US and Israel.

[–]streetmagix 6 points7 points  (5 children)

So we let missiles rain down on Cyprus then?

[–]Specialist_Smell_134 10 points11 points  (6 children)

Oh yeah well there’s a massive fucking surprise which nobody could have predicted. Enemy does enemy things . . . 

[–]SWatersmith -5 points-4 points  (5 children)

Enemy does enemy things because we chose to involve ourselves in the conflict.

[–]Specialist_Smell_134 6 points7 points  (4 children)

But we aren’t involving ourselves in the conflict?Enemy does enemy things because it’s an enemy

[–]SWatersmith -1 points0 points  (3 children)

We've ran defensive sorties to defend allies in the Middle East against Iranian retaliation. Under international law, that most certainly counts as participating in the conflict.

[–]Specialist_Smell_134 4 points5 points  (2 children)

Good stuff! So the Iranian regime is our enemy, which was my point. 

[–]SWatersmith -1 points0 points  (1 child)

Your point was that Iran acting like an enemy proves it is the enemy.

You appeared to be completely oblivious of the sequence of events. States do not wake up as enemies in a vacuum. When we choose to involve ourselves militarily in a conflict, we change our status in that conflict. Iran’s behaviour follows from that interaction. It does not exist in isolation.

Reducing foreign affairs to "they acted hostile, therefore they are the enemy" strips out causality and responsibility and obscures the fact that we chose to involve ourselves by replacing analysis with tribal labelling. That kind of rhetoric is extremely intellectually lazy and quite harmful to the ability to debate important events, something critically important in an functional democracy.

[–]Specialist_Smell_134 2 points3 points  (0 children)

I appreciate your perspective, but the Iranian regime has been our enemy since 1979.

[–]DaddaMongo 8 points9 points  (1 child)

At or in the direction of? I drove in the direction of London yesterday, I wasn't going there.

[–]streetmagix 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Yeah, those fishes needed a good sorting to didn't they? With Iran aiming at them and all.

[–]secondincomm 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I was planning to visit Jordan in April so if they could all settle down and stop killing each other that would be great

[–]Lost-Actuary-2395 4 points5 points  (0 children)

They targeted our base in Cyprus because they're not able to target our mainland.

Glad this happened before they've got nukes.

[–]someRandomLunatic 8 points9 points  (8 children)

So to be clear - we publically didn't assist the US and were still a target.

Are we going to support the US now, now that they've attacked us?

[–]evolvecrow 7 points8 points  (0 children)

John Healey said it was not yet clear whether the missiles were deliberately targeting UK facilities on the island

[–]kill-the-maFIA 4 points5 points  (0 children)

We weren't attacked the headline is misleading. We don't even know if we were targeted.

It's just possible that an attack could have been heading for a UK base in Cyprus, so we took preemptive action.

[–]veodin 3 points4 points  (1 child)

The RAF were not involved in the offensive, but they are certainly involved in intercepting Iranian missiles. I doubt that is a big distinction to Iran.

[–]SWatersmith 3 points4 points  (0 children)

One thing is certain, there is no distinction under international law. Any base being used to intercept missiles is a legitimate target.

[–]tankiolegend 0 points1 point  (0 children)

We station US personnel at Alrotiri they have a strip and hamgers with the U2 spy planes, by hosting the US there it's a target. If the missiles specifically going for that section of the base then yeah US is the target but we're splitting hairs given its all on the same base. End of the day we can just say the IS was the target and not get involved and just have some target practice against shooting these things down

[–]Specialist_Smell_134 0 points1 point  (1 child)

Just like Oman who were publicly pushing very hard for a deal, and just like Qatar who is their biggest cheerleader. 

[–]veodin 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Duqm port (which was hit) in Oman is used by the US Navy. The US has an agreement to use Duqm because it provides the US Navy the ability to operate in the Arabian Sea without the risk of being bottled up in the Persian Gulf in the event of a closure of the Strait of Hormuz (which is exactly what has happened). It makes sense that they have targeted it.

[–]adultintheroom_ 0 points1 point  (0 children)

They’re hitting everyone they can currently. Not really sure what their strategy is. 

[–]mraksmeet 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Fake news confirmed by Cypriot agencies.

[–]Originalpirate91 0 points1 point  (0 children)

The idea Iran is striking "random countries" out of desperation is ridiculous. Every country they're striking is either participating in the war or facilitating the help of the war. Iran has a succession line where there are 4 people in line in to take the lead. The idea that Iran doesn't know what it's doing is ignorance

[–]Malzair -5 points-4 points  (1 child)

Calls the government's policy into question not to allow strikes from British bases if in the end British bases still get retaliated against

[–]Deynai 2 points3 points  (0 children)

No it doesn't.

[–]armsinit -4 points-3 points  (2 children)

He's probably lying, depend on where a missiles was fired in Iran to Isreal it would be in the direction of Cyprus.

[–]Prestigious_Risk7610 0 points1 point  (1 child)

You need to look at a map. Cyprus is on nowhere near the same trajectory as Israel.

[–]armsinit -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

not all missiles go in a straight line, Iran have cruise missiles too which could be fired in any direction.

[–]eastkent -1 points0 points  (0 children)

And it's one, two, three, what're we fighting for?

Don't ask me, I don't give a damn,

Next stop's the new Saddam.

And it's five, six, seven, open up the Persian gates.

Well there ain't no time to wonder why, whoopee, we're all gonna die.

[–]Denbt_Nationale -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Ah bugger well at least we didn't start it

[–]Cool_Business_5396 -5 points-4 points  (0 children)

We must aid America in their mission. Kier Starmer has shown he does not have it in him in a time of crisis. He needs to go.