Iran launched unsuccessful attack on UK's Diego Garcia

https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c5yljdgwppzo

Foreign secretary denounces 'reckless Iran threats' after missiles fired at Diego Garcia

Iran reportedly fired two ballistic missiles at Indian Ocean base, but neither reached the target.

Unfortunately this is more interesting than a failed Diego Garcia attack — the late Ayatollah had a self-imposed range limit on the strikes or tests they would carry out. By using IRBMs in this fashion, it’s clear the new regime no longer feels bound by that restriction..

Which is notable since it’s about the same distance from Southern Iran to Diego Garcia (3,800km) as it is from Northern Iran to London.

Excellent point. Maybe it's the goal of this attack to demonstrate this capability.

They had a religious ruling on the range, and they also had a religious ruling on "not creating an atomic bomb."

The question of whether the world can assume its security on some religious rulings of some Ayatollas is still standing, as these rulings can apparently be changed or bypassed.

> The question of whether the world can assume its security on some religious rulings of some Ayatollas

I don't think much of the world has processed that Iran's ostensible lack of nuclear weapons is purely a matter of will and not capability.

Maybe don't murder the religious leader that made the rulings.

Can anyone blame them for considering developing nuclear weapons for real now? I can't.

After being caught developing nuclear weapons for real numerous times, now it is really for real?
Were they caught by the same people who found WMDs in Iraq by any chance?

the IAEA, presumably you trust UN agencies?

in any case, these are the mythical WMDs found in Iraq:

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2014/12/03/world/middlee...

https://www.nytimes.com/2015/02/16/world/cia-is-said-to-have...

Chemical Weapons in Iraq: Revealing the Pentagon’s Long-Held Secrets

The Times investigated secret casualties of Iraq’s abandoned chemical weapons and the Pentagon’s response, including follow-up care for those exposed.

The New York Times

From your source:

> "These weapons were not part of an active arsenal. They were remnants from Iraq’s arms program in the 1980s during the Iran-Iraq war."

These are not the "WMD" that led to or had any involvement with 2003, it's dishonest to suggest so

These were chemical weapons found in Iraq, the reason the new york times was interested in the story was the fact that ISIS has somehow developed chemical weapons using Iraq's existing infrastructure.

This means there were active facilities, materials and know how even after the war

We have Joe Kent on mic saying Iran was not building nukes and posed no threat to the US.

The only people saying Iran was just about to get nukes are the Israelis, who've been saying that every 5 years for the last 40 years, and the only people who fell for it are magatards

I don't understand how people fall for this shit after the Iraq war scam, which was essentially the exact same propaganda

Well, maybe you have a plausible explanation for why Iran needed 60%-grade enriched uranium -- now that we've firmly established that it clearly was not for building nukes.
Do you have a plausible explanation why Saddam had anthrax ? Oh wait he didn't? Hmmm it really makes you think
Are you talking about the stuff he used to gas 100,000 Iranians in about 1984, or the stuff he used to gas 100,000 of his own citizens in 1988? Oh wait he didn't, it's all propaganda and war scam I guess.
I don't know but I can certainly blame them for oppressing and murdering their own citizens.

There are lots of countries doing just the same but the West does not give a flying fuck about it. Most of the human rights violations they care about somehow related to countries that happened to have oil.

And if you tell me that US /Israel are bombing Iran to protect rights of oppressed then I have that wonderful bridge.

But that has nothing to do with this war. Like, nothing at all. Israel doing genocode in gaza and what seems like ethnical cleansing of lebanon does not have anyyhing with that either. USA threatening Greenland is also not a factor in this war.

Donald Trump does not care about protesters in Iran. His idea of regime change is "keep the regime and change head for someone who will pay me personally".

And Hegseth does not care either. He is proving his manhood.

And Israel have completely different goals, so.

It is not like Saudi were democrats. They have cut that journalist into pieces. They are violent dictatorship on their own right.

Everyone does, the problem is that every time the US came to deliver democracy to the Middle East they left the place in a much worse shape than it was... Also I don't believe for a second Trump or Israel give a single fuck about Iranian citizens
That’s the thing that annoys me the most about that post-hoc rationale - we’re supposed to pretend that Donald Trump cares at all about Muslim protesters on the other side of the world?

> Maybe don't murder the religious leader that made the rulings.

Are you saying that politicians should be immune if they also serve a religious role?

I am saying it is bad to murder people. Period.

Don't start wars. Don't assassinate neither political nor religious leaders.

This "religious ruling" stuff is less interesting than it sounds. To begin with, while the Islamic Republic of Iran is a totalitarian state, the Twelver Shia hierarchy isn't unified. The supposed ban on nuclear weapons was Khamenei's, and binding only on his followers. But there are several other marja (marjas? marji?), with significant followings even in the security state & IRGC (al-Sistani being a good example).

More importantly, it's pretty clear that the geopolitical rulings are, well, geopolitical in nature. Iran is a nuclear threshold state; its strategy is to come as close to the breakout line as it can and extract concessions for not crossing it. The supposed nuclear fatwa is just public relations strategy. At the point Iran decided the cost/benefit/risk/reward of crossing the threshold made sense, it would be updated.

Your in-depth knowledge of completely random things never ceases to amaze me.
I'm Catholic and Twelver Shiism is the closest thing Islam has to Catholicism. It's a really neat system.

> But there are several other marja (marjas? marji?)

Wikipedia has romanized: [singular] marji'; plural marāji'.

Maraaji' is the pluralized version in Arabic, but nothing wrong with saying marjas. Marji would be most wrong though.

I agree with you, mostly. My read is that Twelver Shi’ism is not a unified hierarchy, and a marja’s fatwa normally binds that marja’s own followers rather than all Shi’a, so your institutional point is broadly right.[1][2] It is too strong, though, to say the anti-nuclear position was simply “invented for PR”: Khamenei did publicly describe it as a real fatwa.[3] At the same time, Iran’s enrichment posture _does_ fit the description of a threshold state, with large stocks of uranium enriched to 60%, so it is fair to say the ruling also had strategic and diplomatic value.[4]

The parts I would soften are the specific claim about Sistani having a significant following inside the IRGC, which MIGHT be true but is much harder to substantiate publicly (although, maybe you have some behind-the-scenes knowledge?), and the certainty of motive. Still, your last sentence is basically right: these rulings are not _immutable_. After Ali Khamenei’s death, Iran’s foreign minister said (quoting the Reuters article), “fatwas depend on the Islamic jurist issuing them,” and added he was “not yet in a position to judge the jurisprudential or political views of Mojtaba Khamenei…” This reinforces the point that doctrine can shift if the leadership chooses.[5]

[1] Encyclopaedia Britannica, “Twelver Shi’ah.”

[2] Al-Islam.org, “Question 49: Difference between hukm and fatwa.”
[3] Leader.ir, “Ayatollah Khamenei in the Eid al-Fitr congregational prayers” and “Leader’s remarks on anti-Iran sanctions and Yemen aggressions by Saudi Arabia.”

[4] Arms Control Association, “The Status of Iran’s Nuclear Program,” and ACA analysis citing the IAEA’s 440.9 kg figure.

[5] Reuters, “Iran says nuclear doctrine unlikely to change, Hormuz Strait needs new protocol” (March 18, 2026).

> the late Ayatollah had a self-imposed range limit on the strikes or tests they would carry out.

Can you elaborate on what kind of strikes the Ayatollah was carrying out within the old range limit?

The IRGC directly was mostly targeting US troops in Iraq (eg the 2020 Al Asad ballistic missile attack) and frequently responded to ‘Imperial Aggression’ with missile attacks on Israel - which peaked at 2,000km... They’d also been surprisingly consistent with limiting their proxies to SRBMs so that you wouldn’t get a random Hamas or Hezbolah missile into Central Europe.

Im really hoping they enforced those limits by not sending them IRBMs rather than sending them and ‘not letting’ them use the full range because I’m getting the sense their proxies would rather land some flashy strikes on soft targets instead of having everything swatted down over Israel.

I'd add that it's also a free opportunity to test IRBM targeting at much longer ranges.

The war of choice is really the US's Teutoburg Forest moment.

> it’s clear the new regime no longer feels bound by that restriction..

Wait a minute... Are you implying the dude who just got his dad, wife, brother, son and many other relatives killed by their arch enemies is not bending the knee?

Who could have predicted that?

That guy is dead or dying. He’s not in control of anything. There’s been no audio or video of him since the opening strike.
Whoever is in charge doesn't matter, I can guarantee you they're not in a more favorable mood than 4 weeks ago. They also killed one of only rational diplomatic Iranian officials, during active negociations, if you want to make it clear negociating with the US is useless that's exactly what you'd do