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.

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.

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.