undefined | Better HN

0 pointsbitcurious22d ago0 comments

More accurately, Israel was going to attack Iran, and US intelligence stated that Iranian retaliation planning was to target US forces, along with most gulf nations and shipping lanes, so US preempted that retaliation.

0 comments

Jtsummers22d ago

If the retaliation was preempted they wouldn't have retaliated, but they have. What the US actually did was provide justification for the retaliation against US bases in the region by joining in the opening salvo.

Jensson22d ago

> If the retaliation was preempted they wouldn't have retaliated, but they have

Most of the retaliation was preempted but they didn't get all the missile launch sites. They have blown up most by today though so you barely see any Iranian missiles coming out of the country now.

If they didn't do the opening salvo you would have seen much more death and destruction than we saw now.

spaghetdefects21d ago

> They have blown up most by today though so you barely see any Iranian missiles coming out of the country now.

That's not true at all, the only reason we don't see any footage is because Israel is censoring it. Here is CNN last night admitting that they're not allowed to show you the impacts:

https://x.com/ShaykhSulaiman/status/2029173685563564407

bjourne22d ago

That's quite a preemptive form of preemption! Was the US intelligence from the same source that stated that Iraq was acquiring "yellowcake" from Niger?

anigbrowl22d ago

Preempting Israel seems like it would have been a much smarter strategy.

tw-20260303-00122d ago

Maybe you haven't noticed but they have not preempted anything.

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse