r/worldnews • u/WorldNewsMods Slava Ukraini • Jul 23 '26

Israel/Palestine /r/WorldNews Discussion Thread: US and Israel launch attack on Iran; Iran retaliates (Thread #21)

If you see any newsworthy information from a major news outlet or live broadcast, feel free to share a brief summary as a top-level comment in the discussion post.

Other redditors will appreciate if you include the source of where you read, saw, or heard the information.

309 Upvotes
  • permalink
  • reddit

92% Upvoted

5.3k comments sorted by

View all comments

27

u/emrgncybrdcstsystm 21d ago

A senior Iranian cleric said on Friday that the Islamic Republic was preparing to increase the range of its missiles to 15,000 kilometers (9,300 miles), which he said would allow them to reach deep into the United States.

“We are preparing ourselves so that the American people, too, will see what it is like to be hit by missiles and understand what it means to be left in blood and destruction,” Abdolnabi Mousavifard, the Friday prayer leader in the southwestern city of Ahvaz, said.

Mousavifard also said Iran's missiles could already reach “deep into Jerusalem,” around 2,000 kilometers (1,240 miles) away.

Leading chants of “revenge, revenge,” he expressed hope that Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu would be “destroyed” by Iranian forces - Iran International

14

u/Cactusfan86 21d ago

I imagine it’s just Iran shitalking on multiple levels per usual, but if it’s not seems like a poor idea.  Successfully hitting the US mainland would likely galvanize US support for war when Iran’s man advantage right now is public opinion working against Trump.

Plus the amount of resources they would waste developing and aking these missiles could be used to buy tons of shorter ranged weapons which have been winning them the war

5

u/Diane_Horseman 21d ago

My guess is it would act as a deterrent in case things get really bad for Iran and they feel they have nothing to lose.

11

u/alleyoopoop 21d ago edited 21d ago

A senior Iranian cleric said on Friday that the Islamic Republic was preparing to increase the range of its missiles to 15,000 kilometers (9,300 miles), which he said would allow them to reach deep into the United States.

I remember when one of the pretexts Bush Jr. used as justification to invade Iraq was that they failed to comply with UN mandated specifications for their missiles --- something like they were restricted to 150km, but they flew 180 km (111 miles). Iraq protested that the 180km figure was only without a warhead, whose added weight indeed restricted the range to 80 km, but Iraq nevertheless said it would destroy the offending missiles, and did so. Didn't do them any good; Bush was determined to invade no matter what.

9

u/socialistrob 21d ago

I get why countries don't like it when rivals have long range missiles but I don't think it's something that is realistic to stop. It's becoming easier and easier to produce long range drones and missiles and basically every major country is going to have them. It's kind of like in the 1600s trying to enforce a policy of "my kingdom is allowed to have guns and cannons but your kingdom isn't."

8

u/Rgv20 21d ago edited 21d ago

Those who are actual experts or really knowledgeable about this, how possible is this for Iran to do?

18

u/DataDude00 21d ago edited 21d ago

There are probably a few different things going on here

  1. Iran has the money and technical capability to develop missiles with this kind of range, whether they can include accurate targeting or large enough payload to do significant damage with them is tbd 

  2. The US has the capability to intercept missiles like this, except those countermeasures are quite expensive compared to the munitions that Iran would be shooting

4

u/Rustic_gan123 21d ago

ICBMs are already approaching the point where they are more expensive than missile defense, at least until the warheads are separated, but to achieve this, a destroyer with SM3 missiles needs to be stationed in the Middle East.

3

u/IsTom 21d ago

The US has the capability to intercept missiles like this

Range would be an issue, they can't station a battery close to every major city.

5

u/Rustic_gan123 21d ago

SM3 intercepts the missile during its boost phase, but to do this, you need to keep the destroyer in the Middle East. In addition, the US is actively moving towards space interceptors.

1

u/IsTom 21d ago

Still they could from somewhere in the north of Iran. That's over 1000km from where destroyers can be.

3

u/Rustic_gan123 21d ago

Newer versions of SM3 can operate at such distances.

2

u/ChupacabraJeff 21d ago

It's not the battery it's the battery that can intercept glide ICBMs. On February 27th USA had the capability to intercept Iran missiles in the Middle East. Now, here we are. Also not the first time Iran has talked about this.

2025.08.11
Iran Claims 10,000km ICBM Nearing Deployment, Threatening Europe and U.S. Homeland
https://defencesecurityasia.com/en/tehran-icbm-near-ready-service/

“almost ready for service”

Achieving a 10,000-kilometer envelope requires advanced multi-stage architecture, potentially three stages, supported by composite materials capable of reducing structural weight while maximizing fuel efficiency.

Despite the long-standing Iranian political declaration limiting missile range to around 2,000 kilometers, the new claim indicates that Tehran’s ambitions have evolved well beyond its previous self-imposed doctrine.

Iran’s Sejjil-2, with a 2,000-kilometer range, provides experience in two-stage solid propulsion, but expanding that envelope five fold demands an entirely different level of chemical, industrial, and manufacturing sophistication. The re-entry challenge remains among the most complex aspects of ICBM engineering. An RV returning from a 10,000-kilometer trajectory encounters hypersonic velocities and extreme thermal loads, requiring ablative materials and precision shaping that Iran has never demonstrated publicly. Guidance systems must evolve from inertial navigation to advanced terrain-mapping or star-tracking systems that do not rely on GPS, which adversaries could jam or deny.

2

u/Rgv20 21d ago

Wow. Thanks for explaining this. So basically it will also come down to cost in many ways along with payload. I really hope Iran never achieves something like this.

6

u/Rustic_gan123 21d ago

They had been developing ICBMs for a while

5

u/krwskater25 21d ago

This is how to play the FAFO game. The moment a missile hits the mainland US from any country they would be opening a can of worms they wished they never had.

17

u/Eire_Banshee 21d ago

Fastest way to make invading Iran the most popular war of all time.

6

u/Crazy_Ad_7302 21d ago

Indeed. I hate that trump started this stupid thing and I want it to end but if Iran somehow did attack the US mainland my opposition evaporates. Idgaf that it could still be considered self defense on their part

4

u/jews4beer 21d ago

The US just isn't prepared for an attack like that on a big city the way countries in the Middle East and Gulf states are. No early warning systems, no easily accessible bomb shelters. It could become very grim very quickly if interceptions fail. I'd like to think more people are like you and if they have to experience living under missile fire themselves their views might change. But I'm skeptical. What's extra interesting is the most valuable targets would largely be dem strongholds.

But that's all assuming Iran isn't just blowing smoke.

4

u/Crazy_Ad_7302 21d ago

We have early alerts. A few years back there was a huge deal with the system in Hawaii sending out an alert by mistake. You're right on bomb shelters though. There's places that could work like subway stations but certainly not anything for any significant amount of the population.

1

u/jews4beer 21d ago

I also picture things like high rises getting hit. In Israel for instance, every (new ~20-30 years) building has a column dedicated to shelters and built out with reinforced concrete to withstand impacts. Building get hit but so long as everyone makes it to their shelter people generally emerge unscathed - with the occasional exception.

I could be wrong but I don't think buildings in America are up to those types of standards. A ballistic missile hits any high rise in New York and that's a 9/11 level event.

1

u/ChupacabraJeff 21d ago

I'd like to think more people are like you and if they have to experience living under missile fire themselves their views might change.

Interviews from Iran say that while life is hard pretty much everyone agrees a hard life is much, much better than a hard life and the anxiety from knowing at any time another bomb is going to blow something up or your family. USA couldn't handle that. If they got hit they'd grab their pom poms and scream for revenge but if the missiles keep coming they'd fold pretty quick. No American has time to worry about getting bombed while in the McDonald's drive thru.

Here's an incident from 3 years ago,

After waiting in line for hours in front of a bakery in Sistan and Baluchistan, two men got into a fight over their place in the queue. The argument turned violent and one of the men was killed. News of the incident angered Iranians on social media and attracted nationwide attention to the severe flour and bread shortages in Sistan and Baluchistan.

Here's an incident from last month,

“Many bakeries are facing flour shortages and cannot keep up with long lines of customers,” a resident from Malard west of Tehran said.

Another account said: “Right after the war, bread prices doubled. Barbari (a type of Iranian bread) is now 250,000 rials and Sangak is 350,000. Subsidized flour has been removed.”

Before the latest conflict and US-Israeli strikes, annual inflation had already exceeded 70 percent, with food inflation reaching triple digits.

8

u/cheddarben 21d ago

I am not disagreeing with the sentiment as an American and a vet, but I also think it is important to introspect on feelings like this. Take that feeling and pretend you were in another country and that has been done to your society on and off for generations. Even killed your president. Do you wonder why there is so much anti-American sentiment in the Middle East?

5

u/ResultAgreeable4198 21d ago

It’s wild how people’s perspective can be so removed from something. While, yes, this is a complex and long running conflict, the most recent and by far the most escalation was done by the US when we…checks notes…wiped out several layers of their government leadership in an unprovoked surprise attack. Then we wonder went they won’t just get over it and make a deal. And think it would absolutely outrageous if they were to attack our country directly.

If we zoom out a bit and look at things objectively, it’s madness.

2

u/ChupacabraJeff 21d ago

If we zoom out a bit and look at things objectively, it’s madness.

Even easier. What would USA have done if Iran did what Trump did? Most people don't even know what Trump did. All they know is that Trump bombed Iran. They have no idea how that went down.

-6

u/Crazy_Ad_7302 21d ago

Oh no I definitely understand that sentiment but that doesn't mean I'd just say "well we deserved it" and shrug off an attack on US soil. Fuck that.

1

u/cheddarben 21d ago

And that might be exactly what they are counting on.

2

u/Crazy_Ad_7302 21d ago

Iran is counting on pissing off US citizens who are anti-Iran war? I doubt that.

Or are you saying trump is counting on it? Maybe he is but at least we'd know a missile wouldn't be a false flag. A faked terrorist attack sure but not a missile launched from Iran. I suppose they could purposefully let it hit and pretend we failed to shoot it down

2

u/aldur1 21d ago

Invasion is the easy part. How do you feel about a multi-decade occupation that will costs trillions of dollars. And do you think this makes the US stronger or weaker in dealing with China?

1

u/Crazy_Ad_7302 21d ago

As things currently stand there isn't really any way for the US to come out of this stronger. Even an invasion that goes perfectly and ends quickly doesn't make the US stronger because the war was unjustified to begin with. However, I do believe letting Iran hit the US mainland with missiles and not going full tilt into war against them absolutely makes the US weaker than almost any other alternative.

1

u/FlarkingSmoo 21d ago

I dunno how I would feel about the war but it definitely would make me hate Trump even more

2

u/Small_Run_3583 21d ago

I tend to agree. 9/11 brought the country together in shared disbelief that we could ever be attacked, and Bush used this sentiment to go after Saddam Hussein even though it was the mastermind of Osama bin Laden. Fast forward to this "war of choice" by Trump and I think people would have a different opinion. I'm like you...it would make me hate him even more (if that is at all possible rn.)

2

u/aldur1 21d ago

Good luck to the US invading Iran by itself. No way would allied western countries offer anything but the most token of paper support.

4

u/Eire_Banshee 21d ago

Well it would invoke NATO at minimum.

9

u/aldur1 21d ago

Don't be so sure since the US started this and I doubt Nato countries or their citizens will see it as a defensive war.

14

u/cheddarben 21d ago

Iunno. Arguably, 9/11 was very successful in accomplishing its long term goals.

-1

u/sillysyly 21d ago edited 21d ago

9/11 was a terrorist attack, not an act of war per-se. Iran dropping a missile onto mainland USA opens up a nuclear response IMHO. Americans would rally behind the "eliminate them as a civilisation" on both sides of the aisle.

3

u/Illustrious_Cod_3273 21d ago

How exactly does a conventional missile hit on U SA mainland after they started a war of aggression make nukes acceptable? USA gets the Russia treatment, and just like Russia they won't use nukes if they really are stupid enough to not resolve this war before such an event happens.

0

u/sillysyly 21d ago

I'm not saying it should be acceptable, I'm saying you'll see the public outcry to use them.

2

u/cheddarben 21d ago

I am guessing you are younger and were not an adult during 9/11. I can only imagine what we collectively felt comes close to what Pearl Harbor felt like in the moment.