It’s amazing how fast Qatari state media changes its tune when Qatari interests are threatened, isn’t it?
I read somewhere, and no longer remember where, that the logic is push those states to push the US to halt. Not sure the logic is great but they are left with little option. It is consistent at least with logic of a terrorist state though. Plus they are just throwing. Targeting is a luxury.
Thank you. If accurate, these are nevertheless attacks on perceived American proxies. Al-Udeid air base in Qatar alone has around 10,000 American personnel.
You know how many people say his supporters are in a cult? We now have the best proof ever that is the case.
He does not have to say anything about it.
His supporters do all the heavy lifting on that front.
They say you are gullible for believing that it happened.
In the rare cases where they must admit it did happen, they say the school was a front or at least was a staging ground for missiles.
And then there are others who say they deserved it for simply being Iranian or just being Muslims.
This is so much like the Holocaust deniers. They love Hitler and the Nazis for killing Jews but they deny Hitler and the Nazis killed Jews.
It’s not only a cult. It’s that cult.
Remember when Iran and Iraq were at war? Then when the coalition, led by the US, attacked Iraq, Iran and Iraq suddenly were BFF. What’s going to happen when one of those Gulf states withdraws their permission? Will the US/Israel coalition attack them pre-emptively? IMHO, if that happens, that Gulf state will suddenly become Iran’s BFF.
Given Iran’s attacked airports, I’ll have to go with “attacking Arab states”.
Why? Because they host American forces.
Re the school: So adjacent to a naval base is good enough? Wow! When I was a kid, for one year, I attended school ON a US military base. So that made me, a 7th grader, a legitimate military target? Nice to know.
Re the wannabe shah: I don’t think that’s a viable choice. While the Islamic Republic is not a democracy just like those of most of the posters here, it still has democratic elements. It’s not the govermental style that’s the problem for Iran’s people, but particular laws and their enforcement.
What?
What does this have to do with Abu Dhabi International, Kuwait International, Bahrain International, and Erbil International airports?
Moderating:
I’ve hidden a part of @wolfpup’s post upthread, as it was part of an extended Riff on Trump and his language which had gone on long enough. Since Wolfpup did come back to the topic, I’ve let the rest stand, but once again, we have plenty of threads to rip Trump on his malapropisms or failed language, lets keep this one on topic.
…why would they do this to protect the country that attacked them?
The Gulf states correctly view Iran as the biggest threat to the region. They aren’t going to do that.
Looking at it purely from an ignorant layman’s perspective, I would assume that Iran is trying to minimize the options that the US has for air-based operations. The big air base in Qatar was attacked, but it was one of the places where the missile(s) was/were successfully intercepted.
What does this have to do with civilian international airports that were hit? Do you imagine that the United States is landing F22s at Abu Dhabi International Airport?
From The Economist:
Edited Excerpt:
…Despite this stunning initial success at decapitating the regime, there is every chance that Mr Trump will not get what he wants. In the short run, Iran may wreak devastation in the region, by continuing to use its many remaining missiles to strike cities in Bahrain, Kuwait, Oman, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, and the United Arab Emirates, whose prosperity depends on being safe. The regime could also hit a base or a ship, killing a large number of uniformed Americans—news of the death of three American troops on Sunday hinted at the danger. By damaging oil fields or blocking tankers passing through the Strait of Hormuz it could drive oil prices towards $100 or above.
In the longer run, the strikes could also fail in a more fundamental way. The Iranian regime has long been preparing for the succession of Khamenei, an elderly and ailing man. For the time being, power rests with a triumvirate. In time, he may be replaced by someone who is likely to have been implicated in the killing of many thousands of Iranians in anti-government protests in January. With fresh blood on his hands, the new ruler could be just as hard-line and cruel as his predecessor. He may continue to stockpile ballistic missiles, safe in the knowledge that it would be hard to justify another war over that alone. Rather than renounce nuclear enrichment in exchange for the lifting of sanctions, he may conclude that, like North Korea, Iran needs a bomb to be safe from attack. Or perhaps Iran will collapse into chaos and civil war that could spill beyond its borders. In that case, who knows where its supplies of enriched uranium might end up.
Mr Trump must surely understand all this. His supporters tend to be against going to war, especially in the Middle East. Even if the oil-price rise is modest, it could rile MAGA voters as midterm elections approach… So why did he think the risk is worth taking?
One reason could be to outshine that long list of presidents by being the one to settle scores with Iran. For months allies urging caution, such as Gulf rulers, have vied for Mr Trump’s ear with leaders eager for strikes, notably in Israel. If hawks told Mr Trump that he could go down in history by settling scores with Iran, it worked…
Another reason could be the opportunity to deal with Iran while it was weak… In January’s protests the regime lost the faith of its people more profoundly than at any time since the revolution. Encouraged by Israel, which has successfully attacked Hizbullah in Lebanon and pro-Iranian forces in Syria, perhaps Mr Trump decided he would never have a better moment to act.
In this, Iran fits into a new and broad pattern in which America asserts power..
https://www.economist.com/leaders/2026/03/01/why-donald-trump-gambled-in-iran
(Quote is actually from Dr. Paprika’s quote from The Economist)
Is this meant to be funny? Because it is. Somebody who can’t understand tariffs after a lifetime in business is unlikely to understand the nuances of a very complicated situation halfway across the world.
“Trump has been informed many times” might be an alternate phrasing.
According to The Guardian
- Just 27% of Americans approve of the US strikes that killed Iran’s leader on Saturday, while about half — including one in four Republicans — believe Trump is too willing to use military force, according to a Reuters/Ipsos poll that concluded on Sunday.
Both.
One might wonder if the bases are so much better protected than civilian areas as to make cities a more attractive target than bases. But I’m not sure. The civilian areas seem fairly well protected, and the three Americans killed were likely on bases (is that true?).
Yes, in Kuwait.
Hezbollah is now bombing Israel.
Or because they are too friendly (or insufficiently unfriendly) to Israel.
Or because of other reasons more important to them than posters here.
Another factor is that the top people in Iran’s government, who might have run the retaliations a bit differently, died in the first minutes of the war.
Did someone here say that?
When I posted on this before, I meant that being adjacent to a naval base, when Trump ordered their navy to be obliterated, made it likely that the school attack actually happened as the Iranian government describes it, as opposed to being Potemkin-style propaganda.
Israel is going after Hezbollah as well.
Also musposted,
B-2 stealth bombers entered the fray last night. Targets were underground missile storage and launch sites. Smaller 2,000 lbs. class earth penetrator bombs were used instead of the 30,000 lbs. MOP used against the suspected nuclear sites previously.
That’s the sort of thing that happens in a full-scale war, yes. Civilian airports get repurposed as military bases.
Sorry if I had been unclear. I was referring to the remarks I’ve been hearing and reading from a certain warmonger’s supporters.
If the Iran war lasts more than a week, the US will begin running out of high tech munitions: