So in the last 24 hours we learned that the [UAE launched secret attacks on Iran in retaliation](https://www.reuters.com/world/middle-east/uae-has-been-secretly-carrying-out-attacks-iran-wsj-reports-2026-05-11/), that [Kuwait said a paramilitary Revolutionary Guard team tried to infiltrate Bubiyan Island on May 1](https://apnews.com/article/iran-us-israel-uae-iron-dome-f3d5738853111cfc80985c157edab7c3), and now that the Saudi's were launching secret attacks on Iran in retaliation in late March.
Can't tell if all this coming out now is supposed to put more pressure on the US or Iran or both regarding not going back into a full on war again. Also, that it just so happens to be right before the big US-China meeting on Thursday, given China's support for Iran.
123
Dofolo14 hr ago
+71
You're missing Israels secret base in Iraq
71
brothers_keeper_ccc6 hr ago
+6
Sounds like saving face right before a peace deal. That’s a gut feeling but who knows.
6
Snigglybear13 hr ago
-17
It looks like the U.S. may be gearing up for a full invasion. I’m guessing the U.S. figured out how weak Iran is and is now going to pounce.
-17
BendicantMias12 hr ago
+22
Lol no! The Iraq invasion involved 600,000 troops, and Iran is 3 times larger and more mountainous. Trump has barely a tenth of that force in theater, so he is definitely NOT preparing for a full invasion. You would definitely know if that were the case, as the buildup would have to be enormous for it.
22
ApprehensivePay173511 hr ago
+19
Good thing he hasn't replaced all of his top generals and advisers with yes men freaks or things might get ret really ugly.
19
LateralEntry10 hr ago
+8
It was never more than 150,000 troops in Iraq
8
BendicantMias10 hr ago
+5
589,799 coalition forces, comprised of 466,985 US personnel, 50,000 British troops, 2,000 Australian, 70,000 Kurdish and some assorted special forces.
5
LateralEntry10 hr ago
+11
Over 10+ years, not all at once
11
tropango8 hr ago
+1
> so he is definitely NOT preparing for a full invasion.
When did that stop him from doing anything though?
1
Snigglybear9 hr ago
-2
The U.S. isn’t going to use a million soldiers to invade Iran. They’re going to use less than 100,000 and use drone swarms, MOABs, artillery, and white phosphorus/cluster bombs to finish the job. This is modern warfare. The mountains will be the bane of Iran because of thermal vision equipped drones.
-2
[deleted]8 hr ago
-1
[deleted]
-1
Snigglybear8 hr ago
+1
I’m 30, so I guess I’m quite young! But, yea, modern warfare is about groups of 4 soldiers, drones, white phosphorus/cluster bombs. If you’ve been paying any attention to the Russian invasion of Ukraine, you’d know this is the future of warfare.
1
PixelNotPolygon13 hr ago
+32
Why stop at one costly mistake when you can have many?
32
Snigglybear13 hr ago
-13
Idk. Iran keeps making costly mistakes, but they don’t seem to care.
-13
ApprehensivePay173512 hr ago
+17
Seems like wiping out billions of dollars of us high end military hardware and closing the strait of hormuz is smashing success in the context of a defensive war. Not sure how they could be playing the hand they were dealt better.
17
Snigglybear11 hr ago
-4
I don’t know man. The U.S. has caused $270 billion in damages to Iran, it’s losing almost half a billion a day since the U.S. closed the strait of Hormuz, and crippled its economy when the IRGC initiated the internet blackout. These are extremely costly mistakes for an economy the size of Iran’s.
-4
ApprehensivePay173511 hr ago
+9
Iran was the one sneak attacked while engaging diplomatic negotiations under false pretenses. They didn't choose to go to war at all so those things are not "mistakes" but strategic levers of power to use on an enemy with greater resources. The mistake was choosing to place the Iranian regime into the circumstances where their survival necessitated this drastic global economy disrupting measures. In the end they'll tolerate more deaths and more economic pain but will end up in a stronger strategic position and america will end up in a weaker ones.
9
Snigglybear11 hr ago
-1
The mistake Iran made was threatening the U.S. for 40+ years and funding Islamic terrorists while the U.S. engaged in diplomatic talks with Iran.
-1
DonOccaba10 hr ago
+9
Didn't the US quite famously sell weapons to Iran back in the 80s?
9
ApprehensivePay173510 hr ago
+13
Yes but it was only so we could finance right wing death squads in central america.
13
Snigglybear10 hr ago
+1
Well, Iran placed an order for US weapons.
1
ApprehensivePay173511 hr ago
+10
And we toppled their democratic government to control their state oil company, aided Sadam Hussein with using chemical weapons against them in the iran/iraq war, invaded and destabilized two of their neighbors and funded terrorist groups of our own against them. https://foreignpolicy.com/2013/08/26/exclusive-cia-files-prove-america-helped-saddam-as-he-gassed-iran/
10
Valleyguy8111 hr ago
+6
Why don't they like us??
6
iamstephen112811 hr ago
+3
Heard a commentator liken this situation to a schoolyard fight between a bully and a much smaller and weaker child. The bully has alot to prove, as his reputation relies on his ability to threaten others with his power. The weaker child, on the other hand, has nothing to lose. Every blow landed is a statement, every moment survived a victory in its own right. The longer the fight continues, the worse the bully looks.
The series of mistakes worth mentioning is that leading to this war in the first place. Tearing up the JCPOA was a tremendously stupid move and its been mistake after mistake since. Nothing about the world is safer now than under the JCPOA, quite the opposite.
3
CryptoThroway820511 hr ago
+6
Is that why the USS Ford strike group left? To gear up for a full invasion?
6
Snigglybear11 hr ago
-2
Carriers need to be resupplied and repaired. It’s going to be a land invasion so carriers aren’t really needed. There’s currently 50,000 troops in the Middle East. What we really need is to unleash the drone swarms, submarines, white phosphorus, cluster bombs and Moabs to finish this war quickly.
-2
BendicantMias10 hr ago
+3
50,000 troops is less than a tenth of what Iraq was invaded with, a country a third the size of Iran. The most you can do with that number is some smash-and-grab special operation to try getting their refined uranium and get out, assuming you know where it is and that they haven't spread it across multiple locations. Or they could try to attack Kharg island, but then they'd be stuck there. You definitely can't invade Iran with 50,000 troops lol!
And your list of fancy weapons to 'finish this war quickly' are a mix of childishly laughable and outright war crimes. Drones are what Iran is using to great effect, the US' drones are mostly horribly expensive - plus the drones would just bomb Iran, which has already failed. Submarines are just LOL! What the hell do you think they're gonna do, pull on the beaches? White phosphorous would be a war crime, and also just galvanize the Iranian population against you more as it's basically got no use but to inflict mass civilian casualties. Cluster bombs would be the same, and again bombing has failed to win already. Moabs are just bigger bombs, that would do nothing but kill even more civilians. Again bombing has failed. Why don't you just suggest nukes next with how childish your ideas here are lol?
3
WongUnglow10 hr ago
+1
Bombing into submission has never worked, ever. You can bomb the c*** out of everything to soften their capabilities, but you'd still need hundreds of thousands of soldiers for it to have any effect.
1
Snigglybear9 hr ago
Wtf? Didn’t we bomb Japan into submission?
0
WongUnglow9 hr ago
+3
They were blockaded, kicked off the islands, navy destroyed, a massive invasion force on its way. The A bombs were a flex to the Russians to halttheir advance in Asia.
The emporer had lost the will to fight but couldn't surrender, so in a way to not lose face, the bombs were a convenience and a good justification to his people. As the war was already lost. Check out Hirochito's Speech.
So no, the bombs didn't beat Japan into submission, either.
3
SilveryDeath13 hr ago
+8
> I’m guessing the U.S. figured out how weak Iran is
I don't know about that. Just from today: ["Secret new assessments say Iran has operational access to 30 of its 33 missile sites along the Strait of Hormuz."](https://www.nytimes.com/2026/05/12/us/politics/iran-missiles-us-intelligence.html?smid=nytcore-ios-share)
8
Aggressive_Lie_444613 hr ago
+5
Those are quite literally the first places to be targeted. If the US puts boots on the ground, it will 100% be Hormozgan Province which is the region around the Strait of Hormuz, including Qesh island
5
Snigglybear13 hr ago
-3
Paywalled
-3
NobodyLikedThat113 hr ago
+5
oh goody, boots on the ground. In the Middle East. That always goes so well for us.
5
Groundbreaking_Can_416 hr ago
+151
Here's something interesting from the report:
" By the end of March, diplomatic contacts and the threat by Saudi Arabia to take a more hawkish approach akin to the UAE and retaliate further led to an understanding to de-escalate, the Western sources said.
From more than 105 drone and missile attacks on Saudi Arabia in the week of March 25-31, the number fell to just over 25 between April 1-6, according to a Reuters tally of Saudi defence ministry statements.
Projectiles fired at Saudi Arabia in the days leading up to the wider ceasefire were assessed by Western sources to have originated in Iraq rather than Iran itself, indicating Tehran had curtailed direct strikes while allied groups continued to operate."
So the last couple of strikes before and after the ceasefire weren't from Iran technically. Explains why KSA-iran maintained diplomatic contact still
151
ADP_God16 hr ago
+44
Interesting that they respected the threat…
44
itchslap13 hr ago
+24
They knew they couldn't face someone as large as Saudi Arabia so they decided to focus on the smaller countries like Kuwait, Bahrain, Qatar, and UAE.
It's like the large school bully who loves to bully the smaller kids but stays away from the bigger kid once he knows that kid can hit back stronger.
24
FreeDo0m6 hr ago
+9
What are you talking about haha, KSA can't even handle the houthis
9
ishitthunder4 hr ago
+6
Said in the context of AMERICA bullying smaller countries since forever, this is a hilarious take
6
PsychologicalSet86784 hr ago
+1
Lol. Saudis army is a nothing burger compared to the US/Israel alliance.
It means that the Saudis wanted a diplomatic resolution to the war, unlike the deluded UAE sheikhs.
1
MindlessNectarine37414 hr ago
+14
Does Iran have many allies in Iraq?
14
No-Space93710 hr ago
+17
Iran set up their own allies in Iraq.
The IRGC Quds force is responsible for setting up and maintaining proxy militias in predomintely Shia majority countries, or in countries with a large Shia presence as a way to exert their influence. Just recently at the start of the US-Israeli war on Iran you had the Iraqi foreign minister admiting that if the the Iraqi militias of the PMF(Popular Mobilization Force) like Kait'ib Hezbollah was to join in with Iran on attacking the allied forces, the Iraqi Army was not strong enough to stop them.
They are essentially trying to set up a parallel to Lebanon, in which a militia backed by a foreign government is funded, armed and trained so extensively that they become the defacto military force in the region, yet beholden to only a certain subsect of the society, and who's true loyalties lie outside of the country.
Combine this with the Iraqi energy dependence on Iran, and Financial independence from Western backers and you have a tug of war between Iran and America that plays out in different ways, as seen recently by Trump threatening removal of financial assistance if the Shia party nominated the former Prime Minister, and staunch Iran supporter, Maliki, into office.
17
LateralEntry10 hr ago
+13
The Shia militias. Iraq is majority Shia
13
Some_Conference209113 hr ago
+25
Basically Iraq is a mess as a direct result of the US invasion/occupation and has led to Iran gaining vast influence in Iraq.
Iraq is where Iranian power projection is most deeply embedded. The influence is cultural, religious, political, military, and economic.
Iran is one of Iraq's largest trading partners. Iraqi markets are flooded with Iranian goods, and Iran exports electricity and gas to Iraq (leverage it has used politically). Cross-border smuggling networks also benefit Iranian-aligned networks.
It's a complex situation. The region is less stable than it was prior to 2003. Iran's nuclear program is a side effect of the US foreign policy mistakes in the region, it was a response to US threats.
25
nicklor12 hr ago
-4
Iran made the mess during the invasion propping up militas that supporter their interests
-4
HumansNeedNotApply17 hr ago
+8
That's not true, Iran backed Militias only became a thing post ISIS, Iraq almost fell to ISIS and the Iran backed militias essentially saved the country, that's why they have this weird official status within the country.
8
nicklor7 hr ago
-1
Katib Hezbollah was founded in 03 and is currently the strongest milita in Iraq
-1
HumansNeedNotApply17 hr ago
+4
Sure, but their growth in power and influence happened due to the ISIS chaos when it was reoganized as an arm of the PMF.
4
MindlessNectarine3744 hr ago
+1
That sounds logical. Iraq heavily suffered by ISIS.
1
Some_Conference20919 hr ago
+2
You obviously don't know much about Iraq
2
nicklor9 hr ago
-6
I'm sorry the facts are not in agreement with your worldview. But im not going to argue with a bot.
-6
Scared_Step405110 hr ago
-1
>US invasion/occupation
you mean...the coalition
-1
ADP_God3 hr ago
+1
Iran basically occupies Iraq. They have proxy forces there like they do in Lebanon, and they exert massive control through coercion and threat of violence.
1
Lestroyfthi15 hr ago
+46
So news sources are only now reporting on what OSINT accounts already claimed weeks ago. Why so tight lipped until now?
46
Equivalent-Rice808314 hr ago
+64
Arab states cannot be seen fighting on the side of Israel.
In the 90s during the Iraq war, Iraq attacked Israel with missiles and rockets. The US asked Israel to not retaliate in any way. Because if Israel retaliated then the Arab armies assisting the US against Iraq would have pulled out immediately.
Saddam literally attacked Israel to attempt to drag them into the war so the Arabs would stop attacking Iraq so they were not seen on Israels side.
With Israel having troops and iron dome in the UAE, protecting the UAE. And the UAE and Saudis attacking Iran with Israel. It cannot be overstated how big of a deal this is.
They kept it secret because the Arab world would still throw a hissy if they knew at the time.
The world is changing, and people in the West are still obsessed about Gaza... They have no clue what is happening.
64
Aggressive_Lie_444613 hr ago
+36
A lot has changed and I say it as someone who knows the region very well.
Kuwaitis talking to Israelis was something I thought would only happen once the core of the Earth cooled.
Now it is not only happening, but happening OPENLY.
36
beginner7513 hr ago
+16
The war has exposed that Tehran has no control over the IRGC that is acting independently.
16
BendicantMias12 hr ago
+7
Considering that according to this report Tehran did curtail attacks into SA following diplomatic communication, it pretty much pours cold water on your claim. The only big thing this war has exposed is the significant limits to US power. China will have taken note.
7
globalvarsonly10 hr ago
+8
And the US did just kill a bunch of the leadership at the start of this conflict. Hardly shocking they'd use a more decentralized approach, even if it meant less/slower control over specific tactics and targets.
8
Goku420overlord8 hr ago
+2
>The world is changing, and people in the West are still obsessed about Gaza... They have no clue what is happening.
More info for someone who doesn't know
2
ADP_God3 hr ago
+1
The reality is the Arab world that is modernizing realises that peaec and normalisation is only sensible. The problem is that much of is is not modernizing.
1
ADP_God16 hr ago
+24
RIYADH/DUBAI, May 12 (Reuters) - Saudi Arabia launched numerous, unpublicized strikes on Iran in retaliation for attacks carried out in the kingdom during the Middle East war, two Western officials briefed on the matter and two Iranian officials said.
The Saudi attacks, not previously reported, mark the first time that the kingdom is known to have directly carried out military action on Iranian soil and show it is becoming much bolder in defending itself against its main regional rival.
24
Trulygiveafuck14 hr ago
+13
The real truth won't be seen for many many years to come. Both sides are going to publish misinformation to confuse the enemy and any truth with evidence you see is most likely false. But what do I know im just a random listnookor.. not like the government keeps all of its sheep in the dark.
13
turb0_encapsulator13 hr ago
+4
this is a large regional war encompassing nations that makeup as much land area as Europe.
4
xmuskorx13 hr ago
+5
As much as this sucks for US, the war has been a major win for Israel.
They degraded Iran's proxies, and mowed the grass in Iran itself - sending a clear message: "If you do something like October 7 again, we will get YOU, personally YOU, not just your henchmen."
As an added bonus Saudi Arabia and UAE are drawn closer into security arrangement with Israel and some are even buying Israeli weapons.
And too think all of this could have been avoided if Islamist regime in Tehran simply chose not to wage a war on Israel due to their jew hate.
5
ADP_God3 hr ago
+1
As much as I'd like to agree I'm not sure this is true. I worry that the American public, in the age of tik tok, doesn't have the fortitude to finish what they started, and it's legitimized Iran's aggressive posture in the straights which ultimately will provide them with a serious new source of revenue.
1
BendicantMias12 hr ago
-6
And to think all of this could have been avoided if the militarist regime in Washington chose not to wage a war on Iran due to their oil love - [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1953\_Iranian\_coup\_d%27%C3%A9tat](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1953_Iranian_coup_d%27%C3%A9tat)
All the mess in the ME comes back to the US, plus the British - [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sykes%E2%80%93Picot\_Agreement](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sykes%E2%80%93Picot_Agreement)
Even Israel - [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Balfour\_Declaration](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Balfour_Declaration)
Anyway, Israels' 'threat' goes both ways. Iran too will now engage Israel more openly I expect, now that they've humiliated the worlds' main 'superpower'. And Israel is more hated globally than ever before, including in the Gulf whose monarchies are less secure by the year as their oil cartel collapses.
China is emerging as the biggest w***** from this mess, as per usual. Do nothing. Win.
-6
No-Space93710 hr ago
+7
It was the British who ended up getting the American's involved because of the British oil interests being nationalized. They didn't do this by promising the US Iranian oil (keep in mind this is 1953 the US is FAR and away the largest oil producer at the time, producing over half the worlds oil, and this was Britains main oil source). What they did do was stoke the fears of Iran falling into the hands of the communists, something that America was keen to prevent.
How much truth the British Intelligence was passing on is hard to judge, the Tudeh Communist Party was indeed trying to curry favour with Mossedegh, but early on he publicly tried to distance himself from them. Later he seems to have begun forging closer ties, as pressure on his Government increased after his increasingly autocratic reforms, and worsening economic situation from sanctions started costing him traditional allies. Sort of a self fulfing prophecy, with less and less options, the only people to turn to were the ones that would cement American support against him.
Wether people view this as worse, better, or no different at all, it's atleast important to get the facts strait when criticizing American involvement in the 1953 coup rather than trying to tie this to more modern criticisms of American intervention based on oil from the middle east.
7
this_dudeagain10 hr ago
+14
So you're saying Iran couldn't get its shit together for almost 50 years since the revolution? How hard is it to sell oil and not terrorize your neighbors?
14
BendicantMias8 hr ago
-2
Considering they've been sanctioned for all that time by America for daring to overthrow its puppet, pretty hard I'd say. The sanctions affected their oil trade too, and served as a constant reminder for why they should never let go of their hatred for what the US did to them - cos it was STILL doing it to them everyday.
-2
this_dudeagain7 hr ago
+5
They're sanctioned for threatening free trade in the gulf, supporting terrorism, and trying to develop nuclear weapons. They haven't always been sanctioned either it's just the path they've taken.
5
xmuskorx11 hr ago
+4
could it? 1953 is super murky. Mohammad Mosaddegh was becoming a dictator undermining other branches of government and basically stealing the oil industry.
Shah reasserting his power was not necessary worse. Islamic revolution could have happened even with Mosaddegh in power (in fact it could have happened faster).
The British never followed through with Balfour anyway and replaced it with White Paper.
Israel is not a threat to anyone who does want to attack Israel. Ask Jordan and Egypt. you are very misinformed if you think Israel is hated. jew haters always hated it, they just became a bit louder recently.
4
BendicantMias11 hr ago
-4
Whatever was happening in Iran, it doesn't justify yet more western interventionism. There is no 'stealing' - it's their resources. The number of excuses the west finds to justify being the most frequent warmongers since WW2 outnumber the stars in the night sky at this point.
And it was worse - so much so that despite him being a dictator complete with his own secret police, the Iranian people hated him enough to actually overthrow him.
As for Israels' reputation, lol! It's fall in popularity globally, and even in the US, is widely known. But more pertinent for the region - [https://www.arabnews.com/node/2632657/middle-east](https://www.arabnews.com/node/2632657/middle-east)
>Eighty-seven percent of citizens in the Arab world oppose recognition of Israel while only 6 percent accept it
"Ask Jordan and Egypt" -
>The highest rates of opposition to recognizing Israel were recorded in Libya (96 percent), ***Jordan (95 percent)***, Kuwait (94 percent) and Palestine (91 percent)
Lol. Also -
>She added of those 6 percent, “half made such a move conditional on the formation of an independent Palestinian state.”
You're basically banking on a bunch of autocratic shiekhs to play ball with Israel, against the overwhelming desires of their people. How 'democratic' of the west lol! Meanwhile the more Iran defies the US, the more it gains cred among the people of the region - [https://www.turkiyetoday.com/opinion/iran-slowly-gains-respect-in-arab-streetand-that-is-dangerous-3216791?s=4](https://www.turkiyetoday.com/opinion/iran-slowly-gains-respect-in-arab-streetand-that-is-dangerous-3216791?s=4)
All of this rests on oil and western supremacy. If either falls, the former being inevitable and the latter just waiting for a blowout between the US and China, the entire region will be reconfigured. And it won't be in favor of either the Saudi or UAE monarchies. Iran, ironically, will fare somewhat better as decades of sanctions have forced it to adapt, diversify and develop its own indigenous capabilities. Although the biggest w***** in the region will likely be Turkey, as the neo-Ottoman empire in all but name exerts its influence. And most Turks hate Israel too.
>Türkiye ranks among the most negative toward Israel in a 24-nation Pew survey, with 93% of Turkish adults expressing unfavorable views of the Jewish state
[https://www.turkiyetoday.com/nation/93-of-turks-hold-negative-views-of-israel-highest-among-surveyed-nations-3202380?s=2](https://www.turkiyetoday.com/nation/93-of-turks-hold-negative-views-of-israel-highest-among-surveyed-nations-3202380?s=2)
Israel is basically trapped in a forever war it can never ultimately win, only keep fighting. And that fight is partly dependent on US hegemony to prop it up, where it's both less popular than ever now, and said hegemony is facing a major challenge that could see it pull back.
[https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2026/04/07/negative-views-of-israel-netanyahu-continue-to-rise-among-americans-especially-young-people/](https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2026/04/07/negative-views-of-israel-netanyahu-continue-to-rise-among-americans-especially-young-people/)
-4
xmuskorx11 hr ago
+6
\>Eighty-seven percent of citizens in the Arab world oppose recognition of Israel
lol. like that's new.
the point about Jordan and Egypt - you can hate Israel all you want, but you don't have to have WAR WITH IT.
Iran should do the same, then it won't get bombed by Israel
with Iran. Shah held on to paper for 20 more years after 1953. there is no guarantee that Mohammad Mosaddegh would last that lang. He was gearing up to be an autocratic dictator.
6
BOPSurfcasting13 hr ago
+1
We are in a war that will last until the Dems get back into power and try to unfuck what Trump fucked. Here is the reasons why a deal is not possible under Trump....
Trump can only offer Iran a deal that calls for no enrichment of uranium for 20 years, he can't go lower than that because the 2015 Obama deal, which he ripped up, was no enrichment for 15 years.
Iran counter offered 10 years of no enrichment which was predictably rejected by Trump for the above reason.
If Iran offer 15 years that will get rejected to, it has to be no less than 20 years and even 20 years looks dangerously close to the 2015 Obama deal.
Trump has limited his own ability to make concessions, and Iran can't be expected to accept the 20 years outright unless major concessions by the US is made elsewhere which the US can't do if they don't want it to look like a defeat.
76 Comments