ListNook

Royal-Hunter3892 Mar 30, 2026 +62

Attacking NATO doesn't make sense . What objective is iran trying to achieve here ? It seems there is lack of communication in the command chain of IRGC.

62

TheMightyMisanthrope Mar 30, 2026 +88

There is no central command anymore, just fanatic mid level brass fighting different wars against what they consider their enemies.

88

griphookk Mar 30, 2026

This isn’t true… Ahmad Vahidi was appointed as the commander-in-chief of the IRGC on March 1st 2026. He was the IRGC deputy commander before, and before that he was the Minister of Interior. I don’t understand why so many people act like Iran/ the IRGC are weaker and more disorganized than they are…

0

TheMightyMisanthrope Mar 30, 2026 +8

They are not weak nor disorganized but right now, there is not a centralized power structure.

8

sarges_12gauge Mar 30, 2026 +2

Because we’ve had several weeks of articles about “Mosaic defense” as an Iranian strategy which is premised entirely on the concept of dispersion and lack of central organization

2

Kjartanski Mar 30, 2026 -5

Huh, maybe thats a consequence of destroying all the command and control functions of a modern militarized state in your opening attack?

-5

Scriefers Mar 30, 2026 +8

Divide and conquer. Pretty much par for the course. Seems like the conquering attempts will be starting soon the way America is ramping up its involvement

8

GreatScottGatsby Mar 31, 2026 +1

That's not how divide and conquer works. What you described is decapitation.

1

Scriefers Mar 31, 2026 +3

One and the same. This is precisely how divide and conquer works. They are now divided into smaller pockets of decentralized holdouts vying for power and control amongst themselves. America talks to all the holdouts to find the one most “reasonable” and most aligned with their goals while whittling down enemy forces/capabilities and completely destroying the other holdouts until the favored holdout leader capitulates fully and unconditionally. Bare bones, run of the mill, REGIME CHANGING divide and conquer tactics.

3

TheMightyMisanthrope Mar 30, 2026 -13

But, but, decapitation strike! (Yes. I'm aware of how dumb killing the Ayatollah was)

-13

Synricc Mar 30, 2026 +36

Didn’t the Iranian government decentralize so they could do this exact type of thing if their leadership was wiped out? I’m pretty sure that this entire situation is a “dead man’s switch” that got activated after the US killed the Ayatollah.

36

urbanmark Mar 30, 2026 +5

The Turkish tourist industry is worth about 135 billion dollars. People not wanting to go there because of missile strikes is a big deal and puts pressure on what Iran sees as a liberal government that is tied in with the West.

5

Mirria_ Mar 30, 2026 +3

It makes sense when they want everyone to be mad at the USA / Israel for causing all of this. They sow discord everywhere because that's how they can win. They can't beat the USA, so their hope is to cause them to ragequit.

3

sirZofSwagger Mar 31, 2026 +1

They are attacking the us missiles that are in Turkey

1

TheWorclown Mar 30, 2026 -5

From what I can see, it’s Iran actively targeting energy infrastructure across the Middle East. This is a war started by the US about oil, and Iran is wanting to make sure everyone knows about who is responsible for all of this bullshit.

-5

Brilliant_Version344 Mar 30, 2026 +72

Iran attacking countries that have not attacked them is just a sure way of getting more enemies

72

tj381 Mar 30, 2026 +20

Just speculating but the rumor is that an Arleigh Burke destroyer shot down the missile. ~~What big ships do Arleigh Burkes usually e*****?~~ The target was probably a US base in Turkey. Attacking a NATO country is kind of dumb as others have pointed out. The Arleigh Burke class of ships continue to impress regardless.

20

Rustic_gan123 Mar 30, 2026 +17

It's most likely an SM-3. Europe doesn't have exoatmospheric interceptors.

17

Personal-Try328 Mar 31, 2026 -4

Nah. They know NATO countries other than the US are spineless and will do f*** all. Might as well broadcast it to the world since the cost is effectively zero.

-4

Torran Mar 31, 2026 +4

Not sure about Turkey. When a Russian plane entered their airspace they shot it down.

4

ccoastie Apr 1, 2026 +1

USA is shitting it self and trying to get others to sacrifice them self .USA tells everyone they have the bets military in the world and spends the same as the next 10. Time to prove it

1

Extension-Pick8310 Mar 30, 2026 +19

Yeah, Iran really needs to lay off Turkey. That's not a bear they want to poke.

19

Inevitable_Butthole Mar 30, 2026 +10

You're right its a just a turkey

10

Personal-Try328 Mar 31, 2026 +3

Theyve been poking it and NATOs done nothing and will do nothing. Humiliating the alliance on a global scale but listnook somehow thinks this makes NATO look strong lmao

3

Extension-Pick8310 Mar 31, 2026 +2

I mean, it’s most senior member just switched sides

2

JCeee666 Mar 31, 2026 +1

So then why does Russia give two shits about Ukraine joining?

1

tj381 Mar 30, 2026 +11

From the article: >A ballistic missile launched from ‌Iran entered Turkish airspace before being shot down by NATO air and missile defences deployed in the eastern Mediterranean, Turkey's defence ⁠ministry said on Monday.

11

Pitiful-MobileGamer Mar 30, 2026 +10

Exactly, it blew up over Turkey. Last I checked, Turkey doesn't have any water based anti ballistic missile technology floating around the Eastern Mediterranean. You know who does though

10

ShareGlittering1502 Mar 30, 2026 +15

I do not

15

CurtisLeow Mar 30, 2026 +11

The US, Japan, Spain, Norway, Korea and Australia all have ships that are able to shoot down Iranian ballistic missiles. So in this instance it was likely the US who shot the ballistic missiles down. [More info](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aegis_Combat_System)

11

ShareGlittering1502 Mar 30, 2026 +2

Ah, thank you. That helps

2

[deleted] Mar 30, 2026 +44

[deleted]

44

cdnirene Mar 30, 2026 +92

NATO is a defense agreement. Iran did not attack the U.S.

92

Loofahs Mar 30, 2026 +36

Playing devil's advocate, Iran has been giving the Houthis advanced anti ship ballistic missiles and providing targeting data to attack US merchant vessels and their US warship e****** since 2024 and have been largely getting away with it because of the "proxy" excuse. I do wonder how much different the world outlook on this war would be if Iran had succeeded in sinking a US Destroyer.

36

koolaidkirby Mar 30, 2026 +8

Probably the same as when Ukraine destroyed Russian assets with Western weapons. Giving weapons is not an act of war in itself, but can certainly deteriorate relations and give justification to an escalation if they want to.

8

megiddox Mar 30, 2026 +1

The A in NATO means something … strictly speaking, this region is not covered. But in the end it‘s politics and what they agree they want it to be.

1

Personal-Try328 Mar 31, 2026 -1

Iran could drive a passenger jet into the empire state building and listnook would be against doing anything other than a UN condemnation.

-1

sapien3000 Mar 30, 2026 +6

That’s not how NATO works. It’s not exclusively the US. Any country attacking NATO member would invoke article 5, which means other membered nation would help retaliate. Turkey is part of NATO

6

cdnirene Mar 30, 2026 +1

Have you read the Agreement? I have, several times. Of course it’s not exclusively the U.S. I never said it was. Here is what Article 5 says: “The Parties agree that an armed attack against one or more of them in Europe or North America shall be considered an attack against them all and consequently they agree that, if such an armed attack occurs, each of them, in exercise of the right of individual or collective self-defence recognised by Article 51 of the Charter of the United Nations, will assist the Party or Parties so attacked by taking forthwith, individually and in concert with the other Parties, such action as it deems necessary, including the use of armed force, to restore and maintain the security of the North Atlantic area. Any such armed attack and all measures taken as a result thereof shall immediately be reported to the Security Council. Such measures shall be terminated when the Security Council has taken the measures necessary to restore and maintain international peace and security.” Here’s the full agreement - it’s very short and easy to read: https://www.nato.int/en/about-us/official-texts-and-resources/official-texts/1949/04/04/the-north-atlantic-treaty There is nothing in the Agreement that commits members to help other members who choose to attack other countries that have not attacked them - e.g. U.S. attacking Iran.

1

mesopotato Mar 30, 2026 -1

A counterattack is still an attack. I disagree with the war heavily but the plain text you're quoting isn't disqualifying someone if they start a war.

-1

Key_Marsupial_1406 Mar 30, 2026 +5

The speculation is that this missile was shot down by a US Navy ship. >A ballistic missile launched from ‌Iran entered Turkish airspace before being shot down by NATO air and missile defences deployed in the eastern Mediterranean So in a sense NATO did defend Turkey already.

5

Dingcock Mar 30, 2026 +8

That is the entire point of NATO. They would rally around the US if they were actually attacked...

8

Assumption-Putrid Mar 30, 2026 +12

That would not be funny, it would be how NATO is supposed to work. NATO is a defensive treaty. It should not be invoked when a NATO member attacks another country, rather when a NATO member gets attacked.

12

SidewaysFancyPrance Mar 30, 2026 +4

There's also more nuance to it. It's not like suddenly every NATO member declares war and mobilizes for immediate invasion of the attacker. Iran is not invading anyone. First step might be to just send more air defense assistance and help negotiate with Iran.

4

Sleepingguitarman Mar 30, 2026 +1

Iran didn't attack the U.S. Learn how Nato works before you share your opinion

1

veevoir Mar 30, 2026 +1

Lol, if Trump would get his wish - NATO getting troops into Iran - by accident because Iran fucked up and Turkey would have grounds to call art 5.. it would be extremely funny.

1

Dingcock Mar 30, 2026 +3

Turkey probably won't call on article 5, but if they did it wouldn't necessarily result in NATO troops inside Iran.

3

Harnellas Mar 31, 2026 +1

Funny in a depressing way.

1

Brilliant_Version344 Mar 30, 2026 -3

NATO did help when the us was attacked in 2001 nato is not for the Middle East but the North Atlantic

-3

LR_FL2 Mar 30, 2026 +6

Literally the only time article 5 has been invoked

6

Phillyfan10 Mar 30, 2026 +5

Uhhhh might want to try a different history book. NATO invoked Article 5 for the first and only time in its history on 9/12/01.

5

CptAwesome- Mar 30, 2026 +3

Us wasn’t under attack this time though

3

Pitiful-MobileGamer Mar 30, 2026 -1

Thanks for giving the stunning example why conservatives eroding education is a winning strategy to right lean your future generation. After 9/11 the US invoked article 5, so far they are the only NATO Nation to do so.

-1

snarkyanswer Mar 30, 2026 +9

This is wrong. The US did not invoke article 5, nor did it want to. The NATO secretary general invoked it on behalf of the US as he wanted to give a statement of unity between NATO countries, essentially reaffirming NATOs usefullness in a time which its use had been questioned after the collapse of the USSR and the attempted relations reset with Russia.

9

StekenDeluxe Mar 30, 2026 +5

The U.S. has a THAAD at Incirlik. Chances are that was the intended target.

5

Morlu Mar 30, 2026 +5

Trying to trigger article 5 would be a stupid move. NATO countries don’t want to participate, don’t force them.

5

Mo_h Mar 30, 2026 +3

It is hard for us sitting elsewhere to fathom how (physically) close European Turkey is to Iran - just look at a map!

3

universe_fuk8r Mar 30, 2026 +14

Yeah, those of us having absolved basic geography at elementary school are aware.

14

xynith116 Mar 31, 2026 +1

Turkey isn’t happy either that the US literally said their plan to overthrow Iran’s government is to establish Kurdistan.

1

JCeee666 Mar 31, 2026 +1

Then why isn’t Trump supporting Kurdish rebels? NM, I know nothing makes sense and headlines are just stock plays

1

SoftwareSource Mar 31, 2026 +1

If this is real are they f****** stupid? NATO will not f*** around if article 5 is called, we would go to war then. Do they need 31 additional countries attacking them?

1

FigureFourWoo Mar 30, 2026 +1

I don't think Iran really wants to f*** with Article 5.

1

Personal-Try328 Mar 31, 2026 -7

Yeah bro iran is sooo scared of NATO that theyve been lobbing middiles at NATO countries for a month now. The alliance has been made into a joke

-7

UniversityNew9254 Mar 30, 2026 -4

Don’t really see Turkey being NATO, see them as being opportunistic and manipulative.

-4

RealityPunchPacka Mar 31, 2026 +5

All countries are opportunistic. My personal opinion is that their benefit to NATO has always outweighed any negatives. They're always active within the alliance and always working on something with other members

5

FigureMost1687 Mar 30, 2026 -36

Just to let everone know majority of public and government members believe that these missiles are coming from Israel not Iran ...Iran also denies sending any missiles to Turkiye ...

-36

DisasterNo1740 Mar 30, 2026 +19

Any source on the majority of government officials believing these missiles are coming from Israel?

19

FigureMost1687 Mar 30, 2026 -18

Just watch any turkish tV Channel such as CNNTURK ... u will see what im talking about ...

-18

virtual_adam Mar 30, 2026 +24

The country who never fires their ballistic missiles, like ever, not a single one in fired in Gaza, Lebanon, and ~5 waves of attacks on Iran in the past 3 years Vs. the country that has built an entire branch of the army solely for ballistic missiles, mobile launchers, hidden underground cities And you know, enough countries have radars and satellites over the area and can see where they came from

24

chief_blunt9 Mar 30, 2026 +13

Oh well if Iran denies sending any missiles at turkey

13

Mrpolje Mar 30, 2026 +19

Critical thinking seems to be in very short supply. Even if they aren’t exactly best buddies, what possible reason would Israel have to attack Turkey…? Not to mention the very obvious ”launched from Iran” shaped missile trajectory.

19

Keeltoodeep Mar 30, 2026 +3

Ballistic missiles are relatively simple to track considering they have a ballistic arch.

3

Secret_g_nome Mar 30, 2026 -4

False flag could be a reason. israel wants more for less. Bringing in NATO would make their goals simpler.

-4

yellekc Mar 31, 2026 +1

Your cannot fake the launch site of a ballistic missile. You have radars and space based systems that tell you where it came from. You are being misled. Iran has already stated they will attack any country with US forces, Turkey has bases with US forces. Why would they not fire on them?

1

hophamson Mar 30, 2026 -1

Russian missiles probably.

-1

2beatenup Mar 30, 2026 -6

False flag??? Iran ain’t stupid.

-6

yellekc Mar 31, 2026 +2

Iran has publicly stated that any country hosting US forces is a target. And Turkey is a country hosting US forces. So saying Iran isn't stupid is not a counter here. Also there is a technical reason that I doubt this is a false flag. Ballistic missiles give away their launch location by flying high and being visible on everyones radar, they leave a pretty strong trail of evidence, from launch detection via thermal imaging on space based platforms, to radar tracking of the missile and reentering the atmosphere. You cannot fake it without literally sending a ballistic missile and crew into Iran and launching from there.

2

Turkey says NATO defences downed fourth inbound Iranian missile

💬 Send a Message

77 Comments