[flagged]
(an aside but I can’t help feeling like describing being anti-war as “virtue signalling” really highlights what a useless term it is. Of course it’s signalling virtue! It’s a good thing!)
I don't think very many leaders think like that. Iran can be bought off with diplomatic ties and thawing of relationships. This is either a decision that will play well to home, or a "fuck off donnie" for bad mouthing them.
Iran's missile attack on Diego Garcia (unexpectedly long range, more than we thought they had functional) puts Rome in missile range.
They're definitely thinking about that right now.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2012/jul/03/iran-tests-lon...
I know that hegseth has obliterated the planning and intelligence capability of the us military, but the news has less excuse.
No; there are plenty of short and intermediate range ballistic missiles. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Precision_Strike_Missile has a public max range of ~300 miles, for example. Not every BM is an ICBM.
Your link cites a max of 1,200 miles and says "hitting Israel and US bases in the region". Diego Garcia almost doubles that number, which places London in range when it previously wasn't.
https://www.cnn.com/2026/03/21/politics/iran-missiles-diego-...
> While the attack was unsuccessful, it shows that Iran may not be adhering its self-imposed missile range limit of 2,000 kilometers, raising concerns about whether Tehran could hit US and European interests farther away than previously thought.
Iran's capabilities have been well known and documented. After all, Isreal and Saudi Arabia have been pushing the US to bomb iran at various stages in the last 30 years. The words "self imposed" is the real kicker here. Its not like those missiles have unknown capabilities.
Quite a few governments seemed surprised by the Diego Garcia strike.