Hacker News Reader

Comment by alephnerd | Hacker News Reader

> G42

G42 isn't American - it's Emirati. But it doesn't matter.

Iran is only burning additional bridges with it's neighbors which has only incentivized them to take a much more hardline stance against the Islamic Republic.

The fact that they alienated Qatar last week is truly mindboggling though - it was QatarEnergy that was subsidizing NOIC and Qataris with clan ties in Iran like Saad al Kaabi who were some of the biggest proponents for Qatar-Iran normalization have been sidelined.

It has also now aligned the Gulf States with Ukraine [0], and now reduces Iran to become a mere extension of Russia, and arguably converts this conflict into a second theatre of the Russia-Ukraine War, which in my opinion has become a de facto world war.

[0] - https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2026/3/28/zelenskyy-signs-air...

View on HN

> Iran is only burning additional bridges with it's neighbors..

If you are permitting your airspace to carry out continual bombing campaigns causing massive casualties and also host enemy bases, then the "bridges" have already been burnt and you are a belligerent in the War.

Did Iran really have allies in Arab Sunni ruled countries though? Pretty much all of them already see non-Arab Shia Iran as an enemy, and have for a long time. The only real mystery is how the region hasn't imploded already with all the historical tension between these countries.

> Did Iran really have allies in Arab Sunni ruled countries though

Yes. Qatar due to Iran's support of the Thani family during the tumultuous 1990s [0] and the blockade [1], Sudan under Bashir [2] and now under the Army [3], Tunisia [4] due to ties with Ennadha, Algeria until 2025 [5] due to Morocco and Israel's close defense cooperation, and Kuwait due to economic and clan ties [6].

> Pretty much all of them already see non-Arab Shia Iran as an enemy

Only those states directly aligned with Saudi or the UAE (they are not the same team) view Iran with hostility becuase of Saudi Arabia and Iran's perennial rivalry over the MidEast.

[0] - https://www.danielpipes.org/6317/hamad-bin-jasim-bin-jabr-al...

[1] - https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2017/6/25/iran-hassan-rouhani...

[2] - https://www.files.ethz.ch/isn/166344/235_Bodansky.pdf

[3] - https://www.bic-rhr.com/research/new-old-player-town-sudan-i...

[4] - https://iramcenter.org/en/inside-the-complexity-of-iran-tuni...

[5] - https://nouvellerevuepolitique.fr/hichem-aboud-comment-alger...

[6] - https://web.archive.org/web/20220717062931/http://www.payvan...

That is useful, thanks! Iran always seems like they have more enemies than friends, but I guess I overplayed the Shia/Sunni divide.

> Iran always seems like they have more enemies than friends

Because the core of the Iranian Revolution is quite similar to Maoism [0] but also very interested in exporting the revolution abroad.

You have to remember that the Iranian Revolution only happened in 1979, and most of Iran's modern leadership were foot soldiers and even leadership during Iran's Cultural Revolution [1] in the 1980s (eg. Rouhani, Larijani, Aref, Arafi).

Imagine if China today was ruled by active Red Guard, or if the 1976 autocoup failed - that's Iran, but with a dose of Islamism.

> I guess I overplayed the Shia/Sunni divide.

Yep. In fact, a number of Sunni states saw contemporary attempts to mimic the Iranian Revolution such as in Saudi Arabia with the Kaaba Siege, the Afghan Revolution in 1979 which led to the Soviet Occupation, and the burning the US Embassy in Islamabad in 1979 [2].

[0] - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47108706

[1] - https://fa.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D8%A7%D9%86%D9%82%D9%84%D8%A7...

[2] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1979_U.S._embassy_burning_in_I...

I took a Chinese course in Beijing with the son of an Iranian diplomat as a classmate and we did not gel, but frankly thats my only experience. The funny thing was that the guy was a huge womanizer/drinker, which I also hear is normal for Iran. Iranians actually seem quite liberal by Muslim standards (if it wasn't for the whole revolutionary guard/cleric leadership, again by my limited maybe outdated experience), which is weird when our side has the KSA, one of the most conservative countries on earth.

It is a pity really, Iran is on my bucket list for food, culture, and natural beauty. More so than any other country in that area, its too bad about the whole "death to America" thing.

> son of an Iranian diplomat as a classmate and we did not gel, but frankly thats my only experience. The funny thing was that the guy was a huge womanizer/drinker, which I also hear is normal for Iran

It's similar to China in that regard - rhetoric doesn't matter and you always look out for number one.

There's a reason why socially speaking China's Harvard remains Harvard even despite Peking and Tsinghua becoming global tier institutions, and why leadership who should supposedly be earning a couple thousand dollars a year are chauffeured in Audi A8s with full protocol in Beijing.

Most normal people are chill and average, but there's still a whole separate world of people within a small selectorate.

> which is weird when our side has the KSA, one of the most conservative countries on earth

KSA has socially liberalized as well, and the same style of hijab as you would see in Iran is the norm.

That said, unlike Iran's incumbent leadership, MBS and much of the governmental apparatus is highly likely to liberalize in the UAE manner in the next 3-5 years. The main blocker has been succession - MBS isn't officially king yet, as King Salman continues to reign.

That said, it would still remain an authoritarian state.

> It is a pity really, Iran is on my bucket list for food, culture, and natural beauty. More so than any other country in that area, its too bad about the whole "death to America" thing

Yep. It is what it is.

> Yes. Qatar

Qatar, the country hosting the Al Udeid Air Base, the biggest US military base in the middle east? That Qatar?

The US only established Al Udeid in 1996.

Iran on the other hand protected the Thani family during the failed 1996 countercoup, as well as collaborated with Qatar on extracting LNG from the Gulf.

In the real world, countries compartamentalize relations and are not binary in nature.

This is how India can both arm Israel [0] as well as transit Hormuz with Iranian backing [1] and continue to operate Chabahar Port [2] despite neighboring Konarak Port being hit [3].

When countries break this norm of compartmentalization, that is when they become actively belligerent.

Also, by this logic (which is flawed), we would be justified in striking Iran, as Iran has aided and abetted Russia in their war against Ukraine, thus Iran can arguably be treated as another front of the larger US-Russia and by extension US-China conflict.

[0] - https://www.aljazeera.com/amp/features/2024/6/26/india-expor...

[1] - https://www.thehindu.com/news/national/india-among-five-nati...

[2] - https://www.financialexpress.com/policy/economy/no-damage-to...

[3] - https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cdxzzkkkwjqo

I realize Qatar is in an "it's complicated" relationship, it's just amusing to me that people feign shock that Iran would consider them fair game while omitting the detail of them kinda being a client state hosting a huge US military base.

The thing is, if we accept the norms that Qatar can be targeted for kinetic action by Iran for hosting US assets or by the US for hosting Iranian assets, then that opens a MASSIVE can of worms.

This means Ukraine has the precedent in place to target the Chongqing–Xinjiang–Europe railway in Russia in retaliation for Chinese support of Russia [0].

This also means all of Europe is fair game to be striked by Russia in retaliation for supporting Ukraine [2].

This also means South Korea considering rearming Ukraine [4] due to North Korean involvement in the Ukraine War could make it a direct belligerent against Russia.

This is why sentiments hardened globally and especially amongst Gulf States once they were targeted by Iran.

Accepting that nations like Qatar, Turkiye, and Azerbaijan that have an avowed policy of compartmentalized relations are fair game to strike means we have to accept we are in a de facto World War.

The attempted strike on Diego Garcia was similarly destabilizing in it's implications [5]

[0] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chongqing%E2%80%93Xinjiang%E2%...

[1] - https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2025/12/10/zelenskyy-warns-ru...

[2] - https://european-union.europa.eu/priorities-and-actions/eu-s...

[3] - https://apnews.com/article/trump-iran-saudi-arabia-mbs-gulf-...

[4] - https://www.koreatimes.co.kr/foreignaffairs/20260220/korea-m...

[5] - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47469049

There is no can of worms.

Hosting US assets actively being used in war vs Iran = being active co-belligerents. Host countries no longer neutral when they don't adhere to duty of abstention (Hague Convention V). This not even Iran using deniable proxies, this is Qatar allowing sovereign territory to facilitate attack on Iran, which unambiguously makes them legitimate target. Ditto with Diego Garcia.

In the same way railway in RU already legitimate target for UKR because in RU soil. If EU sending out sorties from NATO bases to hit RU then they too would be active belligerents. There's no compartmentalizing using territory to shoot someone else.

The norms of compartmentalization I have mentioned are orthogonal to The Hague conventions and frankly they do not matter in a world which has de facto moved away from being rules based.

Additonally, by that logic it is acceptable for Ukraine to conduct kinetic action against Chinese assets in Russia, which they have held back against despite Chinese support for the Russian MIC.

Also, I told you years ago to not chat with me on this platform. We do not align and I have found it tiresome discussing with you. I have ignored and steered away from commenting with you and I ask you to do the same for me.

> it is acceptable

It's acceptable, as I said, targets in RU soil legitimate. Of course the UKR has their own calculation on what PRC interests in RU they're able to hit that's not counterproductive - PRC support for RU MIC can be much more than what it is.

Even if we accept moving from "rule based" doesn't discount realist/rational based which rule based is derived from. It is not hard to understand allowing your house to be used to shoot at someone else = your house is now legitimate target. Expecting immunity under those conditions is strategic fantasy, especially when IR hitting GCC countries is arguably not counter-productive.

> The thing is, if we accept the norms that Qatar can be targeted for kinetic action by Iran for hosting US assets or by the US for hosting Iranian assets, then that opens a MASSIVE can of worms.

None of your examples are actually analogous, they are all more distant support than hosting a base from which direct attacks are carried out except for the first one in which the "can of worms" is justifying attacks on a state that it is already a direct belligerent (and in fact the aggressor) because of third-party support, which, on the other hand, is not analogous for the opposite reason—it is very much not necessary to invoke any third-party action to justify that. The direct belligerence already justifies that.

There’s no “precedent” needed, Russia and Ukraine are simply choosing not to do certain things to avoid widening the war in the ways you mention, because they don’t think that would be to their advantage. The precedent is there already, it’s not like either country is looking at Iran and going “oh wow, I didn’t know that was an option!”

> The fact that they alienated Qatar last week is truly mindboggling though

I mean Qatar did just give a really expensive plane to the guy who unilaterally assassinated the Iranian supreme leader and is bombing their country to smithereens.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com