I chalk it up as a sign of their desperation. Triggering revolts by the common people against the Arab monarchies by stoking antisemitism and anti-Americanism is Iran's best bet at improving their strategic position. Likewise, if they go full scorched earth, they can maybe get Trump into domestic political trouble, or get the Europeans to cave or w/e.

A few thoughts on this:

1. Trump is already in trouble badly domestically.

2. As for Europe all this proves is they are weak on BOTH fronts of the most likely venues for WW3… east and Middle East. NATO needs to keep the US in the fold for now.

3. They’ll never admit it but all the EU members sending troops to defend their bases against Iran ironically made Trump look like the leader of the modern world. Which is funny as hell given they hate his guts.

Don't listen to what they say, look at what they do. The US plan appears to be "Mowing the Lawn" which we see in another conflict nearby. i.e. to kill the leadership of Iran, destroy its military capabilities, including ballistic missiles, and its ability to project force by proxy.

I also opine that we will see mission creep whereby it will evolve to seeking to destroy the "state". i.e. they want to turn Iran into Iraq, or say, Gaza. That means strikes on Iran's Nuclear Energy technology (Bushehr Nuclear Power Plant), Education (Schools), Health (Hospitals) and Power (Karun-3 Dam and say, Shahid Salimi (Neka) combined-cycle plant).

As for Iran's "Strategy" - It has launched attacks on countries supporting the attacks on Iran. From Iran's perspective, from what I understand, they want to make US allies question their co-operation due to the cost (Iran bombings) on their country. The issue I have with this strategy is that Iran seems to think that they can scare countries into not being forward bases for the US, but as this is a war, there is no way that these countries can backstab the US or tell the US to leave. All that this Iran gambit will do is harden its neighbor's will against them, in the realization that ultimately the US will have its way. The net repercussions for Iran is likely to be a hastening towards those targets mentioned above.

NO ONE but Israel, Canada and Australia originally supported the attacks on Iran. They changed their mind when Iran took their “scorched earth” approach to the conflict.

In fact pretty much all the countries but those originally condemned the US and Israel.

On the 28th of Feb Ukraine and its leader, Volodymyr Zelenskyy, supported the attacks on Iran. This is common knowledge. If there is one there are more. On the same day, the UK, Germany and France made a joint statement condemning Iran.

Now lets look at where Iran attacked shall we?

Bahrain is the home of the U.S. 5th Fleet. It is a forward base for the USA in the region. - Iran attacked it.
Qatar - Al Udeid Air Base — the largest U.S. military base in the Middle East. It is a regional hub for this conflict. - Iran attacked it.
Kuwait - The US has multiple bases here - Camp Arifjan, Ali Al Salem Air Base & and Camp Buehring, and again, Iran attacked.
UAE - Al Dhafra Air Base (US Air Force base), Iran attacked.
Iraq - the US still has bases here such as Ain al‑Asad Airbase & Erbil Air Base) and again, Iran attacked.
Jordan - Muwaffaq al‑Salti Air Base - again, attacked by Iran.
Saudi Arabia - the US does not have a dominant presence here but its there, and besides the Saudi's just dont like Iran.
Oman - Duqm Port - Iran attacked it.

If all of these countries have US bases, that are used to attack Iran, then I ask you, why would Iran NOT feel aggrieved ? Imagine your living at home, and all your neighbors have...Chinese bases in them. And China uses those bases to attack you. Canada, Mexico Venezuela with Chinese bases. What a thought.

This post was edited by ferdia on Mar 4 2026 05:58am

You are cherry-picking the timeline. All of those but Zelensky CONDEMNED it first until Iran’s retaliatory strikes and let’s be real Zelensky is a Jew of course he supported it.

The U.K. originally refused to let the US use their base. France still refuses to. Germany and U.K. agreed after retaliatory strikes.

EVERY SINGLE WESTERN NEWS OUTLET has said (even Fox) that almost nobody supported the strikes until AFTER Iran’s retaliatory strikes.

This post was edited by T3XBOT on Mar 4 2026 06:04am

If you allow a foreign government to wage war from your soil, you are aiding and abetting said war, ergo you are a legitimate target. any country would adopt this mindset if attacked. I mean, i still think Iran's strategy is brain dead, but I do understand it.

That’s not how embassies and defense agreement bases work. It’s considered sovereign land of the country who utilizes that base/embassy. That’s why attacking an embassy is considered an act of war.

Its basically the country equivalent of “You are friendly with your landlord but your landlord slept with my wife so I’m going to fight you too.”

This post was edited by T3XBOT on Mar 4 2026 06:15am

a reminder: i still think Iran's strategy is brain dead, but I do understand it.
Also it can be argued an Embassy is not the same thing as a base, but your not wrong. the US uses its Embassies around the world to attack those countries those embassies are located in. Its well documented. However, for a sovereign state there is a difference between an Embassy and a Base.

Imagine if the US had an Embassy in Iran. ok, can understand that. Now try to imagine the US having an Army base there.

This post was edited by ferdia on Mar 4 2026 06:19am