I have pinned this post to the top of my blog. It is to remind people of what many of our opponents want. Alison Aires wants a tyrannical government. They want summary execution for private possession of firearms.
This is why we have a Bill of Rights. This is why I created Boomershoot.
The U.S. and Israel have decapitated Iran and probably are working on the neck and shoulders of the religious leadership. The apparent thinking is that Iran will soon run out of people volunteering to be leaders or change their evil ways.
That makes sense. At least at first thought it does. Let’s run through a little thought experiment I have had a few times with some close friends a decade or two ago.
Imagine an alternate timeline where SCOTUS came up with different result in the Heller decision and things went downhill from there. Today, in this alternate timeline, U.S. gun owners realize all they have left is the 100 million guns and a few billion rounds of ammo they had hidden before everything else was confiscated. They still have the firepower and now the motivation to remove the tyrants and restore liberty and the true meaning of the U.S. constitution.
In a coordinated attack, with the help of insiders during the state of the Union address, they take out POTUS, all his cabinet, the VP, and the Speaker of the House. They then make it known that everyone who voted for the unconstitutional (in the eyes of the gun owners) laws must be removed from office and replaced with constitutionally friendly politicians. If not, minds will continue to see the light in the most literal sense.
What would the response be? Would the remaining anti-gun politicians go into hiding or give up power? Or would they double (and/or triple) down?
I believe that the smart money, in the best-case scenario, says, “That’s an interesting question.” The more likely result is a police state and mass killings of innocent people.
What are your thoughts on what to expect in this alternate U.S. timeline and what that might tell us about what the Iran response will be?
I have changed the order from the original post to make things clearer:
Israel destroys bridge in Lebanon, threatens Gaza-scale destruction
On Wednesday night, Hezbollah launched 200 rockets at northern Israeli communities.
…
Israel destroyed a bridge in southern Lebanon on Friday and dropped leaflets in Beirut threatening Gaza-scale devastation as it deployed more troops to fight Iran-backed Hezbollah and warned of more attacks on the country’s infrastructure.
…
Israeli aircraft dropped flyers over Beirut threatening to inflict damage on Lebanon similar to the devastation the military wrought on Gaza during its two-year war with Hamas. Much of Gaza has been reduced to rubble and nearly all its population displaced.
“In light of the great success in Gaza, the newspaper of the new reality arrives to Lebanon,” the flyer said.
Another flyer called on Lebanese to strip Hezbollah of its weapons. It featured two QR codes to links on WhatsApp and Facebook, accompanied by a message telling Lebanese to make contact if they want to see “real change” in their country.
I am reminded of the leaflets the U.S. military dropped over Japanese cities (Warning Leaflets – Nuclear Museum). Japan did not heed them even after Hiroshima was vaporized. A similar lack of response will occur in Lebanon. Verbal persuasion is difficult in most people and in essentially impossible in religious extremists.
There is a reason why we have expressions like, “Using a clue bat”, and “hit them with a clue by four.” It takes a different type of “persuasion” to change the minds of these people.
The distribution of the leaflets is the right thing to do. But only to somewhat reduce the guilt of those delivering the bombs the harshness of the international criticism. The rockets will continue to be launched into Israel and, sadly, real change will come from the sky.
Peace is possible: through superior firepower and willingness to use it in the most devastating and efficient (and sparing) way achievable.
We should try that.
Sarah H. Hoyt
March 6, 2026
All We Are Saying Is Give Peas A Chance – According To Hoyt
I never understood people who insist that in order to have peace we needed to disarm. Or the variation where they thought the Mutually Assured Destruction policy was insane. Whenever I tried to engage with people like this, they would either “prove their point” via vigorous assertion (raising their voice and repeating themselves) or go silent. I took the silent treatment as they had not really thought it through and were attempting to engage their brain when I asked them to explain how this worked. I was fine with this. But the vigorous assertion type annoys me. They are all emotion without no data or logic. Those types are a disgrace to humanity and a significant number of animal species.
As much as I dislike violence, I realize that sometimes it is the only way. Particularly with those “vigorous assertion” types. There are non-emotional types you need to worry about too. People can have faulty data or drastically different fundamental principles and arrive at conclusions which involve the elimination of “the rich”, “the poor”, “intellectuals”, “capitalists”, etc. But it seems at some point they, or at least their useful idiots, morph into a version of the “vigorous assertion” class.
If they get themselves worked up into a high enough emotional state, they become physically violent. And with enough numbers they become genocidal.
You can only communicate with these in their native language such that they truly understand. And there are very few more vigorous assertions they understand better than bullets and bombs.
I was invited to do a panel at La Verne University on Bruen.
State Senator Portantino, who pushed a ton of CA gun control bills, was also set to appear. I told them I was happy to do it, but didn’t want my presence to cause their higher profile invitees to drop out and ruin their event. They were confident they wouldn’t, so I agreed.
Portantino dropped out last minute, appearing only for a few minutes on Zoom and taking no questions. Another gun control professor also dropped out. So it was just me, a pro gun prof, and a middle of the road guy.
I torched Portantino as a coward and rebutted every point he asserted.
Antigunners are, generally, cowards.
Kostas Moros @MorosKostas
Posted on X, March 6, 2026
I’m not certain I call it cowardice if you know you will get slaughtered and cause damage to your cause in the process.
There is a lot of evidence to support the claim this behavior is common. They know they cannot win on legal, principle, or practical grounds. They can only win on lies, deception, and emotional manipulation. They are evil.
Mass shooters in the U.S. range in age from 11 to 72. Twenty-year-olds committed more mass shootings and injured more people than any other age group from 1966 to 2024.
Twenty-eight-year-olds committed more mass shootings than any other age group, but the deadliest mass shooting in history was committed by a 64-year-old man. Therefore, there is no apparent direct link between the number of victims and the perpetrator’s age.
Cassandra McBride
March 6, 2026
Average Age of Mass Shooters in the U.S. (Updated 2026)
Note that in the first sentence “Twenty-year-olds” refers to people in their twenties, not just people who are 20 years old.
There is more to the story at the link if you are interested. But the bottom line for my intended use is that prohibiting people between 18 and 20 (inclusive) years old from purchasing a gun is not justified from a practical standpoint of reducing mass shootings even if such a ban could pass constitutional or philosophical barriers.
Beyond the links to sexual satisfaction and positive emotional reactions, research indicates more complicated findings surrounding women’s feelings about orgasm. When women are asked directly about the role orgasm plays in their lives, women often explicitly state that they do not care whether or not they orgasm. However, indirectly, another story emerges. Women who orgasm are much more satisfied with encounters than those who do not. Indeed, women are five times more likely to enjoy a sexual encounter if they orgasmed during the experience. In sum, orgasm is strongly related to sexual satisfaction, even though women indicate it is not important for them.
A great deal of this incoherence may be explained when considering expectations and the importance women attribute to their own orgasms. Regarding orgasms as relevant for one’s sexual well-being was found to be one of the strongest predictors of orgasm frequency. So, in turn, the relationship may be simple: if I experience orgasm then I expect orgasm, and if I expect orgasm, it becomes more relevant for my sexual satisfaction, desire and pleasure. This implies that orgasms are not irrelevant for female sexual well-being, but rather the lower frequency of their occurrence may lead women to alter their expectations, and say that they are fully satisfied even if they orgasm “only” 60% of the time.
Marie-Feline Dienberg, Tanja Oschatz, Jennifer L. Piemonte & Verena Klein
August 17, 2023
Women’s Orgasm and Its Relationship with Sexual Satisfaction and Well-being | Current Sexual Health Reports | Springer Nature Link
Via Peri-orgasmic phenomena: Why some laugh, cry during climaxing (side note from my own related survey: one woman told me her nose itches uncontrollably after she has an orgasm. Another woman said the “Oh god!” cries were uncontrollable because “It feels so good I think I’m going to die.”).
For me, most of the paper was “blah, blah, blah <nothing really new, did you need to write a paper on this?>.” But the information above was new and interesting to me. But it does make sense from a broader psychological perspective.
People rationalize their situation. People without much money will tell themselves and others, “Money can’t buy happiness/love/etc.” Or, the old adage, “I felt sorry for myself when I did not have shoes until I met a man with no feet.” Or the ancient Aesop’s tale of the fox and the grapes.
And closer to my usual topics, people deprived of their inalienable right to keep and bear arms will claim they are safer without guns in the hands of private citizens, discounting or oblivious to the many genocides of unarmed citizens.
If we were the problem, you would know about it.
You are angry about the present moment, but you are the one who voted for decades of executive overreach that allowed this regime to grow like a cancer.
You do not get to acquiesce to forty years of executive actions and suddenly discover constitutional outrage only when it fits your partisan narrative.
My heart breaks when I see the city I grew up in flames. But what breaks it even more is knowing that this suffering—borne by generations of Iranians, paid for by American blood and treasure—was compounded by years of your denial about what this regime is.
You cannot stabilize a government whose ideology requires bloodshed. And you cannot postpone confrontation forever without multiplying the eventual cost.
The world is not facing this moment because we finally acted.
The world is facing this moment because for decades many refused to acknowledge the true nature of the Islamic Republic regime.
Tahmineh Dehbozorgi @DeTahmineh
Posted on X, March 5, 2026
There are many people who still refuse to acknowledge the true nature of the Islamic Republic regime. Most of them seem to be affected by TDS. Such mental health cases are probably beyond help and there is no point in having a discussion with them.
There are reasons to consider in opposition to the moral necessity case which I think is well proven as in above.
A more principled opposition would be, the US Constitution does not grant our government the power to be the world’s policeman. Or a practical opposition would be our history of regime change for the last 80 years has been very poor. I keep wondering, was there something fundamentally different about how we handled Germany and Japan post WWII? Those were two extremely different bloodthirsty cultures and yet the U.S. helped them reconstruct their societies into productive and comparatively free nations. More recent efforts have been far from anything approaching satisfactory. Is it that we completely eliminated the toxic cultures in Japan and German? If so, then that may mean the eradication of Islam is required to enable the incubation of national neighbors fit for a civilized world.
This would be the most important acknowledgment of all yet to be realized and the reason we will face this moment again and again until we do realize it.
Iranian civilians certainly have a legitimate need to arm themselves. It is difficult to understand the horrors they face under the current Islamic regime. They can be arrested, jailed and tortured on mere suspicion. Their security forces can shoot them dead on the street for no reason without any fear of a legal response.
While a $440 Turkish-made Colt .45 doesn’t provide the firepower required to save its owner from dozens of Iranian security forces armed with AKs, at least it offers the owner the ability to take a few with them.
Lee Williams
March 5, 2026
Gun control in Iran was failing even before our first strike – Second Amendment Foundation
Imagine a world in which the Iranian people had all the firearms they wanted before the 1979 revolution. Even if the Shah had not seen the light and implemented needed reforms before the citizens took up arms to persuade him, having arms after the revolution would have enabled “second thoughts” on the nature of the revolution.
And, of course, having them now would make the removal of the current leadership much easier.
Sure, as pointed out by Williams, the black market is supplying a few arms to the oppressed citizens. But having plentiful ammo and especially open training and practice opportunities is vital to having the skills to confidently put those tools to work.
One shouldn’t exaggerate the economic fallout from this war. But it isn’t occurring in isolation: There are many stresses on our economy, and this could be the straw that breaks the camel’s back — a straw that becomes heavier the longer the war goes on. Furthermore, if Trump is this erratic now, what will he do as the midterms get even closer?
Paul Krugman
March 04, 2026
Reality Sets In on Trump’s New War – Paul Krugman
My general rule of thumb is if Krugman makes a prediction, then bet against whatever he said. Let this post be a marker to test my rule of thumb. I’ll add a post to go live in six months to see how his prediction turned out.
Researchers at Australian start-up Cortical Labs have taught human neurons grown on a chip to play the classic Doom game. In 2021, they had already used 800,000 neurons to play Pong. Now, with four times fewer brain cells, they can play a much more complicated game.
But the wildest thing about it is probably the “Cortical Cloud,” an interface that allows developers to program the neurons using Python. Using this API, independent researcher Sean Cole was able to teach the cells to play Doom in about a week.
…
The technology making this possible is the CL-1, a “biological computer” chip. The biological component of the CL-1 system consists of human neurons derived from induced pluripotent stem cells (iPSCs). These cells, typically repurposed from adult skin or blood samples, are differentiated in a lab into functional cortical neurons. Once matured, approximately 200,000 of these living cells are integrated onto a high-density microelectrode array (HD-MEA), essentially creating a specialized silicon chip featuring thousands of interface points.
Mihai Andrei
March 2, 2026
200,000 living human brain cells just learned to play Doom and this is just the start of it
With only a two hundred thousand neurons Copilot says this is comparable to the CNS of:
A small crustacean (e.g., a copepod or amphipod) is the best biological analogue to a 200,000‑neuron system.
- More complex than worms
- Less complex than insects
- Within the right order of magnitude
- Capable of simple learning and coordinated movement
I could support a claim the ethical issues are nonexistent at this level. What about when it is comparable to a small mammal? Or a primate? A human? An order of magnitude larger than any mammal?
What will be the capabilities of a Cortical Cloud requiring a warehouse the size of a city block?
We live in interesting times.
Benson v US et al 23-CV-0541 FINAL.pdf
We reverse and vacate Benson’s convictions for possession of a “large capacity ammunition feeding device,” possession of an unregistered firearm, carrying a pistol without a license, and unlawful possession of ammunition.
One has to wonder if the anti-gunners will appeal this decision to SCOTUS as they did the Heller decision. It would make me laugh if they did.
This is great news in a number of ways. The obvious is the win for standard capacity magazines at the appeals court level. But an even bigger reason to celebrate is the circuit split it creates. This pretty much assures SCOTUS will accept an appeal from someone.
I am convinced that war will begin and Iran will be at the center of that war. The problem is that Iran is much stronger than Ukraine or Palestine, and therefore a proxy war against Iran will have unpredictable consequences. Among these, the least unpredictable is the generalization of the war when China concludes that, with the defeat of Iran (which is very likely), it will no longer have access to the energy resources essential for its expansion. It should be borne in mind that China has just suffered a huge defeat in Venezuela and that Latin American countries are to China what Middle Eastern countries are to the US. Their loyalty stems from convenience and, moreover, they are under increasing US pressure to reduce their relations with China.
It is therefore very likely that World War III will begin. As I said, the signs are evident, but that does not mean it will not come as a surprise. Just as Cuba is the same as Gaza, but without bombs, World War III could begin with any weak link in US-EU-Israel imperialism. I suspect that this weak link is the dollar as the world’s reserve currency. The war begins with the loss of economic power on a global scale and escalates with the collapse of dollar-based financial capital. Bombs can be used as causes or as consequences. The only way this will not happen is if the gold reserves that countries have been frantically accumulating prevent it. I highly doubt it.
Boaventura de Sousa Santos
March 2, 2026
World War III is about to begin
I quote Santos here not because I think he has something profoundly correct to say, but because I believe it to be profoundly false. Yes, there is a nonzero possibility of WWIII breaking out. But with the major military support lining up on one side of the current fight, I do not expect it to spread worldwide or major players to take what is almost certainly going to be the losing side. Sure, the U.S. having control over China’s oil supply will be a problem for them. But I don’t see China thinking that is justifiable cause for war. I expect the U.S. will use it for bargaining power in trade deals, not for the destruction of China. I expect Iranian oil to be flowing again in a few weeks to any country that is reasonably friendly to the West. Venezuelan oil is also going to be available to reasonably friendly countries. The U.S. is a net exporter of oil and to a certain extent the addition of oil on the world market will be bad for U.S. oil producers. Expect prices to drop in a few months as the conflict settles and the supply lines are reestablished.
As further evidence of Santos being out of touch here is his recipe for avoidance of WWIII:
Is there nothing we can do to prevent World War III?
Yes, there is.
1- An international petition asking UN Secretary-General António Guterres to resign immediately in view of the high probability of war and the UN’s inability to prevent it.
2- Take to the streets in defense of Cuba and Iran as we did in defense of Palestine.
3- Organize protests in front of the US and Israeli embassies and EU representations.
4- Considering that the most repugnant (though not the weakest) link in the US-EU-Israel triad is Israel, boycott Israel through the BDS movement.
He thinks protests change things. No, protests are for virtue signaling. Trade (or lack of it), diplomacy and physical force change things.
Scrolling through the internet, people remain really fucking stupid, are totally incapable of critical thinking, and they’re completely divorced from any sense of history.
So… Iran’s been fucking with us since I was born, has funded, trained, and enabled some of the most heinous assholes of the last several decades, destabilized an entire region of the Earth, and generally been total pricks.
Previous administrations going back to Jimmy Carter have had problems with the Iranians being total pricks who routinely do evil shit. Each of them did a little something, or nothing, or went full quisling sucked up and bribed them, but mostly they kicked the can down the road to be someone else’s problem for political expediency. Because due to the situation at those times there’d be no overthrowing the fanatics without getting into a protracted ground war that would result in lots of American casualties.
But today, due to a cascading series of current events, the situation has evolved and the American president most likely to say Fuck It YOLO, was presented the opportunity to dog walk this regime without invading. That hadn’t really been an option before.
This was all caused because one of Iran’s many proxy bands of terrorist dickheads flew their waxy terrorist wings too close to the sun and got their dicks blown off by pagers. As that escalated Iran decided to launch a shit ton of missiles which weren’t nearly as impressive as everyone was scared they would be, so then they lost a whole bunch of their leading boss assholes, and the whole world saw that Iranian air defenses were wishful thinking when some B2s buttfucked their impenetrable super bunker.
So then the populace of Iran got really uppity, because they’re sick of these religious fanatic death cultists too. Their asshole government then provided a demonstration of why we’re never ever giving up the 2nd Amendment here.
Except the FAFO president told them not to massacre all those people, and he was sick of their shit. This is the same guy who has made a rather impressive list of military operations that get in, fuck shit up, and then get out fast with minimal American casualties. This man is not George Bush. He does not have a Colin “You Break It You Buy It” Powell. Trump apparently does not seem to give a fuck about “nation building”, which works out because the American people do not want another twenty years of bullshit like Afghanistan or Iraq.
When given the opportunity to kill a ton of bad people, allowing the Iranian people to do the rest, and this opportunity has never come along before, of course Trump is going to go for it. And despite the screaming from the schizophrenic podcaster crowd of the griftosphere, most conservative Americans are very much of the attitude fuck Iran.
(of course libs are gonna lib, so get ready for a bunch of rainbow dipshits to march with Iranian flags next week)
Larry Correia
February 28, 2026
(20+) Larry Correia – Scrolling through the internet, people remain… | Facebook
Correia is an excellent writer and can be very persuasive. When confronted with someone with extraordinary persuasion skills I am immediately on guard. Is it reality they are explaining with exceptional clarity or are they selling a fiction?
After spending a fair about of time thinking about it, I’m inclined to believe Correia is correct as far as he goes. These clowns deserve every ton of high explosive persuasion they get.
I do have some concerns about what things are going to look like a year from now. Are the Iranian people going to be able to clean up the mess after the bombs and missiles stop raining? Will they try and then get machine gunned into hamburger as the military takes control? Will China see this as the most opportune time for “reunification”?
There are always tradeoffs and risk in whatever path chosen. I see the military action as morally justified. I don’t think it really should have been our responsibility to do it, but Israel couldn’t really do it on its own and no one else was stepping up to help them.
As is usual when violence is the correct course of action it is not a good thing. It is merely the least bad option available. I hope the U.S. made the correct tradeoffs.
I do not have nearly the context and intel that people who study the Mid-East professionally do. I also do not have any contacts with recent intel in the area. It finally occurred to me that there is a public proxy of sorts that could give us a better-informed take on the situation.
As I cannot recall hearing condemation of the U.S. and Israel strikes by Iranian neighbors, I asked Grok this question:
Which, if any other than Iran, Middle East countries have spoken out against the U.S./Israel strikes against Iran?
This is the response:
Most Middle Eastern countries (particularly Gulf/Arab states) have not spoken out against the U.S./Israeli strikes on Iran. Instead, many have condemned Iran’s retaliatory attacks on their territories or U.S. interests there, often issuing joint statements emphasizing sovereignty violations and their right to self-defense.
Key examples from reports:
- Saudi Arabia, Qatar, United Arab Emirates (UAE), Bahrain, Kuwait, Jordan, and Oman (Gulf states plus Jordan) condemned Iran’s strikes on their soil or U.S. bases/assets in the region. They issued statements (sometimes joint with the U.S.) denouncing Iran’s actions as “reckless,” “indiscriminate,” and a threat to stability.
- The Arab League (representing 22 nations) called Iran’s retaliatory attacks a “blatant violation of sovereignty” of peaceful countries.
- Even Syria (historically an Iranian ally) condemned Iran in statements, amid its government’s shift toward better ties with the U.S. and Gulf states.
Some limited criticism of the U.S./Israeli strikes exists:
- Lebanon’s Hezbollah (an Iranian proxy) condemned the U.S.-Israeli attacks as violations of international law.
- The League of Arab States expressed “deep concern” over the broader situation and urged de-escalation, but this appears more balanced/general rather than direct condemnation of the initial strikes.
- One report mentions a joint statement from 21 Arab and Muslim countries (led by Egypt) condemning Israel’s airstrikes on Iran and calling for de-escalation/nuclear disarmament without selectivity—but this contrasts with the broader pattern of Gulf states aligning against Iran’s retaliation.
Overall, no major Middle Eastern governments (beyond Iran itself) have prominently or consistently spoken out against the U.S./Israeli strikes. The dominant regional response has been silence on the initial strikes or criticism of Iran’s subsequent actions, with some Gulf frustration directed at the U.S. for perceived prioritization of Israel’s defense over theirs during the escalation.
Countries like Turkey, Iraq, Egypt, and others have not been prominently reported as condemning the U.S./Israeli actions in available sources—many stayed silent on the initial strikes or focused on condemning Iran’s follow-up attacks. Russia and China (non-Middle Eastern) have condemned the U.S./Israeli strikes.
This reminds “the dog that didn’t bark” clue from the Sherlock Holmes story, Silver Blaze. This tells me either these other countries are getting pressure from U.S./Israel to be supportive or be quiet, or they actually support the attacking of Iran. My guess is they support it or at least have mixed feelings about and are not actively opposed.
Good to know.
HAPPENING NOW! Israel bombed the building hosting the voting for the Iranian leadership succession AS THEY WERE VOTING! I guess that means they won’t be having any leadership for a while.
Who is the wise person who thought of all meeting in one place?
Houman David Hemmati, MD, PhD @houmanhemmati
Posted on X, March 3, 2026
If there were wise people in the group, they would not have a theocratic death cult for the leadership of a country. But the death cult getting put to death is appropriate conclusive end to situation. Will it be the end? Perhaps not. But it is going to make it more difficult to find hard line leadership. After all, how many levels of decapitation does it take before no one wants to be the head?
Via email from Paul K. who referenced BREAKING: Iran Supreme Council Bombed While Gathering to Choose New Leadership.
How can she believe this? Is it something she was taught in school? Is it something her communist handlers told her to say?
If I knew how to contact this person, I would invite her to visit the farm I grew up on. If she were to show up, I would then introduce her to all the neighbors. Then she would visit a bunch of my classmates who were or are loggers and/or worked in the local mills. Then the construction workers and contractors who build the homes and commercial buildings. What she would find is that 99.5% of the manual labor in Clearwater County is done by white people.
But, of course, she would not visit. And if she did visit, it would be unlikely to change her mind. For some people facts and evidence are independent of their belief system. Almost for certain, she is one of those people. She is living a delusion that she finds comfortable. As Heinlein said in a different context, “Delusions are often functional.” But reality will someday have the last word.
From Eight Countries Have Now Joined the U.S.-Led War Effort Against Iran:
Iranian ballistic missile strikes have been responded to with intense missile defence operations by Saudi Arabia, Qatar and the United Arab Emirates, which have employed their own air defence systems to protect U.S. bases and other targets from Iranian strikes, making them direct participants in the war effort. The possibility of Gulf states deploying their air forces, which include some of the region’s most sophisticated fighter types, to launch retaliatory strikes on Iran, has been speculated by analysts. Alongside the United States, Israel, and the five aforementioned Gulf states, the United Kingdom has also announced its participation in the war effort, with Defence Secretary John Healey referring to the Iranian government as “abhorrent,” in line with the broader consensus in the Western world regarding the need for attacks to ensure its destruction. Royal Air Force Eurofighters which were pre-positioned in Qatar in January are reported to have been scrambled to support air defence efforts.audi Arabia, Qatar and the United Arab Emirates.
From Qatar downs two Iranian fighter jets as conflict widens | Israel-Iran conflict News | Al Jazeera:
The Qatari Defence Ministry said in a statement on Monday that the air force downed two SU-24 aircraft while seven ballistic missiles and five drones fired by Iran were also intercepted.
From British Royal Air Force F-35 stealth fighter jets just scored their first-ever combat kill:
British F-35s shot down drones over Jordan, marking the first time that one of the Royal Air Force’s stealth fighter jets has destroyed a target in combat, the UK defense ministry said on Tuesday.
…
British bases have also been hit in this conflict, in which the UK is not offensively involved.
Via Copilot:
Iran has retaliated not only against the U.S. and Israel but also against multiple Gulf nations, drawing them into active defensive combat roles. According to CNBC, Iran has launched strikes against several Gulf states as part of its response.
Countries now engaged in defensive or counter‑strike operations include:
- Saudi Arabia — responding to Iranian missile and drone attacks.
- United Arab Emirates — participating in defensive actions and regional coordination.
- Bahrain, Kuwait, Oman, Qatar — involved in defensive measures, airspace control, and regional security operations.
While some of these states frame their involvement as defensive only, the practical effect is active participation in the conflict.
Several European nations have mobilized forces in response to the widening conflict, particularly to protect Cyprus and maintain regional stability.
- France — engaged in defensive operations and regional force mobilization.
- Greece — participating in protective deployments around Cyprus.
- United Kingdom — operating from its sovereign bases at Akrotiri and Dhekelia, which have become strategically important staging points.
These countries are not leading offensive strikes on Iran but are actively involved in combat‑adjacent operations and regional defense.
Although politically complex, both Iraq and the Kurdistan Region appear on the list of belligerents aligned against Iran in the current conflict. Their involvement includes defensive actions, airspace control, and responses to Iranian‑aligned militias operating within their borders.
Jordan is participating in defensive operations, including intercepting Iranian projectiles and coordinating with U.S. and Gulf partners to maintain airspace security.
Via Grok:
Iran’s retaliation—via ballistic missiles, drones, and other projectiles—has targeted U.S. bases, Israeli territory, and sites in neighboring states. This has pulled several countries into active combat, primarily through defensive actions like intercepting incoming threats, but some have escalated to direct engagements:
- Saudi Arabia, United Arab Emirates (UAE), Qatar, Bahrain, and Kuwait — These Gulf states host U.S. military bases and have actively used their air defense systems (including Patriot and THAAD) to intercept Iranian missiles and drones aimed at those installations and their own territory. Strikes have hit civilian and energy infrastructure in some cases (e.g., airports, ports, and high-rises), prompting strong condemnations and defensive operations. Reports indicate these nations are now direct participants in the war effort, with speculation about potential offensive contributions from their advanced air forces.
- United Kingdom — Announced participation, with RAF Eurofighters (pre-positioned in Qatar) scrambled for air defense support against Iranian threats.
- Jordan — Intercepted Iranian projectiles targeting its airspace or U.S. interests.
- Qatar — Notably shot down Iranian Su-24 bombers, marking direct air-to-air combat.
Other nations like France, Greece, and Oman appear in defensive roles or have been affected, but their involvement is more limited or supportive.
The involvement of so many Middle Eastern countries being against Iran (note that I’m not saying they are pro American or Israel) makes me believe we will soon see more support from European politicians. Many people are easily driven by which way the wind is blowing. With the primary direction of the wind against Iran, more people will join in to be on “the winning side.”
Khamenei is dead. Good.
But I have family in Iran. My dad is there right now. And I’m not celebrating yet. Here’s why.
Iran built the most layered contingency plan on Earth for this exact moment. Four levels of succession for every key position. Pre-authorized military strikes. Regional commanders who don’t need orders from Tehran to act.
As you read this, there is already a new Supreme Leader. We just don’t know who.
This isn’t Maduro. The government didn’t get overthrown. The system absorbed the hit. That’s what it was designed to do.
Every credible intel assessment says the same thing: a post-Khamenei Iran is more likely to get harder, not softer. More IRGC. More dangerous. Potentially worse for the Iranian people than Khamenei himself.
Don’t breathe yet. There’s a long way to go.
Iman Jalali @Stealx
Posted on X, February 28, 2026
Yes, with a death cult in control of Iran and knowing they are in an existential fight they are unlikely to give up easily. But that is not all there is to this story.
With posts like this indicating internal support for crushing the Iranian theocracy, three Gulf states preparing for combat against Iran, and verbal support from France, Germany, and the U.K. it would seem that Iran will be inclined to fold more quickly than some had anticipated. If true it will also narrow the opportunity window and reduce U.S. military munitions drain. This is important if we are to have credible support for Taiwan against action by China.