159
submitted 3 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago) by SeventyTwoTrillion@hexbear.net to c/news@hexbear.net

A reminder that as the US continues to threaten countries around the world, fedposting is to be very much avoided (even with qualifiers like "in Minecraft") and comments containing it will be removed.

Image is of a destroyed American AWACS plane in Saudi Arabia, of which there is a very limited supply and each of which is enormously expensive both monetarily and in terms of components. Iran hit this with a precision drone strike that likely cost ~$20,000.


I don't have much to add from the last megathread description. This isn't to say that nothing has happened or has changed since then - decades are still happening in weeks - but the general flow of the war is remaining the same. Trump sometimes threatens to open the Strait with troops and flatten Iran to rubble, and other times threatens that he's gonna back off and let other countries handle it if they really want little trifles like "fuel" and "energy" so much. Iran continues to strike across the Middle East. The West continues to bomb civilian infrastructure due to their relative inability to affect the missile cities. In all: things are generally getting worse for America and the Zionists.

April is the month where the last ships that left Hormuz before it was closed will arrive around the world, so the last month of economic turmoil has been a mere prelude to what's going to occur in the near-future. The silver lining is that Iran appears to be formalizing the new state of affairs in Hormuz, creating a rial-based toll to allow passage between a pair of Iranian-controlled islands where they can be monitored, meaning that, as long as the US doesn't do something exceptionally stupid, the global energy crisis may "only" last a couple years instead of simply being the new reality from now on. Some countries have already agreed to this arrangement, and others will inevitably follow despite their consternation as their economies increasingly suffer.


Last week's thread is here.
The Imperialism Reading Group is here.

Please check out the RedAtlas!

The bulletins site is here. Currently not used.
The RSS feed is here. Also currently not used.

The Zionist Entity's Genocide of Palestine

If you have evidence of Zionist crimes and atrocities that you wish to preserve, there is a thread here in which to do so.

Sources on the fighting in Palestine against the temporary Zionist entity. In general, CW for footage of battles, explosions, dead people, and so on:

UNRWA reports on the Zionists' destruction and siege of Gaza and the West Bank.

English-language Palestinian Marxist-Leninist twitter account. Alt here.
English-language twitter account that collates news.
Arab-language twitter account with videos and images of fighting.
English-language (with some Arab retweets) Twitter account based in Lebanon. - Telegram is @IbnRiad.
English-language Palestinian Twitter account which reports on news from the Resistance Axis. - Telegram is @EyesOnSouth.
English-language Twitter account in the same group as the previous two. - Telegram here.

Mirrors of Telegram channels that have been erased by Zionist censorship.

Russia-Ukraine Conflict

Examples of Ukrainian Nazis and fascists
Examples of racism/euro-centrism during the Russia-Ukraine conflict

Sources:

Defense Politics Asia's youtube channel and their map. Their youtube channel has substantially diminished in quality but the map is still useful.
Moon of Alabama, which tends to have interesting analysis. Avoid the comment section.
Understanding War and the Saker: reactionary sources that have occasional insights on the war.
Alexander Mercouris, who does daily videos on the conflict. While he is a reactionary and surrounds himself with likeminded people, his daily update videos are relatively brainworm-free and good if you don't want to follow Russian telegram channels to get news. He also co-hosts The Duran, which is more explicitly conservative, racist, sexist, transphobic, anti-communist, etc when guests are invited on, but is just about tolerable when it's just the two of them if you want a little more analysis.
Simplicius, who publishes on Substack. Like others, his political analysis should be soundly ignored, but his knowledge of weaponry and military strategy is generally quite good.
On the ground: Patrick Lancaster, an independent and very good journalist reporting in the warzone on the separatists' side.

Unedited videos of Russian/Ukrainian press conferences and speeches.

Pro-Russian Telegram Channels:

Again, CW for anti-LGBT and racist, sexist, etc speech, as well as combat footage.

https://t.me/aleksandr_skif ~ DPR's former Defense Minister and Colonel in the DPR's forces. Russian language.
https://t.me/Slavyangrad ~ A few different pro-Russian people gather frequent content for this channel (~100 posts per day), some socialist, but all socially reactionary. If you can only tolerate using one Russian telegram channel, I would recommend this one.
https://t.me/s/levigodman ~ Does daily update posts.
https://t.me/patricklancasternewstoday ~ Patrick Lancaster's telegram channel.
https://t.me/gonzowarr ~ A big Russian commentator.
https://t.me/rybar ~ One of, if not the, biggest Russian telegram channels focussing on the war out there. Actually quite balanced, maybe even pessimistic about Russia. Produces interesting and useful maps.
https://t.me/epoddubny ~ Russian language.
https://t.me/boris_rozhin ~ Russian language.
https://t.me/mod_russia_en ~ Russian Ministry of Defense. Does daily, if rather bland updates on the number of Ukrainians killed, etc. The figures appear to be approximately accurate; if you want, reduce all numbers by 25% as a 'propaganda tax', if you don't believe them. Does not cover everything, for obvious reasons, and virtually never details Russian losses.
https://t.me/UkraineHumanRightsAbuses ~ Pro-Russian, documents abuses that Ukraine commits.

Pro-Ukraine Telegram Channels:

Almost every Western media outlet.
https://discord.gg/projectowl ~ Pro-Ukrainian OSINT Discord.
https://t.me/ice_inii ~ Alleged Ukrainian account with a rather cynical take on the entire thing.


you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] Tervell@hexbear.net 78 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago)

https://archive.ph/Jn3Ap

The Strait of Hormuz offers a lesson in air denial

“Iran’s power is the Hormuz Strait.” Those were Iranian foreign minister Abbas Aragchi’s words on state television last week. He wasn’t wrong. Four weeks into this conflict, the United States has struck more than 10,000 Iranian targets, destroyed roughly 80% of Iran’s air defense capabilities, and eliminated its navy as a fighting force. Yet the strait remains effectively closed — and Iran’s drones and missiles are keeping it that way.

I love how they keep touting "Iran's navy has been destroyed!" as if they don't have like a gajilion fast attack boats still chilling out

anyways, some interesting air superiority discourse down below

more

Tehran’s goal is to impose persistent economic and political costs until Washington concludes that continuing the war is not worth it. To achieve that, Iran is exploiting a gap in U.S. Air Force doctrine — the distinction between air superiority and air denial, and between the blue skies and the air littoral. So far, it is working. Air superiority — the control that permits operations at a “given time and place without prohibitive interference from air and missile threats” — is what the United States has achieved over southern and western Iran and is now working to extend eastward. That control allows large-scale strikes and freedom of maneuver at medium and high altitudes. As Gen. Dan Caine, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, noted on Tuesday, “Given the increase in air superiority, we’ve successfully started to conduct the first overland B-52 missions.” By that measure, the campaign has been a success. But the strait is still closed. Air superiority is meant to assure freedom of action not just in the air, but across all domains for the entire joint force. Air Force Doctrine Publication 3-0 is explicit on this point: air superiority “prevents enemy air and missile threats from effectively interfering with operations of friendly air, land, maritime, space, cyberspace, and special operations forces.” That includes the Navy’s ability to escort commercial vessels through the Strait of Hormuz. By that measure, the United States does not have air superiority where it counts.

lol. lmao. hoisted by their own doctrinal documents

it's really cool when we have just straight-up openly available clear definitions of stuff, which we don't bother to read and then proceed to make up our own, and argue endlessly about whether something meets or doesn't meet the definition, except since each one of us just made up their own definition we're effectively talking completely past one another. many such cases!

Iran’s drone and missile campaign has already forced American forces back. In 2003, the bulk of U.S. combat and support aircraft operated from forward positions in Kuwait, Qatar and Saudi Arabia while carriers patrolled the Persian Gulf. Today, carriers increasingly operate from the Red and Arabian Seas while land-based airpower has shifted toward bases farther from the strait, leaving U.S. forces positioned for the high-altitude fight over Iran, not the persistent-close-in coverage the strait requires to keep shipping lanes open under continuous drone and missile threat. Iran’s strategy of air denial is why. Air denial is a strategy of contesting control of the air without achieving air superiority outright. It leverages the advantages of large numbers of low-cost and mobile systems employed in a distributed way to keep the air domain too dangerous, too costly and too uncertain for joint forces to operate. Critically, the barriers to achieving air denial are considerably lower than those required to gain and sustain air superiority, yet it can impose disproportionate costs. In the Strait of Hormuz, Iran is putting this strategy into practice. Tehran is exploiting the air littoral above the strait, employing drones and missiles capable of reaching oil tankers and naval vessels in minutes. Iran has struck more than 20 commercial vessels in and around the strait since the war began, killing at least seven sailors. This action has effectively halted traffic through the strait, except for a handful of ships that Iran has let pass — in many cases, for a hefty fee. The U.S. Navy has reportedly declined requests from the shipping industry for military escorts, citing the ongoing threat.

Iran’s strategy appears to be working. Gas prices have risen a dollar a gallon in a month, U.S. stock markets have entered correction territory, and the White House is under growing pressure to wind down the conflict. Iran planned for exactly this. Tehran built this playbook, funded it, and watched it succeed. The lessons come straight from the Red Sea, where Houthi proxies used cheap, distributed drones and missiles to impose costs that more than 800 U.S. airstrikes between 2024 and 2025 could not eliminate. Now, Iran is running the same playbook over the Strait of Hormuz. The United States has no ready answer. Achieving and maintaining air superiority in the air littoral above the strait demands the very layered defense capabilities in which the Pentagon has systematically underinvested: large numbers of low-cost, attritable systems to continuously attack launch locations and dispersed manufacturing; mobile air defenses rapidly and persistently deployable near threatened waterways; low cost persistent airborne platforms capable of detecting and destroying waves of drones; and interceptors capable of sustaining high engagement rates without exhausting inventories. These are precisely the capabilities decades of procurement choices never built at scale, in favor of the small number of exquisite platforms that have performed so well in the blue skies above Tehran. The gap is not an accident. It is the result of choices. The Strait of Hormuz is one of their consequences. Addressing this gap requires building low-cost, attritable systems at scale to contest and control the air littoral — not in small numbers as an afterthought, after the high-end aircraft are bought and paid for, but as a core mission — which inevitably means scaling back legacy platforms. The window to absorb that lesson is open now, while the cost is measured in closed shipping lanes and rising gas prices.

[-] Awoo@hexbear.net 48 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago)

It's not really air superiority/supremacy that they're discussing really is it? It's about total aerial control over all munitions. They're really talking about drones, which are ultimately just cheaper missiles. Which is effectively aiming to achieve total denial of all munitions in an airspace.

Not achievable in my opinion. Whatever they make to shoot down shit will always be more expensive than the shit they're shooting down because it's harder to shoot shit out of the sky than it is to put shit into the sky. And ultimately if you shoot more into the sky than they can shoot down you're always going to overwhelm the defence.

Gonna need autonomous dogfighting drones that can be launched by hand instantly if they want to get anywhere with this, you need reusability. I'd try to make a drone that can be launched by hand in 5 seconds that flies to the enemy drone and shoots it with guns, then loiters in the airspace and targets anything else autonomously.

[-] Tervell@hexbear.net 43 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago)

It's not really air superiority/supremacy that they're discussing really is it? It's about total aerial control over all munitions

That's the key point - the US Air Force's own definition of air superiority is essentially that (although not exactly "total control", but "preventing from effectively interfering" - this leaves some wiggle-room for the enemy to still be able to fire some munitions, as long as they're ineffective, but that very much isn't the case here - Iran is in fact inflicting damage and constraining US freedom of action)

https://www.doctrine.af.mil/Portals/61/documents/AFDP_3-0/AFDP3-0Operations.pdf

by the US's own metrics, if the Iranians can keep firing missiles and drones and affect US operations, the US doesn't have air superiority, no matter how many times Hegseth repeats it. And given that the Iranians obviously can do that, are still doing it after a month of bombardment, and can probably keep doing it for a long while further, it kind of calls into question the whole concept - what would it take to achieve air superiority? The article offers some suggestions, but I agree with you that it's probably not really achievable.

[-] jmo@hexbear.net 18 points 1 day ago

So this is really interesting because I was just talking to an organization that is looking to build the exact type of systems the article describes. My thinking is at least part of it is marketing for in field autonomous drone manufacturing systems being designed by the big defense contractors. Not disagreeing with the article, just thought that was an important perspective to keep in mind.

It's really funny to see how the MIC is fundamentally hampering western military capabilities as their economic strategies incentivize building the big expensive weapons systems which are proving to be significantly less effective than building more distributed and cost effective systems.

[-] Awoo@hexbear.net 3 points 1 day ago

Interesting. I was unaware that they included munitions in that.

[-] Tervell@hexbear.net 2 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago)

I think they haven't quite updated the doctrine to account for drones (which is baffling since this is a document from January 2025, nearly 3 years into the Ukraine war, what are they even doing!?), technically they only refer to "air and missile threats" in the text, but drones like the Shahed can, from a doctrinal perspective, be viewed as essentially a sort of simple cruise missile, slower and with a lower payload but having a much lower footprint and thus greater flexibility in where you can deploy it from (some media outlets have even taken to calling them "rudimentary cruise missiles", I guess to better distinguish them from the manually-piloted FPV style which has gained the most association with the term "drone" due to the Ukraine war, taking over from the Predator/Reaper-style which used to be the typical thing people thought of when they heard "drone" previously)

[-] aanes_appreciator@hexbear.net 9 points 1 day ago

"80% of Irans air defenses destroyed" considering the reports of Iranian air defences splatting imperialists have risen inversely to the hyperbolic claims of "X% of Iran's air defences destroyed" I'm gonna assume any future claims are bullshit.

[-] Damarcusart@hexbear.net 1 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago)

Do you think they use AI to write these articles because any human writing it would know how bullshit it is, even the ones drinking the koolaid?

this post was submitted on 01 Apr 2026
159 points (100.0% liked)

news

24698 readers
832 users here now

Welcome to c/news! We aim to foster a book-club type environment for discussion and critical analysis of the news. Our policy objectives are:

We ask community members to appreciate the uncertainty inherent in critical analysis of current events, the need to constantly learn, and take part in the community with humility. None of us are the One True Leftist, not even you, the reader.

Newcomm and Newsmega Rules:

The Hexbear Code of Conduct and Terms of Service apply here.

  1. Link titles: Please use informative link titles. Overly editorialized titles, particularly if they link to opinion pieces, may get your post removed.

  2. Content warnings: Posts on the newscomm and top-level replies on the newsmega should use content warnings appropriately. Please be thoughtful about wording and triggers when describing awful things in post titles.

  3. Fake news: No fake news posts ever, including April 1st. Deliberate fake news posting is a bannable offense. If you mistakenly post fake news the mod team may ask you to delete/modify the post or we may delete it ourselves.

  4. Link sources: All posts must include a link to their source. Screenshots are fine IF you include the link in the post body. If you are citing a Twitter post as news, please include the Xcancel.com (or another Nitter instance) or at least strip out identifier information from the twitter link. There is also a Firefox extension that can redirect Twitter links to a Nitter instance, such as Libredirect or archive them as you would any other reactionary source.

  5. Archive sites: We highly encourage use of non-paywalled archive sites (i.e. archive.is, web.archive.org, ghostarchive.org) so that links are widely accessible to the community and so that reactionary sources don’t derive data/ad revenue from Hexbear users. If you see a link without an archive link, please archive it yourself and add it to the thread, ask the OP to fix it, or report to mods. Including text of articles in threads is welcome.

  6. Low effort material: Avoid memes/jokes/shitposts in newscomm posts and top-level replies to the newsmega. This kind of content is OK in post replies and in newsmega sub-threads. We encourage the community to balance their contribution of low effort material with effort posts, links to real news/analysis, and meaningful engagement with material posted in the community.

  7. American politics: Discussion and effort posts on the (potential) material impacts of American electoral politics is welcome, but the never-ending circus of American Politics© Brought to You by Mountain Dew™ is not welcome. This refers to polling, pundit reactions, electoral horse races, rumors of who might run, etc.

  8. Electoralism: Please try to avoid struggle sessions about the value of voting/taking part in the electoral system in the West. c/electoralism is right over there.

  9. AI Slop: Don't post AI generated content. Posts about AI race/chip wars/data centers are fine.

founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS