Aggregator

Iran Seeking To Increase Range Of Missiles: 'Keep Enemy At Greater Distance'

Zero Rss
22 hours 50 minutes ago
Iran Seeking To Increase Range Of Missiles: 'Keep Enemy At Greater Distance'

Just days ago President Trump told a Republican audience at a rally that Iran "is ready to fold up," and again expressing his belief the war will end "right after the election," though he also said "maybe before the election" - in reference to the midterms.

But Tehran on Monday is seeking to reassert its defiance and military readiness in the wake of Trump threats, announcing that the "enemy's next mistake" is going to "bring new fronts and surprises" - according to state media.

Getty Images

One key development being touted relates to the Islamic Republic's missiles. Not only have Iranian officials in the recent past touted that production never stopped even during active bombing campaigns, but now there's a new push to increase the range of projectiles.

Army spokesman Mohammad Akraminia has said in an interview with Fars that technicians are working on fast increasing the range of the country's missiles.

"In this war we concluded that we must definitely upgrade the range of our missiles, and we have now moved in that direction," Akraminia said. This is in order to keep the "enemy located at greater distance."

The furthest distance the Iranians are believed to have targeted in the conflict is the Diego Garcia base in the Indian Ocean. That distance is something like 2,500 miles.

"The missiles that we used during the war, particularly those used by our ground forces to target enemy bases, which were used in Kuwait, and our naval forces also used naval missiles, or sea-launched missiles, sea cruise missiles, against enemy vessels," he said further.

"These were actually very good and effective missiles, and we have now reached the conclusion that we need to increase their speed and range, because the enemy is located at a greater distance from our forces," the Iranian army spokesman continued. "They are located at a distance of up to 1,000 kilometers, and God willing, we will upgrade them as well."

Since the opening months of Operation Epic Fury, it has become clear that US forces were ordered to dismantle Gulf region bases and move away from the reach of Iranian missiles and drones.

While the US has frequently boasted about destroying Iran's navy, there is a Washington consensus that Iran's missile arsenal is by and large intact and operational. Trump reasoned earlier in the conflict that Iran's missiles won't be completely taken away or destroyed:

“I mean, they have to have some, because other people have some. You got to have some,” Trump said. 

“I like some of these guys, but I … don’t think they’re smart. ‘Sir, you shouldn’t let them have any missile,’” the president said of unnamed advisers. “I said, ‘well, what am I going to do? Am I going to let Saudi Arabia have missiles, but they can’t have them?’ ‘Yes, sir.’”  

“Doesn’t work that way, you know, it doesn’t work that way, and missiles aren’t the problem,” he said. “Missiles, they hurt a little location, but they don’t blow up the planet.” 

Iran plans to upgrade all missiles, incl land & naval missiles, to hit targets farther from Iran’s shores. Iran’s Army Spokesman said, “In this war, we came to the conclusion that we definitely need to increase the range of our missiles, and we have now moved in that direction.” He says Iran has done very good work in terms of missile speed and precision-strike capability, and future generations of missiles will possess these capabilities to an even greater extent. He says while the missiles that were used against US bases such as in Kuwait or against US assets in the sea were very good and effective, they have now concluded that Iran needs to increase their speed and range, because today the enemy is positioned farther away from Iran’s shores, at distances of up to 1,000 kilometers.

— Arya Yadegaar (@AryJeayBackup) October 4, 2026

For the US military, hunting down all storage and deployment locations would likely be a nearly impossible task - given both the huge size of Iran and the fact that the bulk of the arsenal lies in underground 'missile cities'. Any kind of total dismantling of the program would require heavy ground forces - something which the White House has thus far shown a strong aversion to.

Tyler Durden Tue, 10/06/2026 - 05:45
Tyler Durden

UK Universities Declare The Term Ethnic Minority Is Offensive

Zero Rss
23 hours 35 minutes ago
UK Universities Declare The Term Ethnic Minority Is Offensive

Authored by Steve Watson via Modernity.news,

Universities have decided the phrase "ethnic minority" is now an offence. The approved substitutes are "racialised minority" and "global majority." The delivery system for this newspeak is a compulsory lecture for students.

GB News hosted a short debate Saturday night over the phrases British university students are being told to drop, with one commentator noting "This ideology constantly cannibalises itself."

Yesterday's respectful term is today's banned one. Messages sent out by some colleges over the topic refused to encourage debate, but rather demanded a "collective and unified response."

'This ideology constantly cannibalises itself.'

Emma Trimble and Mathew Hulbert go head-to-head over phrases British university students are being asked to stop using, such as replacing 'ethnic minority' with 'racialised minority' or 'global majority'. pic.twitter.com/LVt0B4eLwB

— GB News (@GBNEWS) October 3, 2026

The University of the West of England tells students that "global majority" is "a collective term that refers to people who are black, Asian, brown, mixed heritage, indigenous to the Global South and/or are not racialised as white," and that using it "moves the focus away from Europe and whiteness."

The University of Bristol now addresses "Asian, Black and other racialised minority students." The phrase the students are being told to retire is the one that simply describes a demographic fact in Britain. The replacement describes a political theory.

As we highlighted earlier this week, the Green Party produced its own "Inclusive Terminology Guidance" ahead of its conference. Members are encouraged to use "global majority," described as "an umbrella term for people of Black, Asian, Brown, Indigenous and Latin American heritage" which "reflects the fact that these groups make up the majority of the world's population, but are often minoritised in countries such as the UK."

"Brown" should be "used with caution." "Racially minoritised" is preferred because it "emphasises that minority status is created by social and power structures, rather than being inherent." Using the wrong words, the party warns, "can create environments that feel unwelcoming or exclusionary." The Express reported that failing the word test can be treated as a breach of the party's code on bullying and harassment.

The term was brought to prominence by the educator Rosemary Campbell-Stephens, who has defined it as covering people who are "black, Asian, brown, dual-heritage, indigenous to the global south, and or have been racialised as 'ethnic minorities,'" said to represent about 80 per cent of the world's population. In a 2024 article she co-wrote, the argument was put without much decoration: "Historically, it has been white people, specifically white men, who have held the power to categorize people in relation to themselves." The proposed correction is to stop calling minorities minorities.

The people being renamed have not signed up. A YouGov study of ethnic minority Britons, published in May 2025, found that only 34 per cent had ever heard of "global majority," and just 7 per cent had ever used it. Only 27 per cent called it an acceptable term for the non-white population of Britain. Twenty-three per cent called it unacceptable, and half were unsure.

By contrast, 66 per cent said "ethnic minorities" was acceptable, 49 per cent said the same of "BAME," and 42 per cent of "people of colour." Asked which term they preferred, 35 per cent chose "ethnic minorities." Nine per cent chose "global majority."

So the phrase universities are retiring is the one a clear majority of the people it describes will accept. The phrase they are being taught is the one almost none of them use. That is the cannibalism. The category is redefined, the old word is declared harmful, and dissent from the new word is itself recast as a micro-inequity.

As we also noted this week, one of Cambridge's oldest colleges has decided free speech itself should be "restricted," and inclusivity training is now mandatory.

Gonville and Caius College told its undergraduates the attendance requirement in writing. An email from the education and tutorial office, seen by The Spectator, states: "attendance by undergraduate students is mandatory. It is important for the community as a whole to ensure a collective and unified response." The 90-minute sessions, run by activist 'charity' Stop Hate UK, cover "demonstrating inclusive behaviours" and "recognition of a hate incident and its impact."

Stop Hate UK has published a video demanding that university students must always display "positive attitudes" and "use respectful and kind language that will not cause harm or offence." Its syllabus for educational settings tells students that their right to free speech should be "restricted by other duties, responsibilities, and legislative and contractual obligations," and teaches them how "opinions, attitudes and prejudice are influenced and shaped by unconscious bias, media bias, fake news, etc."

Andrew Gilligan, writing in The Spectator, asked the question the college has not answered: "How will students be required to 'demonstrate' that their behaviour is 'inclusive?'" The charity's own glossary supplies the working definition. It speaks of "microaggressions" and "micro-inequities," including "unintentional comments" and "unconscious messages" that "devalue and discourage people... conveyed through facial expressions, gestures, tone of voice, choice of words." Hate incidents, it says, can include "abusive gestures" or "malicious complaints about parking."

A parking complaint. A look on a face. A tone of voice. That is the standard Caius has hired in, then made compulsory, at a university that still markets itself as a place of free enquiry. The college is not hosting a debate about speech. It is declaring, through the trainer it chose, that speech should be restricted.

A university that cannot trust its students with the words "ethnic minority" is not protecting anyone. It is training them to treat ordinary speech as a conduct offence, then calling the compulsive training inclusion.

Tyler Durden Tue, 10/06/2026 - 05:00
Tyler Durden

zero rss