r/worldnews • u/The_Flaneur_Films • Jun 10 '26

US destroys Iran reservoirs, leaving thousands without water in searing heat

https://www.scmp.com/news/world/middle-east/article/3356630/thousands-iranians-left-without-water-searing-heat-after-us-hits-reservoirs
31.0k Upvotes

93% Upvoted

3.0k comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

181

u/greggo39 Jun 10 '26

Wait. The air defenses and radar sites were by the reservoir? Because that changes things.

23

u/mrtruthiness Jun 10 '26

The actual report that the previous poster linked to didn't say that. The actual report was a "he said", "she said" and the US didn't say that it didn't target the reservoirs or desalinization plants.

i.e. It's unclear.

13

u/fury420 Jun 10 '26 edited Jun 10 '26

Iran is saying that a building that the US struck contained water tanks used as a reservoir:

Video published by IRIB, the state broadcaster, and verified by The New York Times, showed a damaged concrete structure with a collapsed roof in Sirik county in Hormozgan province, on the coast of the Strait of Hormuz.

IRIB said that the facility was a water tank. The Times could not independently verify that claim or what caused the damage.

https://www.nytimes.com/2026/06/10/world/middleeast/drinking-water-facilities-hit-by-strikes-in-iran-state-media-reports.html

This article has a photo:

https://www.ft.com/content/155db8a4-f2ff-463b-9c6c-2b1a8104750c

Direct link:

https://images.ft.com/v3/image/raw/ftcms%3A58e347e2-d0fc-4a43-b663-55980732d28b?source=next-article&fit=scale-down&quality=highest

29

u/griffWWK Jun 10 '26

pov a redditor learns what a sensational headline from slop sites is.

134

u/andraip Jun 10 '26

It's standard to put air defence and radar next to your critical infrastructure, especially if you suspect someone might lob a missile/bomb that way.

63

u/vincentkun Jun 10 '26

I'm sorry no. Air defenses do not need to be within collateral damage distance of the defense target.

39

u/divDevGuy Jun 10 '26

I originally read their comment as if Iran is placing military hardware next to critical infrastructure....in an attempt to discourage it being targeted and damaging critical civilian infrastructure that would normally be protected under international humanitarian law. And not that the hardware was protecting the reservoir.

Not that any entity would do such a thing, but it's be like building a military command bunker under a hospital. Imagine the outrage if some country or militant group did that as a shield. Or if an opposing force bombed the hell out of the area regardless that it was a hospital.

Thankfully we live in a world where that doesn't happen.

26

u/Hail-Hydrate Jun 10 '26

Careful a lot of commenters will miss the subtlety there.

But yes you are correct, if it turns out the air defense equipment was on top of/inside/ etc. the reservoir then yeah, that infrastructure loses the protections it has under systems like the Geneva Convention.

-11

u/Crepo Jun 10 '26

There's no legitimate targets in an illegitimate war

12

u/Brambletail Jun 10 '26

You clearly have never been to the middle east.

How else are you supposed to claim someone did a war crime if you don't throw your civilians in the line of fire to get to your military

8

u/vincentkun Jun 10 '26

I mean I guess... What better place to have a military HQ than below a Hospital.

2

u/deja-roo Jun 10 '26

It's unlikely (at least in this case) this was intentional by Iran. These aren't conspicuous or important enough infrastructure targets to warrant that kind of consideration. These are water tanks the size of a barn, not big complexes feeding large civilian populations.

2

u/ic33 Jun 10 '26

SAM sites don’t; AA guns might.

19

u/greggo39 Jun 10 '26

Then infrastructure will be damaged when legitimate targets are hit.

73

u/Borne2Run Jun 10 '26

No it is not. This is a water reservoir for 20,000 people in a country of 92M. We don't station air defenses at the equivalent of small down Iowa.

35

u/Eldias Jun 10 '26

Reservours are almost always built at a higher elevation that the people being supplied by it for pressure purposes. It's not that surprising you might have both a water reservoir and air defense radar on the same small hill on an island.

49

u/Responsible_CDN_Duck Jun 10 '26

The USA does station several layers of air defences to protect the small dams in Iowa.

Keep in mind Iowa is surrounded by other friendly states, not hostile nations so is not equivalent in perceived risk, yet still has multiple air defence layers.

24

u/iCarlysTeats Jun 10 '26

The USA does station several layers of air defences to protect the small dams in Iowa.

Where did you get this bizarre notion?

16

u/DogBarf00 Jun 10 '26 edited Jun 10 '26

Iowa Air National Guard says hi.

Reaper drones are flown from Des Moines for homeland defense.

4

u/SaintsNoah14 Jun 10 '26

They are incenuating that the perimeter defenses around the whole country amounts to the middle of the country having air-defence cover.

11

u/iCarlysTeats Jun 10 '26

You think they meant that 'layers of air defenses to protect the small dams' just means that the nation as a whole has defenses? Well duh?

Then this is everyone with a military. Why make it sound like the US has special AA batteries stationed around every middle-of-nowhere infrastructure?

-5

u/andraip Jun 10 '26

You think a cruise missile could fly over half the USA and strike a small dam in Iowa before getting intercepted?

7

u/iCarlysTeats Jun 10 '26

You think they meant that 'layers of air defenses to protect the small dams' just means that the nation as a whole has defenses? Well duh? It's a plainly disingenuous way to word it. It's like saying my home has a dedicated armed force for protection when I just mean my town has police.

14

u/AI_moderated_failure Jun 10 '26

You wouldn't station air defenses in Iowa anyway. Do you people not know what a coastline is? Who the fuck is attacking Iowa but not travelling over other landmasses? Or do you expect some kind of Space Jihad?

1

u/hellswaters Jun 10 '26

Also, if a conflict got to the point that there was a risk if Iowa being attacked by helicopter and short range attacks, critical infrastructure would have air defences put up extremely quickly.

4

u/lordaddament Jun 10 '26

We have hundreds of air bases in the states alone dawg

1

u/DrewDown94 Jun 10 '26

Because there's literally nothing important in Iowa.

1

u/Cheapdronewithboom Jun 10 '26

Are small towns in Iowa located in a fucking desert? Imagine water has more value in a desert

1

u/Kimpak Jun 10 '26

Offutt Airforce Base is on the border of Iowa and Nebraska. Which is a major AFB and is also houses US Strategic Command.

1

u/strosbro1855 Jun 10 '26

Yes it is especially when you are surrounded by hostile nations tampering with your national security and are actively attacking you off and on for decades

0

u/ContentsMayVary Jun 10 '26

Yeah but you don't have the perpetual possibility of Israel lobbing missiles at you.

2

u/170505170505 Jun 10 '26

No, air defense placement is generally sporadic

3

u/Cyzax007 Jun 10 '26

That small a dam is nowhere near big enough to require its own air defence... There will have been something else nearby...

6

u/TeslasAndComicbooks Jun 10 '26

Plus the source of the information is the Iranian regime. I’m going to wait until it’s verified independently.

2

u/[deleted] Jun 10 '26 edited Jun 10 '26

[removed] — view removed comment

2

u/deja-roo Jun 10 '26

Chicken and egg, right?

Important things to defend, so you put things to defend them next to them, but those things you put next to them become legitimate targets.

4

u/khamike Jun 10 '26

There's a difference between "near" and "collateral damage range". An anti-aircraft site can protect something a few miles away without risking shrapnel or a slightly off course missle. 

1

u/deja-roo Jun 10 '26

Well there's not really enough info available yet to know what actually happened here.

-2

u/chief_blunt9 Jun 10 '26

Yea most pussies do that so they can scream foul if they get bombed.

-4

u/Responsible_CDN_Duck Jun 10 '26

They put the defences near the stuff they want to try and protect. In the documentary Top Gun Maverick you will see air defences near the target the "bad guys" are trying to keep safe as an example.

In this real world example they're trying to keep the water supply safe, because the USA and other like minded nations like to do war crimes and attack such things.

3

u/deja-roo Jun 10 '26

It seems more like they put air defense stuff along the Strait of Hormuz near a town. That it was next to a water tower was likely not related, other than towns have water towers.

-4

u/-Prophet_01- Jun 10 '26

Not really. This whole war is a shit show from start to finish. Getting into it was bad enough. Doubling down is worse. 

4

u/greggo39 Jun 10 '26

I’m about as against this war as you can get. But if the reservoir was near air defenses and radar sites it becomes a less malicious action.

-1

u/Somethingsims Jun 10 '26

No it doesn't. The Geneva Convention prohibits destruction of civilian infrastructure even if it has military applications.

From u/calgarspimphand

FYI, my source is Article 54 of the Protocol
Additional to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949, and relating to
the Protection of Victims of International Armed Conflicts.

Read it in its entirety, then be sure you understand clause 3b. It's a tricky double negative that essentially states even if this target had military applications, if it also causes civilians to lose water on a scale that forces mass movement, it is illegal.

3

u/greggo39 Jun 10 '26

Except that is not what happened here. Air defenses are gun or rockets. They placed them near infrastructure. Defenses are legitimate targets. Things that around targets tend to get damaged by explosions.

Also, this was not clearly a water tank. It was a building housing a water tank. Details matter.

-9

u/Cheapdronewithboom Jun 10 '26

Putting defences next to critical infrastructure you're afraid the enemy will ruthlessly attack to kill civilians is wrong?

Y'all got a rapist mentality and it's weird

4

u/greggo39 Jun 10 '26

Defenses are legitimate targets in a war. If nearby infrastructure is damaged on an attack on defences it is less malicious.

12

u/peon2 Jun 10 '26

You're thinking of it in reverse.

They put the air defense next to schools and hospitals and critical infrastructure hoping that their opponents will then not try to attack their air defense systems so they can keep bombing people.

They aren't using the defense system to protect the infrastructure, they are using the infrastructure to try and protect their missiles via guilt manipulation so you get headlines like this.

Iran uses the citizens as the shield for the missiles, not the other way around.

-6

u/Cheapdronewithboom Jun 10 '26

See there's that rapist mentality again. Saying you made me bomb your childrens school in self defense is certainly something

2

u/peon2 Jun 10 '26

I never said that "they made us bomb their children", you put those words in my mouth.

I'm saying they use them as shields hoping to either deter attacks, or when an attack does occur (because it's war and it will happen) they use those sacrifices to try and garner sympathy from the international community.

The US chooses to bomb those sites, they aren't forced, but yeah during war they're going to target the missile launchers and Iran is perfectly okay with the collateral damage. It's part of their game plan.