Hacker News Reader

Comment by TechBro8615 | Hacker News Reader

[according to Iran state media]

Lol right? The system they're trying to convey is such a logistical and dev nightmare. Plus, it's also funny how the media likes to portray US and Israel intel agencies are either completely incompetent or omnipotent when it suits their own personal narrative. Pick one and stick with it. Here's the logical setup that's been tried and true for anyone that's ever read a military history book on clandestine ops. It's far easier and cheaper just to have 3 guys in an SUV armed with mp5s. One driver, one shooter and one look out. A second or third vehicle as overwatch/backup as well within eyeshot. Wait/follow and shoot, drive away. Essentially the Iranians are embarrassed as hell because have zero clues to how it happened and who did it. So they're fabricating a scifi story to try saving some face. They were far better off just saying, "well, we fucked up protecting this guy." But the general public needs to stop believing James Bond and Jason Borne are historical figures and read some actual history books. Both the media and public are becoming a pathetic host/parasite entity of just spouting bullshit.

MP5s? Probably would want something a bit more punchy seeing as the target vehicle was supposed to be armored.

Fair, but ap 9mms aren't that bad. Also, I'm just laying down a template, I dont claim to have any insider info. We can even argue if their sidearms were Jerichos or P320s. I'm not too concerned on weapon specifics. It does look pretty clean shooting wise from that pic. Now that I think about it, I'd actually argue it would have been semi rifle fire instead of full auto. They're claiming full auto, but I just dont see it from the front. Dont know if there are other images that prove me wrong... but theres also a funny joke here that they might have used mp5s instead of mp7s since Israel is being blamed...

An armored Nissan Maxima?

Theres a very large 3rd party armored car industry. Low key cars are very common. I dont know if this was or not, that image looks like it wasn't or was real cheap.

It wasn’t armored you can easily tell by the glass.

You are underestimating how hard it probably is for spies to enter into Iran, exit safely, and not get captured or killed in between.

A satellite-internet connected stationary gun aimed at an intersection they know this guy drives through often is a magnificent tool for agent safety.

These intel agencies aren’t idiots. If they knew a hit and run would be safe and easy they woulda done it. They’d probably prefer having operatives safe and alive instead of tortured and dead so they can continue operations.

They can't get in spies, but they can bring in a super high tech weapons platform and the manpower to install it in a public location without getting noticed?

I didn’t say they couldn’t get them in. Escaping a hit and run with this hypothetical three man team is probably harder and more dangerous for the operatives than smuggling in a remote controlled gun. Last time I remember they assassinated a HVT with magnetic bombs on the side of a the target’s car. This led to iranians allied to Mossad getting killed. They obviously can’t risk or possibly can’t find people to risk their life so doing it remotely is the safest bet.

And we have no idea how high tech this is. For all we know it’s a standard high caliber rifle attached to a pretty standard mount, with a live feed scope and a trigger puller. A team of engineering freshmen could develop this kind of system given the equipment. If Israel or the US are behind this they have probably had this tech for over a decade.

They’ve done just that over and over just two weeks prior to this they’ve killed al-Masri in Teheran by shooting up his car.

You still need just as many operatives in country for this fantasy, but you also need to be able to smuggle high end equipment and set it up and test it, this are additional complications that increase the risk of failure and capture nor reduce it.

Obviously we’re throwing up ideas, but I don’t see how it’s riskier to set up a gun and leave the area as far as possible vs. set up a hit and run and try to successfully escape in a crowded city. You probably can send pre-built turret parts and let one man set it up over a few days easier. Just my opinion

Because real life doesn’t work like that. Getting in hardware is harder than getting in people who already are likely in country because they are local assets not agents.

You need to set it up, test it, move it to the target all without being detected and still have a backup plan and local observers to support it.

It adds complexity and risk it does not reduce it and intelligence agencies dont like complicated.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com