Iran war update: US gets submarine kill on Iranian frigate, F-35 gets first air to air kill.

 

The IRIS Dena, now at the bottom of the Indian Ocean. The Guardian/Reuters. 

The United States has destroyed the Iranian frigate IRIS Dena in the Indian ocean, marking the first time a US Submarine has torpedoed an enemy ship since World War II. The Guardian. The Dena was returning from India after a fleet review and was torpedoed near Sri Lanka. The ship was Iran's newest vessel and was destroyed. Some survivors were rescued by the Sri Lankans. 32 survivors and 28 bodies have been recovered as of this writing.

https://t.co/PiqQpVIrMu pic.twitter.com/Wc1e0B0um7

— Department of War 🇺🇸 (@DeptofWar) March 4, 2026

  

File photo of the F-35 Lightning II, similar to the F-35-Aidr operated by Israel. Times of Israel/Reuters.

Israel has secured the first air-to-air kill of a manned aircraft by an F-35 after shooting down a Yak-130 over Tehran. Times of Israel. The F-35 was the Aidr version used by Israel and is the first time Israel has gotten an air-to-air kill in 40 years. The aircraft shot down, the Yak-130 isn't a pure fighter craft, it's a trainer and strike aircraft, but was more of a threat than other obsolescent designs, like the F-4 Phantom and F-5 Tiger, that Iran had been using. In addition, the UK got their first air-to-air kill of a drone with their own F-35 flying over Jordan. 

My Comment:

This is far from a comprehensive update of everything that is happening with the war in Iran, I obviously did not mention the fact that Iran launched a missile at Turkey, of all places. But I did want to focus on these military firsts given how significant they are.  

First, the sinking of the IRIS Dena. The Dena was one of the most threatening remaining surface combatants Iran had and unlike the rest of the fleet, it was deployed when the conflict started. It appeared to be heading back to Iranian waters. Though the ship was not a powerful surface combatant compared to US ships in the area, it did represent a major threat as it was armed with surface to air and surface to surface missiles, that could potentially be a threat to US planes and ships. It could have even been used as a commerce raider given that it was free in the Indian Ocean. 

Given that, it needed to be destroyed and an attack sub was probably the best option. Airstrikes would have been difficult given the position of the USS Ford and USS Lincoln, and I doubt that the US Navy had a surface ship of their own to go toe to toe with the Dera. Instead a submarine fired two torpedoes at the ship and appears to have destroyed it completely, to the point where the Sri Lankans only saw an oil slick when they came to rescue the survivors. 

Also notable, and somewhat buried in the article is that the ship reported to have their weapons disabled through electronic means. This seems like it goes beyond the normal electronic jamming, as I don't see how it would completely disable the Dena's weapons systems. 

Could this be another use of the famed "discombobluator" that Trump mentioned in the Maduro raid? Trump described it as a weapon that could simply shut off electronics, such as the weapons used by the Dena. From what it sounds like this would be a directed energy weapon that would use high energy microwaves to induce an EMP (electromagnetic pulse) effect on the target. If that is the case, it's a gamechanger as it would give a huge military advantage to the United States for what should be obvious reasons. 

As for the F-35, any dogfight is notable. To be fair, I didn't write a post about the Qatari F-15's that got air-to-air kills on SU-24 fighter jets, but I absolutely did note it. The F-35 finally getting an air-to-air kill is notable given how controversial the type is and because it was against a more modern fighter. 

To be fair, it's not like the Yak-130 is really a top of the line fighter jet. It's a trainer and attack aircraft that can be used as an interceptor in a pinch. It's fast and maneuverable, but it likely had no realistic chance in a long range fight with an F-35, and I am guessing it would struggle in a dogfight as well.  The fact that Iran is using the type at all to contest the skies over Tehran shows that their Air Force has been severely depleted. 

The F-35 has been criticized for not being a good dogfighter and not having the capabilities of the F-22. This should be a minor vindication of the type as it shows that its role as a long range fighter is real. In this combat environment, it would be almost impossible for Iran to get into a dogfight and it makes the use case of the F-35 a lot more defensible. It will still get some well deserved criticism for being overpriced and being vulnerable in dogfights (and for only having one engine), but this use will be a good proof of concept for the fighters use in the future. 

I do have to wonder why Iran even bothered at this point. The chances of a single Yak-130 doing much of anything against the US and Israeli fighters arrayed against them is almost nil. I guess they could have gotten lucky and gotten into missile range of a fighter jet somehow, but even then, at best you shoot down one fighter. It wouldn't change the fact that the United Sates and Israel have total air superiority in this war, and will likely be joined by other nations soon. Though if the leadership of Iran was rational, this war would have never happened in the first place. 

The Surpreme Court appears likely to overturn federal gun control law that bars drug users from owning firearms.

 

Stock photo of a marijuana joint. NBC News/AFP/Getty.

The Supreme Court appears likely to overturn or modify a federal gun control law that bars drug users from owning firearms. NBC News. The case, United States v. Hemani involves Ali Daniel Hemani, who was arrested in Texas by federal officers after being found with marijuana, cocaine and a handgun. Hemani's lawyers argued that the law that bars gun ownership for users of drugs was unconstitutional under the Bruen test, which requires gun laws to have a historical precedent. The Government's argument was that there were historical gun bans for "habitual drunkards", but Hemani's lawyers argued that the standard was a lot higher than simply possessing and using drugs. The court seemed swayed by that argument, with justices noting that simply using drugs did not make someone dangerous and even noted that the bar for habitual drunkards was extremely high, noting the founding fathers own heroic levels of drinking. The case attracted odd bedfellows, with the ACLU, NORML and gun rights groups supporting Hemani while the Trump Administration and gun control groups supporting the law. 

My Comment:

I have written about this law before, but it was in the context of Hunter Biden's conviction of the same crime. Hunter Biden, infamously, lied on his federal 4473 form that everyone has to fill out before buying a gun as part of the background check. There is a box, 11e, that asks if you use drugs and Biden, as a heavy drug user, lied. At the time I thought Hunter Biden might bring the case to the Supreme Court, but Joe Biden pardoned him before the issue became relevant. Thankfully Hemani was able to bring a similar case. 

I do think that the law,  (18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(3)), should be overturned. Being a drug user should bar you from your constitutional right to own firearms. Actually using a gun while high should be a crime, outside of active self defense situations, but simply owning a firearm and using drugs does not make you necessarily dangerous. 

Making the issue even more dumb is the fact that marijuana counts as one of the drugs. Though I am no fan of weed, it's absurd that you are committing a federal crime buying a gun after using a substance that is legal in 40 of 50 states for medicinal use and 24 out of 50 for personal use. And alcohol, a drug that does affect behavior, is not one of the drugs. 

I do think that there is a precedent for laws that could bar drug users from owning firearms, but the standard is going to be extremely high. Habitual drunkards is a level of degeneracy that was hard to reach even back in the time of the founding fathers. Are there drug addicts that reach that level today? Absolutely! And in those cases you probably could bar them from gun ownership. 

But I really do think that there has to be some kind of ruling from the government that says you are a degenerate drug user, like some kind of commitment to a treatment center or strong evidence of bad behavior related to drug use. Given that most degenerate drug users are going to be barred from gun ownership due to felony convictions or being committed to a mental health center, it's kind of a moot point. 

So how will the court rule? I am guessing that the law will be at least partially overturned. The Justices, even the liberal ones, seemed very skeptical of the law as it was written. I don't expect a full repeal of the law, but I would be surprised if the law wasn't seriously modified. 

I'd take the win in either case. Though marijuana isn't legal in my state, and even if it was, I would never try it so I wouldn't have to lie on my federal 4473 form if I ever buy another gun. I don't really have a desire to try pot regardless, but I do think it's ridiculous that if I wanted to I would have to give up my gun rights to do so. That absolutely should change.

Finally, I have to say that I am disappointed that the Trump administration is defending this law. Though Trump has been far better for gun rights than the Democrats, he's also squishy on the issue and this is a good example of that being the case. To be honest, he's also been squishy on marijuana issue as well, going through the trouble of rescheduling the drug, but still having a very baby boomer opinion on the drug and it's users (yes, I know Trump isn't a baby boomer, but still). Folks accuse me of always defending Trump, but this is another case where I do think he should be criticized.  

Mass shooting in Austin Texas appears to have been an act of terrorism.

 

An image of the shooter, Ndiaga Diagne. Fox News.

A mass shooting in Austin Texas is being investigated as an act of terrorism. Fox News. The shooter, 53 year old Ndiaga Diagne, opened fire from his SUV around 2:00 am at a crowd gathered outside of a bar with a handgun. He then got out of his vehicle and continued firing until he was shot and killed by police. Two people were killed by the gunman and 14 others were wounded. The suspect was a naturalized citizen originally from Senegal. He was wearing a shirt that said "Property of Allah" and an undershirt that had the Iranian flag underneath. Despite the motivation likely being Islamic terrorism, no direct links to any terror group or the Iranian government are suspected at this time. 

My Comment:

Looks like the conflict with Iran has stirred up the crazies. This guy was not part of any organization but decided to pick up a rifle and a handgun anyways. Supposedly he has a criminal history and a history of mental illness. He fits the profile of a "lone wolf" terrorist and those do tend to be stirred up by current events. 

I think there is almost zero chance of this guy being directly connected to Iran. He was from Senegal, not Iran and no connection has been found between him and Iran. And this was not an all organized attack. The attacker just went to a popular night-life location and opened fire, that's not exactly a complicated plan. I would expect that a state sponsored terror attack would be a lot more sophisticated than that and would target something more important than a crowd at bar close. 

Indeed, I think the idea of Iran having a bunch of sleeper cells in America is pretty provably false at this point. Iran did not activate any sleeper cells when the United States bombed Iran's nuclear facilities or during the war with Israel. I am guessing if they had large numbers of sleeper agents they would have activated them last year. Iranian Americans are generally against the Iranian government as well. 

Thankfully, this attack was put down pretty quickly. Indeed, it seems like the attacker made a pretty bad mistake in opening fire with his handgun first as opposed to his rifle. This gave the cops time to kill him quickly after his first attack. It also may be why so few people died, I can't imagine his pistol fire was accurate from the seat of his car and the rounds were a lot less powerful. 

There are some pretty obvious questions as to why this guy was allowed to stay in the United States and get citizenship. He was originally a tourist overstay from 2000 but was allowed to be a permanent resident in 2006 after a marriage to an American citizen, and got his own citizenship in 2013. Of course, none of this would have been happened if he had been deported after overstaying his visa. 

It's rather surreal that this attacker may have been tweeting at a sitting US Congressman, Randy Fine. Fine was in the news for being rather anti-Muslim and Diangne may have tweeted at him after Fine said that if you hear "Allahu Akbar" someone's about to get killed. I don't know if it's confirmed that this was the shooter or not, but still, it's bizarre. 

The Muslim terrorist in Austin had tweeted at me.

He was upset I said that when someone screams Allahu Akhbar there’s a good chance someone is going to get killed.

That’s exactly what this Muslim terrorist was screaming last night as he murdered Americans.

The time for… https://t.co/PbgJBoC4DB

— Congressman Randy Fine (@RepFine) March 1, 2026

So, is there potential for more attacks like this? Like I said, I think sleeper attacks are unlikely, but lone wolf attacks like this are fairly likely from the Islamic community. These kinds of attacks often follow major media events like the conflict with Iran. And I don't think it will just be the Islamic community that will be stirred up. The far left could be a threat as well, given how deranged they have become about President Trump. Such attacks aren't certain, but are possible, so it would be smart to keep your head on a swivel until the war ends...  

Israel and the United States launch major strikes against Iran.

 

The aftermath of a strike in Tehran. AP. 

Israel and the United States have launched major strikes against the Iranian government. AP. Strikes targeted the government in Tehran and targeted both military and civilian leadership, including Grand Ayatollah Khamenei. Diplomatic efforts to avoid a conflict were unsuccessful, Iran refused to budge on their nuclear program and did not discuss other pressing issues, like support for Iranian proxies in the region and their ballistic missile program. In response to the strikes, Iran launched missile attacks across the region. Critically, they did not just target Israel, but many other Gulf States. Trump cited Iran's long history of violence against US interests in the region, the killing of tens of thousands of protesters this year and allegations of a continued nuclear program as a casus belli for the conflict. 

Live Updates:
Associated Press

CNN

USA Today

NBC News

pic.twitter.com/BZuJDudLej

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) February 28, 2026

My Comment:

I am not very surprised that a conflict broke out with Iran. After all, you don't send two carrier strike groups and about 1/3rd of your fighter jets to the Middle East just for fun. The military build up by the United States was one of the largest since the Iraq War and it was going to be used if diplomacy failed. 

And it did. The Iranians just wouldn't budge. Even though the smart thing would have been to make a deal with President Trump, they absolutely would not move on nuclear enrichment, let alone other issues, like funding the Houthis and Hezbollah. I said previously that the rational thing would be to simply give up their nuclear ambitions, but for whatever reason, they could not. And now they are paying the price.  

It is unclear how much damage these strikes have done but the general perception is that the strikes were extremely effective. It is very likely that much of Iran's leadership is dead. And that may include Iran's president and Ayatollah Khamenei, with Israel saying they got him as of this writing, though who knows if that is accurate. 

Iran simply did not have the air defenses left to actually try and stop these strikes. They lost most of their defenses during the war with Israel last year and they did not have a chance to build them back up. And indeed, it seems like they focused on building offensive weapons, like ballistic missiles and drones, instead of shoring up their air defenses. They are absolutely paying the price now, they simply cannot contest anything the United States or Israel are doing right now. The United States has total air superiority.

Iran also made the baffling move to target US bases in the region and this has angered almost all of their neighbors. Indeed, the strikes that targeted, Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Kuwait, Iraq, the UAE, Bahrain, Jordan and even Syria, will likely result in many of those countries either offering clandestine or open support, or even joining the conflict themselves. Indeed, I would be surprised if the Saudis, and the other non-Oman, non-Iraq gulf states don't join the war, and even Syria, under the new regime, will probably cooperate with the new coalition, though direct aid is unlikely.  

I generally think this war will be a success. Iran was already in dire straits due to losing the last war, along with runaway inflation, a water and food crisis and one of the largest protests the government has ever seen. Iran also does not have any real allies and their proxies in Iraq, Syria, Palestine and Yemen have been degraded, with only the Houthis in Yemen having real combat power. 

The only thing that could possibly save the regime, what is left of it anyways, is if a popular uprising doesn't occur. Given that they just killed 3,000 to 30,000 people during the last riots, there is always a chance that the Iranian people won't want to "risk it". After all, this is strictly an air campaign and the best the Iranian people can hope for is that the US will launch airstrikes to support them. Is that likely? It's way too early to tell. 

So is any of this justified? It depends. I personally think that the "Iran is six weeks away from getting a bomb" is nonsense and has always been nonsense. I don't believe their program has ever been peaceful, but I also don't think they had anywhere near time enough to actually get close to building a bomb. 

But that doesn't mean we didn't have a valid casus belli. Indeed, it's a fairly justified war. Iran pretty much violated the cease fire of the 2025 Israel-Iran war regardless, so that alone could justify military action. Not to mention the fact that they killed thousands of their own people this year when they protested the regime. 

The most compelling case, and the one on the most defensible legal ground? It's the fact that Iran has killed thousands of American soldiers and civilians since the inception of the regime. In Iraq alone they were directly responsible through their proxies in killing at least 1000 US troops. Not to mention the post Iraq War attacks on US troops in Syria and Iraq. And, of course, several major terror attacks, including the Khobar Towers attack in 1996 and the Bruit attack in 1984. The Iranian regime has a ton of blood on their hands and an unacceptable amount of it is American...

It is probably worth noting here that this is not the first conflict that broke out this week. The war between Afghanistan and Pakistan broke out again, with both sides attacking each other and a lot of folks getting killed on both sides. That war should be a very different conflict, given that it involves ground troops, but I would be remiss if I didn't at least mention that things are getting spicy there as well. Indeed, I think that one is the more serious war and it's utterly rotten timing that all the diplomatic energy is going to be going to the Iran conflict. 

The US military buildup near Iran is one of the largest in recent history.

 

The USS Gerald R. Ford. AP. 

The United States military build up near Iran is one of the largest in recent history. AP. Two carrier strike groups, led by the USS Abraham Lincoln and USS Gerald R. Ford, along with over 100 land based planes, including F-22's, F-35's, F-16's and F-15's have been deployed. The fleet, consisting of 16 ships including destroyers and littoral combat ships, is larger than the 11 ships that were involved in the Venezuela operation. It is notable that there has not been any major deployment of offensive ground troops, but units have been deployed to defend US bases in the region. The deployment has occurred while high stakes talks between Iran and the United States continue. 

My Comment:

It's certainly a huge force assembled near Iran. 16 ships is a huge deal and the strike power of one carrier strike group is more than anything the Iranians can field alone, let alone two of them. Not to mention the 100 combat planes in the region, along with the awesome firepower of our B-2 bombers. This force is more than strong enough to destroy what is left of Iran's air defenses and air combat power, already devastated by the Iran-Israel war. 

However, will those weapons actually be used? Talks are still ongoing and both sides are reporting progress, though no deal has been made. There are some obvious sticking points, most notably the demand that Iran give up any nuclear production capability while Iran wants to keep the ability to make some nuclear production for use in medical and power generation. 

But I don't think these sticking points are as critical as folks are making it out to be. There may indeed be the ability for one or both sides to compromise and a deal where both sides get what they want. Iran could keep a token program for medical use only and I think the United States will agree with that. 

Iran could misread things though. They could think that Trump is weak domestically and may not wish to risk the midterms over a war in Iran. That would be a mistake. Like I said, this force is more than capable of destroying Iran's defenses and could threaten the regime directly. And Trump has shown that while he is willing to use military force if negotiations fail, just like he did in Venezuela and, of course, the Iran-Israel war. 

I do think that Trump wants to make a deal. Of course he does, it's Donald Trump! His whole personality is about making deals and the Iranians would be smart to recognize it. All they have to do is make a better deal with Trump than they did with Obama. 

Regardless, I do think that if a war happens, it won't be a long one. Trump will either try something similar to what they did during the Israel-Iran war where they bombed Iran into the negotiation table, or they could go for a decapitation attack like they did with Venezuela. In either case, I would not expect a long war.