At this rate, the Red Sea is rapidly turning into the world's most heavily armed traffic jam.
65
StarSlayerXMay 6, 2026
+80
This is response to the French Container Ship attacked by IRGC and injured several civilians.
80
Tutule6 days ago
+5
This has been announced for weeks.
https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c5yjz819vmgo
5
Rustic_gan123May 6, 2026
-71
That's unlikely. The French ignored the deaths of their soldiers in Lebanon and Iraq.
-71
nuclearbearclawMay 6, 2026
+43
Alright then what do you think this mission is?
43
Rustic_gan123May 6, 2026
-44
My main hypothesis is that the French think that the war will not resume and they can pretend that they are useful.
-44
goldtechnique6 days ago
+30
Usually when you’re stupid, you don’t want other people to notice you …
30
Rustic_gan1236 days ago
-6
The Europeans have repeatedly stated that they will begin an e***** mission **after** the war is over.
For example:
https://www.dw.com/en/germany-navy-strait-hormuz-mines-iran-war-fuel-prices/a-77054325
>On several occasions, German Chancellor Friedrich Merz has stated that Germany is prepared to help secure a peace agreement — **but only after the Iran war has ended**. On Sunday evening, Merz reiterated this on German television, telling a talkshow host that he had personally assured US President Donald Trump of this: "During my last visit and also in our phone calls, I repeatedly told him that this war is now having a significant impact on us, that we would like to see it ended — and that we are also offering assistance."
https://www.wsj.com/world/europe/europe-drafts-postwar-plan-to-free-up-hormuz-without-u-s-5638f5f8
>LONDON—European countries are putting together a plan for a broad coalition of countries to help free up shipping through the Strait of Hormuz, including sending mine-clearing and other military vessels. But the plan would only come **after the war** and may exclude one country in particular: the U.S.
-6
Independent_Row_224May 6, 2026
-46
To go surrender of course
-46
gnominosMay 6, 2026
+1
That’s not how it works kiddo…
1
wousbadMay 6, 2026
-22
They had to ask for help to handle Libya and that was just across the mediterranean. Everyone knows this is symbolic. Despite their planes and their carrier, France only real card to project militar power in today's world is "we will nuke you if we get pissed".
-22
D3k4sMay 6, 2026
+12
France is one of the few countries in the world that can effectively project power around the world. Look up Operation Serval, they were able to mobilize a huge force and in a blitz-type of warfare they absolutely destroyed the al qaeda linked rebel group. The same one that beat the shit out of the russians and Malian troops more then a decade later. France has 5 modern LHD's each able to field up to 35 Helicopters plus Amphibious landing craft, Furthermore France has a Significant number of Transport aircraft and has bases in all continents. And yes they have a "we will nuke you FIRST if we get pissed" policy.
12
FortDetrick_Virus6 days ago
+7
French were using USAF Air Mobility Command for Serval and Barkhane.
7
Giraffed76 days ago
+2
\>French were using USAF Air Mobility Command for Serval and Barkhane.
During the first few months of operation Serval, 90% of soldiers were moved by French assets. 48% of cargo were ferried by leased civilian airlifts, 38% by leased and French maritime assets, 13% by allied airlifts (not only the US) and 4% by French airlifts. Mind you that leased civilian assets are common in many military (think the NATO SALIS program or the US Civil Reserve Air Fleet).
You also have to take into account that it was 15 years ago. Since then, the A400M and A330MRTT programs (the last one is primarily a tanker but is able to do airlifts) plugged a lot of these gaps in airlifts capabilities.
2
FortDetrick_Virus1 day ago
+1
> During the first few months
How long did it go on for? how about the other operation?
1
D3k4s6 days ago
+2
They did use British and American Assets under the SALIS Strategic Airlift partnership But these accounted for little of the Airlift effort, They were mainly used to transport the Caesar Mobile Artillery system. These partnerships exist for a reason. or existed. I for one was glad they did use it, the same way France rescued American Special Forces in Niger during the Tongo Tongo Ambush. And Rescued Several allied hostages in Burkina Faso with the unfortunate loss of 2 SOF's members. Anyway my point here is that France is probably one of the 3 Nations capable of projecting Force outside their home continent, or do you disagree? If so gimme the arguments based on facts pls
2
FortDetrick_Virus6 days ago
-1
It's a pretty low bar to clear in europe, and they still needed help, and also, usually only aggressors need to project force to other continents.
-1
D3k4s6 days ago
What?
0
[deleted]May 6, 2026
[deleted]
0
D3k4sMay 6, 2026
+3
Are you going to refute what i said or are you going to keep using these what if arguments?
3
Giraffed76 days ago
+4
*>They had to ask for help to handle Libya and that was just across the mediterranean. Everyone knows this is symbolic. Despite their planes and their carrier, France only real card to project militar power in today's world is "we will nuke you if we get pissed".*
The "ask for help" is doing some really heavy lifting in bending what happened then. The asking for help had less to do with military capabilities and more to do with the legitimacy of a multilateral UN-(kinda-ish)backed operation. It wasn’t only France that pushed for an intervention but also the UK and then the US in due time. By your logic, we could say the US’ power projection is largely symbolic because they had to ask for help to handle Iraq (twice), Afghanistan and Iran.
And by the way, if you must know, France performed 33% of all strike sorties in Libya, the UK did 21% and the US 19%. The US’ contribution in C2C, logistics and ISR certainly was important but it’s not like France and the UK sat on the side watching the US do the job.
4
MinorKeyEnjoyerMay 6, 2026
+3
this is absolutely stupid, France has one of the best militaries in the world.
3
wousbadMay 6, 2026
-10
So does the US, how did that go in all their wars for the past few decades. Wars are more than shiny toys. Could France intimidate weaker rational actors into complying by waving their Rafales and nukes around? Probably but real military action has been proven to be so hard even at your own border that sending a carrier group is just a symbolic act meant to intimidate but carries no actual real weight if everyone was willing to commit.
France already has some ancient experience with this fact on Algeria and Vietnam.
-10
MinorKeyEnjoyerMay 6, 2026
+9
so your take is that militaries can’t achieve anything; rather than anything specific about France? I mean, alright
9
wousbadMay 6, 2026
-8
In this particular issue with Iran, France has no real threat they could allow themselves to bring forward. In fact bringing the carrier near Iran and then making any kind of threat could open them to a true humilliation if their ships get hit and Macron blinks instead of committing.
I mean, I believe they already lost a soldier and they just took it because that's all they can do. Bringing their aircraft carrier achieves what? Iran already had three parked near their country and they still decided to bomb everyone. Is France trying to threaten an "attack us and we will join the US and end your regime"? Because that could work or it could not work and then everyone will know how willing France is to get involved.
-8
ElPuppyNationMay 6, 2026
+1
I wouldnt mess with the French military if I were you lol
They can and WILL f*** your country up
1
Conan-Da-BarbarianMay 6, 2026
+9
More carriers, less space
9
ZealousidealState127May 6, 2026
+11
Reverse Vietnam.
11
OptiPathMay 6, 2026
+11
That’s how I know the war is ending.
No other confirmation needed
11
TheFirstEdition6 days ago
+2
Explain
2
geaux1242 days ago
+1
Because they would not be there otherwise. They are not there to actually do anything. They are there to try and look important. They are like the guy on a group project who does none of the work but shows up to sign his name to it.
1
D3k4s6 days ago
-3
It's not tho, although they better hurry the whole world is about to be thrown into a recession and it's easy to form a coalition if the interests align.
-3
[deleted]May 6, 2026
+2
[deleted]
2
noir_lordMay 6, 2026
+6
Which is as it should be, it's not on France to clean up the United States mess.
6
itsFelbourneMay 6, 2026
+9
Iran just attacked a French ship and killed some of their sailors
Cleaning up the US’s mess isn’t their job, but ensuring the safety of their own people is
9
noir_lordMay 6, 2026
+2
And I'm sure France will take whatever measure they feel is appropriate.
Still not on France to clean up the United States mess.
2
PestoBolloElementoMay 6, 2026
+2
Indeed very well said.
2
Budget_Initial99836 days ago
+2
It will cost a lot before it's all over. From hormuz news you can use.
2
Any-Interaction6066May 6, 2026
+13
Honestly, and I'm not trying to put down the French, as they are a very capable country and military force, but what are they realistically going to do that the US isn't already? Just seems pointless and a needless risk.
13
Witty_Formal7305May 6, 2026
+61
A French container ship was attacked iirc, likely just a nudge nudge force projection to Iran "we're sitting this one out by choice, but if you f*** around and force our hand we can and will retaliate"
61
sarges_12gauge6 days ago
+8
How? What is France going to do militarily that the US and Israel haven’t / won’t?
If the 10,001st bomb is French instead of American that’s going to convince Iran to change their tactics?
8
Twudie6 days ago
+4
Have good faith negotiations and honor ceasefires and security agreements.
4
Rayl246 days ago
+1
They would need to be willing and able to sink US carrier groups to do that
1
sarges_12gauge6 days ago
-4
Yeah, they can have a good faith negotiation and agree to pay Iran enough money to not shoot at their ships. Otherwise, there’s nothing to negotiate lol
-4
Individual_Length3216 days ago
+9
Moving a damn carrier costs a lot, money, opportunity, etc.
You don't do that casually.
The fact that you, I, and other losers on Listnook do not know the motives does not mean that there are none.
9
sarges_12gauge6 days ago
+4
I’m sure there are motives, I’m saying that I don’t think they’ll be successful in how it is publicly presented and interpreted
4
kinky-proton6 days ago
+1
It won't be trump/netanyahu's war anymore, Iran lose lots of sympathy and trump will get carte blanche from congress the moment the french join in
1
D3k4sMay 6, 2026
+14
Well, an Aircraft carrier strike group is always a very strong addition to any offensive force. However i do agree that if it's only one carrier strike group it won't have that great of an effect. Although French involvement may lead to a greater European Force being deployed, if we include the various Amphibious assault ships plus 1 or 2 more aircraft carriers then the scenario changes. There's also the fact that these forces are fresh and haven't depleted their ordnance.
14
goldtechnique6 days ago
You understand that along the aircraft carrier, there are multiple ships AND nuclear attack submarines that can fire nuclear missiles ? Along of course other types of submarines ?
0
D3k4s6 days ago
+5
Usually with an Aircraft carrier strike group there are Convencional Attack Submarines rather then SSBNs this is due to the fact that these submarines don't need to be close to a target to strike. I'm not taking into account the nuclear arsenal that can be deployed via the Rafales simply because France would not strike Iran with a nuclear weapon under normal circumstances.
5
goldtechnique6 days ago
There IS a nuclear attack submarine over there currently. There is always one with these CDG
0
Skoople6 days ago
+3
Nuclear powered, sure. Very unlikely it is nuclear armed.
3
D3k4s6 days ago
Exactly, it wouldn't make sense to have one with CDG when these submarines are nearly undetectable and can launch an SLBM from huge distances.
0
U-47May 6, 2026
+12
Well... the French have actual functioning minesweepers for one.
12
Any-Interaction6066May 6, 2026
+3
Didn't think of that. Nice added point.
3
Remarkable-Meal-2236 days ago
+1
Untrue. The US has minesweepers that are underwater and operated remotely
1
noir_lordMay 6, 2026
+17
Symbolic move to show Iran that France is willing to move forces to protect it's citizens but *does not want to get in between the US and Iran while they are still shooting at each other* which has been the consistent message of the Franco-British proposals.
It's notable that none French ships are in that task group and more than 10 other countries are willing to take part *when the shooting stops*.
Basically we (meaning UK in my case) and France don't want to get involved in a dumb conflict we didn't start.
Which for us (the UK) is a novelty and one I support wholeheartedly.
17
PoolRamenMay 6, 2026
+6
Well the fact for the UK is that we *can't* for a sovereign action.
I *wish* we could afford to mount a similar symbolic action.
The French actually have two flattops (i.e .1 carrier, 1 LHD) in the region with the full complement of e****** without needing "international cooperation" even though they will be joined by Italian/Dutch/Spanish vessels - and they actually have yet another flattop (LHD) in the Indo-Pacific atm.
*We* can barely scrape together enough vessels to e***** *one* of our flattops and we \*need\* the "international cooperation" ships just to deploy without making the QE a sitting duck.
6
noir_lordMay 6, 2026
+5
Decades of mismanagement by successive governments, We broadly spend the same on defence as France (slightly more by the official figures but both countries account for it differently) and yet they do more domestically *and* seem to be as or more capable.
The picture for the RN will improve soon (where soon is on a naval timescale) as we are about at the bottom of the projections for ship numbers (though Iron Duke was I think unexpected).
5
PoolRamen6 days ago
+1
I believe even that naval timeline has expanded due to having to give up production s**** to the Norwegians for the Type 26.
While you could argue same same due to the fact that we're due to have this cooperative agreement for northern sea defence and that's what the Type 26's would likely have been doing for the most part anyway, the fact remains that any sold Type 26 won't be under sovereign control.
1
goldtechnique6 days ago
+2
They also have a nuclear attack submarines that can launch nuclear missiles
2
PoolRamen6 days ago
+3
So do we, and undersea assets is one area we're at parity. Though the French ballistic subs are likely in better shape than ours
3
JohnGabinMay 6, 2026
+1
Which 10 countries ?
1
noir_lordMay 6, 2026
+3
List hasn't been confirmed yet, as far as I know neither has the international structure but that's what has been widely reported.
None of it is going to happen until there has been an *actual* ceasefire anyway.
3
Ok-Chapter8930May 6, 2026
+2
They are here so that containers (and insurance companies) feel "safe" when crossing the strait. This is a de-escalation move. Iran will also feel less threatened by a french warship then a US one.
2
JohnGabinMay 6, 2026
+2
The more important question s what will the US do next ?
Go home, come back, fight or not or … ?
It’s so unstable and unpredictable right now in DC
2
Tutule6 days ago
+1
International law protecting commercial lanes. EU states still want to uphold the order.
1
gnominosMay 6, 2026
+1
Yeah let trump take care of our interests lol what a dumb take
1
Harnellas6 days ago
+1
What could they do that the US hasn't? Perhaps negotiate like actual adults rather than petulant children. Moving ships there could be part of that.
1
skabberwobber6 days ago
-1
France, capable, military force. Words not used together since the napoleonic Era. It's funny because it's true.
-1
gnominosMay 6, 2026
-5
Says the american
-5
ZealousidealState127May 6, 2026
-9
Shhhhh, let them fund this boondoggle, they owe us for Vietnam and it could be entertaining if it's going to happen regardless.
-9
Any-Interaction6066May 6, 2026
+7
We did bad in Vietnam all by and on our own, just like this mess so I'm kinda confused why they would owe us for our own dumb choices?
7
ZealousidealState127May 6, 2026
-2
It's the effort that counts.
-2
D3k4sMay 6, 2026
+5
What the actual f***? I feel like you saw the movie we were soldiers, and somehow because of the intro you think France was responsible for America's intervention in Vietnam? LOL bro...
5
ZealousidealState127May 6, 2026
-6
I read the Wikipedia article too, doesn't that make me an expert? I don't know if France was responsible per se they got pushed out by the Russian/Chinese backed communist and we went in and tried to push the communist out after they gave up. How times have changed.
-6
D3k4sMay 6, 2026
+4
I don't need to read wikipedia articles to know history. Neither do i need 2 brain cells to see you're changing topics. Go on explain how France owes you for Vietnam I'm waiting.
4
orcofmordor6 days ago
I don’t agree with u/ZealousidealState127 ‘s stance necessarily or at least how he/she put it, but perhaps you *should* be the one to brush up on your history… Here are some cites I found rather easily:
> https://history.state.gov/historicaldocuments/frus1952-54v13p1/d367
> https://www.britannica.com/video/defeat-Vietnam-Perspective-gains-French-Battle-of-1954/-72050
The US covered roughly 80% of France’s war costs to maintain good relations with a friendly power in Europe (France) along with the ulterior motive of containing communism worldwide.
0
D3k4s6 days ago
+1
First of all he meant the US's intervention in Vietnam not the other way around, So don't try and twist the perspective. Secondly those figures are utter non-sense and even if they were true, i still fail to see how France owes anything to the US. It would be like saying the Mujahedeen owe the US for defeating Russia, when Russia was America's enemy.
1
ZealousidealState127May 6, 2026
-4
They couldn't keep the Soviet backed forces from repressing democracy and th US had to take over to ensure freedom and love. Just like we now can't keep the Russian backed theocracy from stopping democracy flourishing so it's Frances turn to take a crack in the name of freedom and air strikes. Do you have trouble seeing irony? Did your mother have you tested?
-4
D3k4sMay 6, 2026
+2
"US had to take over to ensure freedom and love" LOL... Yeah how did that work out? Everything you said is a lie. And to top it off seeing as you can't win the argument you went for the Insult. Classic.
2
ZealousidealState127May 6, 2026
-1
Oh yeah name one thing, just one.
-1
ZargelthMay 6, 2026
+3
I REALLY doubt this, but the French could try to e***** French flagged ships out of the Strait. They may just have the balls to do such a thing.
3
ThisTheRealLifeMay 6, 2026
+17
you know it would be karma for all those shipping companies if you depended on the navy of the country where your ship is registered. The Panamean and Liberian navy are gonna bust em out aaaaaany minute now.
17
W313376 days ago
+4
Operation false flag
4
D3k4s6 days ago
+3
Nah doubt it, this would put their Naval Assets in a precarious position.
3
theddj6 days ago
+3
If the entire US Navy didn't e***** a single ship what is a single French vessel gonna do?
3
desmonea6 days ago
+4
Who knows, Iranians may decide to let the French ships pass just to humiliate Trump.
4
Ellusive16 days ago
+1
Attn French sailors. Don’t post your strava!
1
eagerinsomniacMay 6, 2026
+2
Guys didn’t you hear the straight is open /s
2
ResponsibleClock9289May 6, 2026
-19
Nice, mock the US for wanting more countries contribute to securing the strait
Then show up 2 weeks late after you realize Iran is just blindly attacking everyobe
-19
D3k4sMay 6, 2026
+11
LOL... Yeah dude what a surprise... 1-Keep your allies in the dark and Start a war with devastating consequences for the world 2-Complain that NATO is shit because they're not helping the US even tho NATO is strictly a defensive alliance 3-????
11
TheHotshot240May 6, 2026
+8
The US acted offensively. No one wants in on another US offensive war that they are likely to lose, this is looking more and more like a second Vietnam every day.
France is acting in defense of its ship that was hit, and this is JUST a projection of force to show "you sure you want us involved?".
Massive difference, do some reading and you might figure it out.
NATO nations only respond to attacks on allies (which Israel is not in NATO by their own choice, it makes them less bound by its rules but means they *cannot* invoke article 5), and the US was the aggressor in this conflict, so no, NATO is not going to come to their rescue like they did in Iraq.
8
ResponsibleClock9289May 6, 2026
-9
Ignoring your garbage comparisons, I wasn’t aware France attacked Iran? So why is Iran attacking French cargo ships?
\>rescue like they did in Iraq
The US imports 30% of its oil and 60% of that imported oil is from Canada, less than 15% of it is from the Middle East
Europe is impacted by Irans indiscriminate attacks far more than the US is that’s why France is deciding to send ships now 2 weeks late :/
-9
D3k4sMay 6, 2026
+7
Oh? and why is Iran taking such actions? could it be because the US is run by a giant baby in chief? Who's responsible for this situation? who dafuq unilaterally ended the deal Iran had with the west? You think Europe is the only country affected bu your dumb actions? think again, you're dragging the whole world into a recession. Enfim...
7
mypissisboilingMay 6, 2026
+9
The world blames the US and Israel for this, not Iran. Yes, their regime sucks, but what difference has this not-war or whatever you want to call it made to anything? It's fucked over the Iranian people and the global economy, and not much else so far.
9
Inevitable-Refuse106 days ago
+2
No the world actually blames Iran way more, look at how many leaders have condemned them versus the US, even with US being the aggressors
2
eezeepeezeebreezee6 days ago
+2
Gee I wonder if it’s because one is a superpower and one is not.
But yeah we all know governments only act morally and not based on who has power.
2
Inevitable-Refuse106 days ago
+1
I mean I don’t disagree with you, just pointing out reality.
1
TheHotshot2406 days ago
+1
You're woefully incorrect on your last statement lol, Europe probably prefers working with Iran over working with the US at this point because at least Iran is true to their word.
America is not the holy land you think it is. It is looked poorly upon by everyone the world over after the events of this year.
Feel free to dislike my comparisons, but that's exactly what this looks like. Another failure waiting to happen.
And Israel will likely come out of this war more heavily sanctioned than even Russia.
1
ResponsibleClock92896 days ago
+1
Not sure why you think this is about perceptions !
Asia and Europe are heavily impacted by the strait of Hormuz being closed, not an opinion that’s a fact
1
TheHotshot2406 days ago
+1
You are correct, and as someone else has stated, all of them blame *the USA and Israel* for it's blockage, not Iran.
1
ResponsibleClock92896 days ago
The US and Israel aren’t firing at civilian cargo ships
0
TheHotshot2406 days ago
+1
Only a matter of time.
They already threatened anyone who worked with Iran to get a ship through the straight.
The US are the aggressors here, no matter how you try to spin it.
1
Inevitable-Refuse106 days ago
lol many countries are looked on poorly not just USA, but countries have no choice because of how powerful and influential USA is. Which is why the EU and Canada can’t even grow the balls to condemn USA strongly for the Iran war
0
TheHotshot2406 days ago
+2
It's why they aren't supporting it like they did Iraq though.
2
Inevitable-Refuse106 days ago
+1
Well Iraq was based on lies, and this Iran war even if it isn’t didn’t even have good planning in the first place. But it’s still crazy how Iran is the one being more condemned that just shows USA influence is too strong
1
noir_lordMay 6, 2026
+13
Of all the takes that is certainly one of them.
Alternatively France didn't start the dumb war without a plan and feels no need to take part in bailing out the US in what is a completely unpredictable open ended war with no real plan.
I can't say I blame them given the world is at it is.
13
BrainEatingAmoeba01May 6, 2026
+11
Well that's a big wobbledick of a take on the situation.
11
fs2222May 6, 2026
+6
The US still deserves to be mocked for putting them in this situation in the first place.
6
Witty_Formal7305May 6, 2026
+11
The U.S started this shit, let the pedophile and his goon squad figure it out. This is schoolyard level shit, don't start fights you can't finish.
11
ResponsibleClock9289May 6, 2026
-7
The strait being closed impacts Asia and Europe more than it impacts the US
\>the US started this shit
I guess if you ignore all the proxy groups Iran has been using to attack Americans for years
-7
Witty_Formal7305May 6, 2026
+8
Doesn't matter, the U.S started it, they can finish it, the straight wasn't closed til Bibi and the rapist launched their attacks. Don't start fights you can't finish.
Its not the rest of the worlds problem to follow behind the kid diddler and clean up whatever shit stains his diaper leaves on the carpet. Worlds strongest military hur hur, fuckin use it then.
8
ResponsibleClock9289May 6, 2026
-2
The US is using their military, they’re blockading Iran’s oil exports :p
If other countries don’t want to help their own ships transit the strait, then oh well. US isn’t the country indiscriminately attacking cargo ships
That’s why France is sending their military now, two weeks late
-2
Frequent-Belt3844May 6, 2026
+6
You’re right, US ia the country that will invade you if you have oil. Or fabricated a coup. Or w/e….
6
ResponsibleClock9289May 6, 2026
+1
Neither of those things happened in Iran tho
1
Witty_Formal7305May 6, 2026
+4
No, the U.S is being a bunch of chicken shit pussies because they decided to throw punches and expected the other guy to take it, instead the popped Trump in the nose and like the little b**** nepo baby he is, he's standing back bitching and moaning expecting others to go in there and fix it for him.
Iran wasn't attacking any countries ships in the strait til the U.S and Israel launched their war, end of story, blockading oil exports isn't using their military, using their military would be finishing what they started, but they're not because they started shit they couldn't finish. Trump fucked up and this whole thing is his fault and its utterly brain dead to try and make this seem like any other situation.
4
ResponsibleClock9289May 6, 2026
+1
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red\_Sea\_crisis
:/
\>blockading oil exports isn’t using their military
That’s kinda what a blockade is buddy……
1
Witty_Formal7305May 6, 2026
+8
Lmao man you MAGA guys are brain dead, you just hammer home your narrative and completely ignore anything else. I'd ask you how Trumps d*** tastes but you're not a 13 year old girl so you likely wouldn't know.
They're blockading the strait because thats all they can do, because they fucked up buddy, worlds biggest clown show is the U.S military rn on display for the world to see.
8
ResponsibleClock9289May 6, 2026
+1
Wow I didn’t even vote for Trump and yet you’re so angry for no reason
You’re literally living in an alternate reality if you think that’s what’s happening in Iran. You genuinely just don’t understand how misinformed you are
But there’s no point trying to convince people like you because if anyone tells you something that goes against what you believe you start steaming out the ears and try resorting to personal attacks
Emotional immaturity :/
1
Witty_Formal7305May 6, 2026
+4
I'm not angry, you're sitting here defending Trump and blaming the rest of the world for not fixing something he started. Yeah Iran had proxies and they've been using them for years that's nothing new, but at the end of the day. Trump ripped up the JCPOA, Trump attacked them in 2025 and Trump attacked again in 2026. The strait was wide open until he attacked them again, you can sit here and say "well they were attacking Americans with their proxies", okay cool and what does that have to do with the closure of the strait and the U.S military being unable to open it?
Who the closure IMPACTS doesn't make it their problem to go in and clean up, period. The U.S started it because they went in on bad intel and are unwilling to do whats necessary to finish it, saying France is "two weeks late" is brain dead, they're late for nothing, they didn't start this, they weren't consulted on it, its not their responsibility to go "OOP Trump can't finish it himself, better throw our military in the mix to finish it for him"
Step outside the American bubble for a minute and realize how absolutely not pleased with that other countries are, we're supposed to pay millions / billions and put our lives on the line to go fight a war the U.S & Israel started without even consulting us because you guys can't finish it yourselves.
4
National-Charity-435May 6, 2026
-1
\*Walter White screaming from SUV meme\*
-1
whatdabee6 days ago
Just joining the shit show.
0
[deleted]May 6, 2026
-5
[deleted]
-5
D3k4s6 days ago
+3
I Doubt Iran will target the French Navy, that could trigger Article 5, and Iran does not want that.
3
GeorgeWashingfun6 days ago
+3
The entire world against Iran to surrender isn't exactly WW3. Certainly not what most people imagine when they picture it.
127 Comments