ListNook

TheModWhoShaggedMe Mar 29, 2026 +886

Why in TF is America putting troops on the ground in Iran?? What even is this timeline, 2026?

886

dem0nhunter Mar 29, 2026 +661

Trump thought Iran would fold like Venezuela with one strike killing their leadership. That didn’t happen and kicked off an existential war for Iran. Now the only way left to bring down oil prices is to take down Iran fully and control the infrastructure themselves. A badly planned half-measure lead to a full blown disaster. Art of the deal or something

661

Dan-Of-The-Dead Mar 29, 2026 +270

Just like Putin thinking he'd be corking up vodka in Kiev in three days.

270

twitch_Mes Mar 29, 2026 +165

We're putting Iran on death ground. They're going to kill our marines to survive. And Trump's going to send more soldiers and assets as the mission creeps. This is going to be really bad.

165

The_Sideboob_Hour Mar 29, 2026 +57

So, Ukraine v2

57

JaccoW Mar 29, 2026 +102

Worse. Iran has had decades to prepare

102

xX609s-hartXx Mar 29, 2026 +1

And most people who'd be willing to do something against the regime got gunned down months ago while the US just watched. It's like every US action is as poorly timed as possible and only now after bombing them for weeks is Trump starting to move in troops while openly announcing it.

1

ABucin Mar 29, 2026 +1

"You can always count on Americans to do the right thing—after they've tried everything else"

1

Think_Positively Mar 29, 2026 +1

There is absolutely nothing "right" in this scenario

1

EquivalentEarly1062 Mar 29, 2026 +1

I think that saying only used to apply because the Americans still had some relatively sane people In charge, that’s not the case anymore

1

KorunaCorgi Mar 29, 2026 +1

Nothing says listnook more than low effort quote slop fishing for upvotes. (Except perhaps low effort sarcastic slop like my post)

1

Beermedear Mar 29, 2026 +1

Imagine an enemy country manages to install a leader in that country. He can’t change the public sentiment, can’t do a land invasion, but wants to destroy the country from the inside. What would Putin do in that scenario? All of this. Further tank the economy. Remove any bastions of cybersecurity. Destroy century-old alliances. Stir up a war that will further kneecap the US and European allies via oil and energy crises. Force it to a ground war that will cost tens of thousands of American lives and trillions to inevitably leave anyway.

1

OkFix4074 Mar 29, 2026 +1

And religious reasons to keep fighting! This is going to be bad , sorry for the soldiers on both sides who are going to lose their life cos trump didn't have balls to face the files!

1

PestoBolloElemento Mar 29, 2026 +1

Nope worse Iran planned for this for decades.

1

SequiturNon Mar 29, 2026 +1

The similarities are uncanny. Putin invades Ukraine, thinking it'll be a quick victory. Instead, it gives the US the opportunity to supply and support Ukraine against its avowed enemy, weakening them at negligible cost. Now, the US attacks Iran, thinking *air strikes* will result in a regime change - even dumber than Russia - resulting in Iran doing what everyone could have seen coming, closing the strait. Suddenly Russia can support Iran against the US. Low cost, no troop involvement, high payoff. You really can't make this shit up.

1

LostnFoundAgainAgain Mar 29, 2026 +36

It definitely seems to be a common thing to underestimate countries, I know regular people do it as well as you see it consistently online, but for governments to do the same is kinda ridiculous. Pretty much any country with any semi decent form of investment into military will not be easy to invade, this goes to countries in Europe, Asia, Africa and etc... they spend billions every year into ensuring their defence, even if say China or the US has the might to take the ground over time, almost every country will make you bleed every meter you take. Ukraine a country being pulled through the mud as a country of corruption, and without much military power before the war is holding Russia for years and made them bleed every second, and they will continue to do so, Iran will do the same.

36

Lancestrike Mar 29, 2026 +1

Worse than underestimating, people in the US don't seem to realise that Iran probably has a million military ready men right now. I don't wish for anything bad but I think and first wave of boots from Trump is going to have a lot more casualties than any action in recent memory.

1

wimpymist Mar 29, 2026 +27

The middle east held off america for decades with old guns and ammo. This has been known for ages

27

robocarl Mar 29, 2026 +1

Putin actually did quite a bit of preparation for the war, both in terms of mobilising the army and preparing the economy for the sanctions. He just never dreamed of it going on for 4+ years. So yeah, it's similar, but not nearly the same as Bibi calling up Trump and Trump going "ok I wanna do it lol".

1

grey_hat_uk Mar 29, 2026 +1

Did Venezuela even fold like he has been claiming? To me it looks like they payed lip service and then carried on with the same regime. Not even sure any of the "massive oil wins" became a reality.

1

TheModWhoShaggedMe Mar 29, 2026 +1

Watch Maduro walk from the incompetent charges.

1

grey_hat_uk Mar 29, 2026 +1

I assume he will then be picked up by ICE and go "missing".

1

pleasedtoheatyou Mar 29, 2026 +62

>That didn’t happen and kicked off an existential war for Iran. Its really weird how often America seems to not understand that everyone else also realises they are vastly superior in provision for conventional warfare and therefore would be foolish to engage on their terms. Like Iran has spent 40 years knowing that when Israel and the US came for them, they didn't have a chance. They've studied the strategies employed in other regions of the combined "shock and awe" and surgical strikes and rebuilt their structure around being borderline impossible to effectively decapitate whilst maximising any area with strategic advantages. The Trump government is the only one stupid enough to think this is some kind of Call of Duty scoreboard where providing your kill count is higher than theirs, then you win.

62

TrickshotCandy Mar 29, 2026 +16

Art of the disaster. The idiot is a complete moron.

16

Commercial-Co Mar 29, 2026 +14

Trump thought iran, a religious fundamentalist country, would fold.

14

Complex-Royal9210 Mar 29, 2026 +18

That worked so well in Iraq. Let's do it again! /s

18

HousingThrowAway1092 Mar 29, 2026 +1

The US was in Iraq for nearly 20 years and still wasn’t able to establish that kind of control. There is no world in which the US is capable of establishing control over Iran’s oil infrastructure.

1

Gecks777 Mar 29, 2026 +1

I don't think they have the troops to do it, but even a fully successful invasion would just be a scenario where Iran is forced to blow up their own oil infrastructure in order to deny It to the enemy, which Iran will of course be perfectly willing to do as a last resort. Best case scenario, control of smoking ruins and an even worse supply crunch for the oil market.

1

sooodooo Mar 29, 2026 +1

Trump could also just pull out, admit defeat and pay some reparations and the Strait would re-open, but he won’t. Let’s be clear he puts boots on the ground because his ego can’t take defeat in a war he already claimed to have won 5 times.

1

iidesune Mar 29, 2026 +6

Mission creep is a helluva drug

6

pablocael Mar 29, 2026 +1

Meanwhile he made Putin richer and everyone else poorer, while also f****** Zelensky up. A masterpiece of shit.

1

Electronic_Film_2837 Mar 29, 2026 +1

Venezuela didn’t fold, regime is still in charge there

1

dem0nhunter Mar 29, 2026 +1

Their sentiment towards the US folded though

1

-wearetheworld- Mar 29, 2026 +2

but the US is unable to do it, lmfao

2

canspop Mar 29, 2026 +1

A little generous to say there was *any* planning, albeit bad.

1

Original-Fish-6861 Mar 29, 2026 +1

Iran has directly challenged the petrodollar. The US as it currently exists will collapse without the petrodollar. This has become an existential war for both countries. The US has no choice now but to defeat Iran completely. I don’t know if this is possible without resorting to nuclear weapons.

1

7ddlysuns Mar 29, 2026 +1

Every Republican president in my lifetime thirsts for war even if they are draft dodgers. Orange fool is just a common George W Bush

1

TabsAZ Mar 29, 2026 +1

This is way worse than Bush - Bush actually had a plan, tried to bring along allies, had competent people at the Pentagon, etc. Trump is YOLOing it with a Fox News weekend co-host in charge.

1

Ixziga Mar 29, 2026 +1

The massive protests in the country a month or so ago made Israel and the US believe that a decisive strike on leadership would result in an uprising that would overthrow the irgc, but it didn't. Now Iran has closed the strait of Hormuz and won't open the straight of Hormuz even if the US ends the war and leaves. What's worse, we thought that if Iran closed the strait, they would do it with mines which would close it for everyone, which would devastate everyone, including Iran. But they're using drones to selectively close the strait, which is worse because more they can let allied ships through and make a ton of money while still denying anything caring oil for the west from getting through. This is a world economy/power altering development, and the only way to force the strait open is to physically control the terrain around the strait, which you can't do by just dropping bombs. I don't believe the irgc has the means to defend the region from a ground invasion from the US military but they do have the means to make holding the area incredibly costly to the US by continuously assaulting with drones and missiles any positions the US takes, and they can probably keep that up indefinitely. It's hard to imagine how the US could possibly hold that area long term without some kind of regime change in Iran. But the current US administration isn't worried about the long term. They're going to send in Americans, some of which will die, and let it be the Democrats problem next term. All they're worried about now is market manipulation. And if a major world power like China were to militarily support Iran in preventing the ground invasion, this instantly becomes ww3.

1

No-Engineer4627 Mar 29, 2026 +1

Wonder if this is the US’ Suez moment the British faced in 1956.

1

luapzurc Mar 29, 2026 +1

As an Asian, what I'm really worried about is if China decides, not to support Iran, but to use this opportunity to go for Taiwan while the orange idiot is distracted.

1

cakeshop Mar 29, 2026 +1

Surely China, who appear to have some quite intelligent, or a least strategic government officials are looking at Russias folly in the Ukraine, the US/Israels folly in Iran and thinking, maybe this whole invasion/regime change never pans out as expected.

1

Guyskee Mar 29, 2026 +62

Well, Iran holds all the cards and unless Trump gives up and just goes home (no guarantee Iran unblocks the Strait there), so their only other option to unblock the Strait and stop a complete capitulation of the Republican party is to go boots on ground (and still cause the complete capitulation of the Republican party). Conservative Americans don't actually see their armed forces as human beings, so they'll gladly send them off to die.

62

KrookedDoesStuff Mar 29, 2026 +29

Conservatives are all about supporting the troops, and by supporting the troops, they mean watching them go into a pointless war, that didn’t need to happen, and then deny them any care or benefits when they eventually come home, if they come home

29

loralailoralai Mar 29, 2026 +1

Not just their own troops either they’ll be expecting their ‘allies’ to fall over themselves to send their soldiers to die there too. Despite the fact trump has alienated everyone with his arrogance and backstabbing

1

i_am_voldemort Mar 29, 2026 +20

Coming soon: "You either support the troops or love Iran"

20

No-Engineer4627 Mar 29, 2026 +1

I’ve already had family members saying if you don’t support the war than you must support the Islamic Republics.

1

Do__Math__Not__Meth Mar 29, 2026 +1

Sounds about right they’re always so incapable of nuance

1

7ddlysuns Mar 29, 2026 +1

Oh they love nuance. Just look at the hoops they jump through about the Epstein files. They’re clowns and they know what they’re doing and enjoy being shitty to people. Which is why the only thing you can do is spew conspiracies at them: like about how Israel made a Trump clone and is using our military to grab land and don’t care how many troops die

1

wasupg Mar 29, 2026 +12

See how you didn’t mention Epstein once? The plan is working as intended.

12

TheModWhoShaggedMe Mar 29, 2026 +7

I've already mentioned Epstein five times in other threads this morning. After 4 decades of running the same play, conservatives can no longer distract or surprise me.

7

Affectionate_Map_530 Mar 29, 2026 +3

I guess this is one of those 14 million timelines that strange saw where we lose

3

keytiri Mar 29, 2026 +1

Biggest mistake in decades if they don’t have a drone counter; Americans aren’t going to be happy with this administration if Iran starts releasing Ukraine style slaughter videos 🤦‍♀️.

1

MsterBoRaichu Mar 29, 2026 +1

Because Israel said they want to. And whatever Israel wants, they get. Including boots on the ground in every major Middle East country in the near future for Israel

1

theeldergod1 Mar 29, 2026 +1

He could lose presidency on this years mid elections because of the Epstein focus which was leveling up. But now there is full distraction of war which he wanted in the first place.

1

PhDinDildos_Fedoras Mar 29, 2026 +302

Fighting a war in the mountains is tough even with superior firepower. Even if the US wins ultimately, they will pay a heavy price.

302

xthecerto4 Mar 29, 2026 +34

How does win even look like? At best they install a new leader and we then off to facing a new wave of terror against US and allies.

34

Big_lt Mar 29, 2026 +15

I'd wager a win now would - install a new leadership friendly to the west - reopen of the straight with no crossing fee - partial US ownership of the straight They'll be lucky to get #2 if at all

15

xthecerto4 Mar 29, 2026 +7

So they have to secure a not too small part of the coast where the straight is the narrowest and the capital. Even if they archive all of that and everything wents perfekt, the region will still be instable.

7

Diddly_eyed_Dipshite Mar 29, 2026 +1

The US is still suffering the negative consequences of meddling with Iranian elections and installing their own puppet 70 years ago, what is it that drives Americans to think they can just, do exactly the same thing now again and it'll solve the problem. Add to that, you've just blown up the most moderate anti-nuke Ayatollah who had proven the capacity and desire to make a deal, blew him up to be replaced by a more hardline, more IRGC, less negotiable Atatollah who's now extra hardened by having his entire family massacred by the US. What is it that makes Americans think they can just control who leads another sovereign country?

1

Big_lt Mar 29, 2026 +28

It's this millenias Vietnam. There was no reason for us to go there 60/70s. We lost a lot of people for no good reason. Protests left and right back in the US The only thing pending is Trump to declare a draft

28

VonGeisler Mar 29, 2026 +159

They won’t win, what war has America ever won?

159

hmmmyousaidwhat Mar 29, 2026 +123

The US currently seems to be winning the war against itself. They're finally gonna catch a dub.

123

Klutzy-Delivery-5792 Mar 29, 2026 +15

The Civil War?

15

VonGeisler Mar 29, 2026 +1

Against themselves?

1

depressedfuckboi Mar 29, 2026 +1

That's the joke!

1

Dominioningurass Mar 29, 2026 +27

you say this but economically they still dominate and their MIC is vastly larger than any other on the planet if they were to go full war time, it'd be even more excessive. That's factoring in displeasure of a foreign war they don't want. They will still pump money at the problem, The CIA doesn't care bout winning they care about manufacturing control. They lost vietnam, yet they stayed the worlds hegemony, they lost in the early 00s Middle east in the grand scheme, yet still the worlds hegemony. It's farcical to sit here and pretend like it's not just going to end in mass death through air campaigns and then a withdrawal because their goal isn't explicitly acquisition, it's far beyond the machinations of us dumbass listnookors.

27

Likeapuma24 Mar 29, 2026 +1

They beat opposing militaries pretty easily. Their "nation building" is where they get trounced. But in actual warfare? They demolish everyone.

1

iidesune Mar 29, 2026 +6

You could argue the US defeated the Taliban and Iraq before losing the war. As with any insurgent campaign, defeating a conventional force is a relatively easy task for the US military. Defeating a dug-in insurgency is almost impossible as long as the enemy has a will to fight. The Iranians will never accept defeat. Even if we *defeat* them.

6

autobannedforsatire Mar 29, 2026 +21

We surrendered Afghanistan back to the people we supposedly beat.

21

VonGeisler Mar 29, 2026 +1

You can’t argue that they were defeated as they still exist. Winning means overcoming a problem, the problem still exists and the place is much worse off than before.

1

ollielite Mar 29, 2026 +7

American Revolution 1775. Quite recent then /s

7

tarkinlarson Mar 29, 2026 +12

Didn't that war nearly bankrupt France?

12

VonGeisler Mar 29, 2026 +8

The only war they won was against themselves.

8

octopornopus Mar 29, 2026 +8

Some would argue were *still* fighting that war...

8

_THEWATERB0Y_ Mar 29, 2026 -6

Lol some revisionist history here. Forget about WWII? The first Gulf War? Panama? All huge victories

-6

KingR3aper Mar 29, 2026 +15

After WW2 every following war seems to be a pyrrhic 'mission accomplished' victory at best.

15

kr_edn Mar 29, 2026 +1

Dude literally said gulf war and Panama. You think those were pyrrhic victories?

1

JollyGreenGiraffe Mar 29, 2026 +1

Ya, you’re misusing pyrrhic there my dude. Leave that to historians. WW2 and Vietnam had a few battles. Tet Offensive being one.

1

[deleted] Mar 29, 2026 +7

[deleted]

7

royalx Mar 29, 2026 +1

What on earth are you talking about that the Germans were on the back foot? They were 1,000 miles into the Soviet Union and controlled Western Europe in December 1941. Hell, D-Day was more than 2 years after the Americans joined.

1

PeterNippelstein Mar 29, 2026 +3

We arent claiming all of it. The US was part of the Allied Powers and the Allied Powers won the war. What are we arguing here that America never won a war or that America never won a war without allies?

3

PhDinDildos_Fedoras Mar 29, 2026 +5

Playing Devil's advocate: WW2 was the last win and even there spoils were divided with the Soviet Union. The Gulf War had limited objectives and those were met, but it also created a stalemate in Iraq. Panama is really the only real W on your list and the country barely had an army.

5

PhDinDildos_Fedoras Mar 29, 2026 +1

That's a good point also, the US hasn't won much anything since WW2. Should also point out, that even the ones where the US lost, there were clear objectives and some idea of what the war was supposed to accomplish.

1

nicbhethebear Mar 29, 2026 +2

The war won't be fought in the mountains, the us obviously are just gonna go for Kharg & at most a buffer zone on the coast to prevent drones and rockets from being launched. They have only moved like 20k soldiers there.

2

Tiny_Track9682 Mar 29, 2026 +7

Sounds good in theory, but it’s unlikely to stay that limited. A coastal buffer might work on paper, but if the goal is actually to reduce launches, you’d probably need to push further inland over time to deal with mobile systems and secure the area properly. That quickly increases troop requirements and complexity beyond just a narrow strip along the coast.

7

tomismybuddy Mar 29, 2026 +16

Do you honestly think that’s going to be enough?

16

PeterNippelstein Mar 29, 2026 +9

They launch rockets away from the coast as well, plenty of launch sites deep inside the country. When Vietnam started we only sent 3,500 troops initially and look how that turned out. At first they said they were sending 1,500 troops to Iran, then 3,000, then 10,000, and now theyre saying 20,000. This is called mission creep.

9

gingerzombie2 Mar 29, 2026 +5

Have you checked out the topography of the coast?

5

7ddlysuns Mar 29, 2026 +1

The number of troops you’d need for a buffer zone seems high. Dones have a really long range

1

PhDinDildos_Fedoras Mar 29, 2026 +5

Okay, so if the US is going to stay away from the mountains, Iran should stick to them? Sounds like the US lost already.

5

omfgeometry Mar 29, 2026 +158

Haven't Iran been prepping for this very scenario for like 20+ years?

158

Cockalorum Mar 29, 2026 +67

48+ years

67

metengrinwi Mar 29, 2026 +1

*salivating for this scenario

1

Emu_commando Mar 29, 2026 +52

Ah yes, let's invade the country known as a "natural fortress". surely this will go well...

52

HugaM00S3 Mar 29, 2026 +1

And then let’s pair that “natural fortress” with the lessons learned in Ukraine on how to conduct drone warfare. Most of America is not ready to see POV videos of their sons getting smoked by kamikaze drones and then posted up on places like YouTube and Listnook. Not to mention America has refused any help or guidance from President Zelinski on the matter. If I was a Congressman I’d take a video or two from the Ukraine War pages and show my colleagues what horror drone warfare is in 2026.

1

ToxicSaudi Mar 29, 2026 +23

Are Americans ready to see their sons and brothers on drone montages?

23

Ok_Flower7157 Mar 29, 2026 +140

The White House declared victory. Iran is now preparing for a ground invasion. One of these statements has to be wrong — and it's not Iran's.

140

Law-of-Poe Mar 29, 2026 +1

Imagine how low republican voters have brought the status of the United States that the words of the Iranian regime are more trustworthy than those of the US. F*** every last idiot who voted Trump

1

NoBSforGma Mar 29, 2026 +82

Invading Iran is going to be a BIG MISTAKE. A colossal mistake! With ongoing consequences for many and results that will be unsatisfactory, at best. Is it not possible to stop this at all? Can Congress do anything to override Trump on this? Parents of Marines or even draft-age children should be storming Washington, DC. It's just too sad. And all for F****** NOTHING!!!

82

Consistent-Song1643 Mar 29, 2026 +51

Not for nothing. To distract the public from the Epstein files. Won't work.

51

Tickstart Mar 29, 2026 +1

Could work if they throw the world into WW3 or best case scenario just a 10-year great depression.

1

NoBSforGma Mar 29, 2026 +1

I don't believe this has anything to do with the Epstein files. Nothing has happened and nothing WILL happen to Trump from that information as long as he is in power. There will be NO investigation and NO prosecution so he is in no danger from any fallout. I mean... there has been no Public Outrage over this; no one is storming Washington, DC and demanding an investigation (which isn't going to happen). The Public is too busy trying to figure out how to buy gas for their cars and pay rent and put food on the table. I believe this is all tied up with oil. Trump is a fanatic when it comes to oil - or anything that will line his pockets and the pockets of those like him who support and flatter him. And tied up with "I have these weapons and I'm going to use them." because he is like a toddler with a new toy. And anyone who insults him is likely to become a victim of his, in one way or another.

1

Klutzy-Delivery-5792 Mar 29, 2026 +9

>draft-age children should be storming Washington, DC. The US just raised the recruitment age to 42, it won't be just young adults.

9

NoBSforGma Mar 29, 2026 +1

I'm don't think that "recruitment age" equals "draft age." If some idiots want to volunteer to go to war, that's one thing. Of course, they won't go directly from "signing up" to "war" but will have a period of training before being sent into any combat situation. So here we are, 60 years later, using similar rhetoric and beginning a totally destructive, totally unwinnable war that could go on for a LONG TIME with disastrous results for all involved.

1

Clementine-Wollysock Mar 29, 2026 +1

It's a good thing Trump has spent his second term being super kind to US allies so they'll just be dying to get involved. We can't fail with the backing of El Salvador, Argentina and Hungary!

1

rbhmmx Mar 29, 2026 +1

Russia is helping as well because of Putin's respect for Trump

1

NoBSforGma Mar 29, 2026 +1

Thanks for my morning laugh! Although...... it's really not funny, is it?

1

Clementine-Wollysock Mar 29, 2026 +1

It might be now, but it surely won't be when American blood starts to stain Iranian soil.

1

TheKillingJoke1991 Mar 29, 2026 +80

Ground invasion? B...b...but Donnie told us they already won 25 days ago...

80

championkid Mar 29, 2026 +1

Yeah, and hasn’t he won at least two (2) handcrafted peace prizes and stopped like eight (8) wars?

1

Yaruo0310 Mar 29, 2026 +39

To the U.S. soldiers who will end up losing their lives cleaning up pedo Trump’s mess, thank you for your service.

39

macross1984 Mar 29, 2026 +14

Ground invasion with only few thousand soldiers is not enough to cow Iran.

14

Likeapuma24 Mar 29, 2026 +1

The max the US had in Iraq was 170k during their '"surge". Iran is four times larger, with much rougher terrain. They'd need half a million troops just to make a dent.

1

WillZer Mar 29, 2026 +1

A country which is a natural fortress, with people seeing this war as life or death while not fearing death because of their religion while the US soldiers can't even comprehend the reason they are there? At least in 2000s, you had 9/11 memory fresh in everyone's mind to motivate. You'd probably need half a million soldiers for ground invasion to be even remotely plausible, and be ready to lose at least quarter of that count. I don't think Americans in general want this. But they wanted the guy who wants this so "too bad" I guess?

1

UrineArtist Mar 29, 2026 +1

ChatGPTs in the Pentagon right now all running, "Plan ground invasion of Iran, make no mistakes."

1

Unhappy-Ad9696 Mar 29, 2026 +6

And while this is happening, guess who is just itching to start a new war in Cuba. Yes, of course the one and only recipient of the FIFA peace price!

6

lance914x Mar 29, 2026 +1

Just hope trump doesn't start crying again for allies help when he starts losing US soldiers, because we could not give a single f*** about America at this point.

1

milkonyourmustache Mar 29, 2026 +17

Duh, they have a 1600km long mountain fortress adjacent to the Strait of Hormuz. They can send pew pew shots every few hours from anywhere and no1 can do anything about it

17

d70 Mar 29, 2026 +1

Why are we going in again? Is it just because baby orange is throwing a tantrum? If Israel want to go in, they should send their troops. Enough is enough.

1

moral_mortal Mar 29, 2026 +1

US soldiers are ready to do for why would they send their soldiers, they don't spend AIPAC money for free.

1

SheSaidOtaku Mar 29, 2026 +1

I like where this is going. Send as many Americans as you can!

1

Yamato-Musashi Mar 29, 2026 +1

They’ve only been preparing for this for ~50 years, what’s the worst that can happen? (Meat grinder goes brrrrrrr)

1

wtfbenlol Mar 29, 2026 +1

And we wonder why Iran wanted a nuclear weapon. Obama had this issues resolved over a decade ago

1

Dutch_1815 Mar 29, 2026 +11

So is IDF joining? The coalition of idiots….

11

melithium Mar 29, 2026 +1

MAGA can go f*** itself.

1

mcbeardsauce Mar 29, 2026 +1

They thought fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan was hard? Irans geography is a f****** nightmare. This is such a bad idea.

1

FogTub Mar 29, 2026 +1

It's crazy how accurately professor Jiang predicted all of this. Like watching a slow motion train wreck.

1

MrMeeseeks33 Mar 29, 2026 +1

Let’s not all forget that Trump started this war because he is in the Epstein list and wants to send people to die for essential that.

1

Gloomy-Inspector-834 Mar 29, 2026 +14

The US could maybe go for a double-whammy invasion, an escalation of the war: invade Israel too and shut down their secret nuclear weapons program? Because we obviously can’t allow countries that fund terrorist groups, violate international law, and start wars with their neighbors to have covert nuclear programs… right? Or is that acceptable, as long as someone can shield them with a UN veto?

14

HumanShadow Mar 29, 2026 +12

The soldiers being sent to the meat grinder are probably upset they're not allowed to wear their MAGA hats.

12

Sevastous-of-Caria Mar 29, 2026 +6

With readiness, They meant the fpv footage upload channels. Shits gonna be wild.

6

100862233 Mar 29, 2026 +13

But I thought trump said he completely obliterated all of iran military capabilities 4 weeks ago and Iranian also committed sepuku before he even bombed them back in January cuz protestors from 30,000 to 1 million where killed by IRGC in 2 days.

13

Vaxtez Mar 29, 2026 +6

Both sides can go screw themselves. Trump is clearly waging wars to bolster his ego whilst making the US more authoritarian, meanwhile the Iranian regime is slaughtering citizens for merely protesting against the brutality of this regime.

6

brokeboipobre Mar 29, 2026 +1

Iran doesn't care how many of their own people they kill, as long as they get the footage of dead US soldiers.

1

DrDumle Mar 29, 2026 +1

What’s the win state here? Even if USA walked in and took power the regime would just be back the minute they left.

1

DaileyFlosser39 Mar 29, 2026 +1

🍊 gets to take over the Straight, making every ship going through pay a hefty toll so he can make money for himself ( also renaming it "The Straight of Trump") and America moves on to Cuba.

1

radiationshield Mar 29, 2026 +1

this whole thing just smells like the us admin is freestyling a large scale conflict, that worries me

1

redpandafire Mar 29, 2026 +1

Israel played the biggest bluff hand and won America’s fragile ego.

1

a_wild_dingo Mar 29, 2026 +1

Imagine sending American teenagers, their whole lives ahead of them, to die for this shit. Absolutely sickening.

1

Uknewmelast Mar 29, 2026 +1

Fyi, Russia lost pretty much it's entire militairy force invading a neighbouring country over 4 years. Literally over a million(!!!) wounded/KIA, i've been on the subs long enough and seen it all live and in Living Colour. It's not a pretty sight seeing people end their lives after a drone strike by shooting themselves, pulling a grenade under their vests or cutting their arteries with razor wire while bleeding out. Just a matter of time before fpv shots of us marines start popping up and for what reason? What makes the USA think they can invade a country half way around the globe from a sea/sky to land invasion. Their flagships will become targets and even a single strike for the navy is a massive loss of soft power. Tanks and AFV are sitting ducks for fpv drones that costs almost nothing to produce. A landing base setup in Iran is begging for a drone/missile strike. So many people are going to die for jack shit. Also Iran has been preparing for this for ages so thinking this will be a cakewalk is asinine. Trump had shot himself in the foot with this one and he knows he doesn't have the cards to back out of this mess. America on it's own has no chance vs Iran on home soil. NATO doesn't want and doesn't have to be involved because it's not on their territory. But go ahead send innocent people to their death once again for the sake of d*** measuring, money and religion bravo assholes.

1

SuperRektT Mar 29, 2026 +3

Surely, what would they say otherwise

3

AlexRescueDotCom Mar 29, 2026 +1

American troops that will die on Iran soil are not heroes by any stretch.

1

CleanEnergyFuture331 Mar 29, 2026 +1

The American public will not be able to handle seeing soldiers killed by FPV drones. This is political suicide if it happens.

1

sovietarmyfan Mar 29, 2026 +2

If Battlefield taught us a lesson they aren't.

2

Toucan_Lips Mar 29, 2026 +1

A tragic misstep into darkness

1

KamKorn Mar 29, 2026 +1

So this war… um I mean incursion is picking up

1

Rhsxx Mar 29, 2026 +1

What's a "top lawmaker"?

1

lyon810 Mar 29, 2026 +1

US about to find out they can’t just roll in and do as they please

1

howtoloveadaisy Mar 29, 2026 +1

[ Removed by Listnook ]

1

OpTicSkYHaWk Mar 29, 2026 +1

Lmao what if he said theyre not ready hahaha

1

Likeapuma24 Mar 29, 2026 +1

Serious question: This entire conflict being instigated by Isreal, their troops will be heading this ground invasion.... Right?

1

ChemicalBus608 Mar 29, 2026 +1

Why does thus seem like a trap?

1

Im_ur_Uncle_ Mar 29, 2026 +1

Im mean, what do you expect them to say? "We're not ready! This is terrible for us!" Imagine...

1

ThE_LAN_B4_TimE Mar 29, 2026 +1

Trump cant handle he lost the war so now here comes the little d dictator in him attemping to show how strong he is. Wait until massive casualties happens and we are Russia. The amount of mental gymnastics the GOP are going through to allow this is insane. Remember he still has NO F****** COMGRESSIONAL APPROVAL. NONE. So much for a few tactical bomb strikes.

1

NivekIyak Mar 29, 2026 +1

The moment those boots hit the ground, someone out there will be like: Checkmate, America

1

SPQR-Tightanus Mar 29, 2026 +1

How many troops will Israel send?

1

Relevant-Doctor187 Mar 29, 2026 +1

This is a train wreck about to happen and we’re going to all have front row seats. You normally gear up for war. This f***** and his sycophant generals apparently are going to march soldiers into Iran without proper supply lines or preparation as soon as they arrive. These generals need to be tried for what’s about to happen. They know better. Also we still have assets sitting in drone range such as aircraft we cannot replace. It’s like they’re deliberately letting them be destroyed.

1

Iran ready to face US ground invasion, top lawmaker says | Caliber.Az

💬 Send a Message

158 Comments