ListNook

PeksyTiger Apr 19, 2026 +241

What are we expecting them to say? "They really got us in the first half, not gonna lie"?

241

Titrifle Apr 19, 2026 +22

The drone launchers are just a metal rack welded to a Toyota hilux. So we won bigly, like nobody's ever seen before, and then Iran cheats by continuing to make stuff - who could have seen that coming?

22

Expert_Bag7416 Apr 19, 2026 +81

They are using machine guns now to fire at ship

81

Odd-Row9485 Apr 19, 2026 +49

Correct Because that small move with a weapon that doesn’t even really destroy a ship completely halts the insurance on the tankers therefore the tankers stop and the attackers spent very little money for a MASSIVE effect.

49

plsbeagoodneighbor Apr 19, 2026 +35

Lmao the massive effect being pissing off one of your only “allies” and tanking your own economy.

35

NotSoSalty Apr 19, 2026 +6

Oil industry was being challenged by renewables before this conflict. I wonder what the consequences of over 2x oil expenses will be. It was too late before the conflict began. Maybe the planet will be saved yet.

6

Tomoomba Apr 19, 2026 +13

Unfortunately oil is not used only for energy. Oil is involved in the production of fertilizers, plastics, lubricants, and jet fuels just to name a few.

13

MaximumPepper123 Apr 19, 2026 +6

True, but the majority is burned as fuel. Quick googling says 70-80%.

6

Z3t4 Apr 19, 2026 -3

This is good for Iran petrrol inustry in fact, trump just lifted sanctions on irania oil, so probably they're selling even more oil than before.

-3

plsbeagoodneighbor Apr 19, 2026 +6

Remind me again how many tankers have left Iranian ports in the last few days?

6

Z3t4 Apr 19, 2026 -2

And how many had passed from non iranian ports?, before this taco blockade china was receiving its shipments, let's see how long does this last.

-2

plsbeagoodneighbor Apr 19, 2026 +2

Seems like the point went over your head, but the answer is none. Iran absolutely has not been “selling more oil” while their ports are blockaded and the Strait has been a warzone for weeks.

2

Z3t4 Apr 19, 2026

Just for a few days, before that was selling more. And you think naivelly than the current state of affairs will last. The middle east petromonarchies and china won't stay iddle.

0

myWeedAccountMaaaaan Apr 19, 2026 +1

“Minimum required force”

1

CaptainCanuck93 Apr 19, 2026 +18

IMO this attitude is what is losing the US the war If all it takes is raking a ship with a machine gun to enforce your closure of the strait, that's all you spend Spending billions on shock and awe while securing no objectives seems to be the American strategy and it kind of sucks

18

Donnicton Apr 20, 2026

But Hegseth said they would be too intimidated by sheer alpha male US military warrior ethos to fight back, how could that not work?

0

Stellewind Apr 19, 2026 +10

Of course they do that. If a few machine gun bullets can shut down a global shipping lane, why not? Iranians doesn't want to actually sink ships unless they absolutely have to. The hostages are only useful when they are alive. You'd be delusional to think IRGC actually only has machine guns.

10

leisurechef Apr 19, 2026 +14

Asymmetrical warfare refers to conflicts between opposing forces that differ significantly in military power, often involving unconventional tactics like guerrilla warfare and terrorism. TBH they literally shut the Strait of Hormuz again with only a machine gun.

14

MyUsrNameis007 Apr 19, 2026 +5

A couple of machine guns. That’s a factor of two you are missing. /s

5

FeedbackOther5215 Apr 19, 2026 +1

To be fair it only works because Iran is engaging the most radical wide spread, over powered terrorists in the world: The Insurance Industry.

1

Thurak0 Apr 19, 2026

And? Did it work? Yes, right? So, it just add insult to injury that the aggressors in this war are beaten by a small boat with a machine gun.

0

SporksInjected Apr 19, 2026

Costing Iran a half billion per day currently.

0

Thurak0 Apr 19, 2026 +6

So what? They also had 10000+ bombs dropped on them while the USA mainland have received not a single one. And? Does that mean anything in an asymmetric war? Are you incapable of learning anything from Afghanistan?

6

SporksInjected Apr 19, 2026 +8

It just sucks for the people living in the country, that don’t give a shit about having nuclear weapons, that their government is ramming their own economy into the ground to gain nuclear weapons.

8

Thurak0 Apr 19, 2026 +9

Oh yeah. And murdering tens of thousands of them earlier this year. Using the oil money to fund terrorists abroad. The whole suppression of women thing as well. It surely sucks. But war without any plan does not help at all to make things better.

9

SporksInjected Apr 19, 2026 +1

The current war though arguably wouldn’t be taking place if not for nuclear ambitions. National defense has cost the Iranian people a lot.

1

Thurak0 Apr 19, 2026 +2

The nuclear ambitions were actually finally tamed 2015 until the US withdrew 2018. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran_nuclear_deal The choice to drop bombs instead of trying diplomacy was on Trump not Iran.

2

SporksInjected Apr 19, 2026 +3

The article you linked mentions the JCPOA didn’t end until 2025 and demonstrably didn’t take away nuclear ambitions.

3

Thurak0 Apr 19, 2026 +6

With the US withdrawl May 2018 the deal was effectively dead. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran_nuclear_deal#U.S._withdrawal_(May_2018)

6

foghillgal Apr 19, 2026 +2

I’m sure Vietnam received actual tens of millions of bombs causing hundred billion in economic losses over 30 years so I guess they lost thst war . Good to know same with Afghanistan, lost lost, lost…

2

kingcakeaholic Apr 20, 2026

50 cal leaves a mark.

0

OP_Skis_In_Jeans Apr 19, 2026 +418

Actual headline: "IRGC makes yet another dubious propaganda claim without evidence"

418

cytokine7 Apr 19, 2026 +224

“And Reuters amplifies it, as is our duty”

224

OP_Skis_In_Jeans Apr 19, 2026 +93

And all they had to do to prevent it is start the headline with "IRGC claims..." Of course that's apparently too much to ask. Western media does a better job than even the IRGC at spreading Iranian propaganda in the west, and all for the ever present goal of more clicks and ad revenue.

93

DiscipleOfYeshua Apr 19, 2026 +18

"We verified our sources carefully, with the help of native Iranians. The IRGC propaganda spokesperson distinctly said this."

18

Boysoythesoyboy Apr 19, 2026 +13

All you had to do was read the title, but thats too many letters to understand i guess.

13

OP_Skis_In_Jeans Apr 19, 2026 +4

"claim" followed by "qualifier" is almost always a stronger argument and typically attracts more interest than "qualifier" followed by "claim." The media knows this, and uses it to great effect. Besides, "you didn't read a 12 word headline" isn't a serious argument.

4

ruskyandrei Apr 19, 2026 +6

I get the sentiment but in an age where all these claims are out there from either side almost instantly, whether from a more "reputable" source or not, simply ignoring one side's dubious claims while printing the other's would honestly be far more damaging to their reputation.

6

jseah Apr 20, 2026 +2

Why do we pay them for news if they're not even going to fact check and are just quoting government propaganda?

2

cytokine7 Apr 19, 2026 -6

“IRGC claims” would have done wonders. Basic journalistic integrity.

-6

Virillus Apr 19, 2026 +22

Literally in the headline, dude. There's 0% chance you read that and didn't know what "Guards commander," meant.

22

redpoemage Apr 19, 2026 +29

“guards commander says”…right there in the headline. People not even reading full headlines before jumping to comments to criticize will always be wild to me…

29

cytokine7 Apr 19, 2026 -9

You can’t see the subtle but important difference between putting that bit at the beginning vs the end from a journalistic stand point?

-9

stogie_t Apr 19, 2026 +13

Grasping at straws mate.

13

OP_Skis_In_Jeans Apr 19, 2026 -5

Sure they included it, but it's tagged on the end as if it's a minor ancillary detail instead of critical context. Not 'IRGC commander" either, "guards commander." Totally not implying that he's with the Iranian equivalent of the US national guard lol... /s That is, of course, a 100% deliberate stylistic decision, likely to drive clicks via fear mongering. But sure, feel free to blame the audience for what boils down to lack of education and basic human nature instead of the experts who are directly profiting by helping the IRGC disguise its propaganda...

-5

Ultra_Metal Apr 19, 2026 -4

Reuters is a superspreader of disinformation.

-4

joelfarris Apr 19, 2026 +8

How does this one month old account have almost 22,000 comment karma? Oh, it's divisive comments like this.

8

lurkANDorganize Apr 19, 2026 +1

Not even remotely true.

1

Ultra_Metal Apr 20, 2026

Stop acting like Reuters.

0

Thurak0 Apr 19, 2026 +29

Learn some media literacy. They are - in the headline - telling you who claims that. It is for you to decide whether you believe that or not. Yo could act like a fully functioning person.

29

Borne2Run Apr 19, 2026 +4

"We have been granted 500 F-35s. We shall purge the infidels!"

4

foghillgal Apr 19, 2026 +12

They\`re quoting someone. You can believe it, or not believe it. The alternative is not transmitting anything. When they\`re saying Trump says X 10 times a day do you have the same qualms.

12

CaptainCanuck93 Apr 19, 2026 +1

To be fair they media has been uncritically reporting the US regime's talking points just as frequently

1

BLACK_HALO_V10 Apr 19, 2026 +1

And half of listnook is gonna slurp it up without question.

1

84Cressida Apr 19, 2026 +1

“Listnook continues to hype up Iran, simply due to Trump hate”

1

Guest_0_ Apr 19, 2026 -14

Weirdly after almost 2 months of mainstream media constantly reposting Trumps bold face lies with no follow up questions, I'm more inclined to believe what Iran's saying. What a time to be alive.

-14

OP_Skis_In_Jeans Apr 19, 2026 +15

There's that false dichotomy in action again. Trump lying does not in any way make the IRGC more trustworthy. Anything but treating both sides' claims with a healthy dose of skepticism is drinking one side's Kool Aid at this point. Edit: Blocked for calling out this utter lack of logic of course!

15

Guest_0_ Apr 19, 2026 -18

When Trump lies about literally everything and Iran doesn't that's not a false dichotomy. That's literally objective reality, Iran has been a more reliable source of information about what's happening with the conflict and that's verifiable. You're right to be skeptical but it's hilarious that we live in a time line where every time Trump posts something it's factually dishonest.

-18

plsbeagoodneighbor Apr 19, 2026 +13

Can’t believe you’re really spending your free time claiming the IRGC doesn’t lie constantly.

13

Love-for-everyone Apr 19, 2026 +7

This guys lost total sense of reality….

7

Guest_0_ Apr 19, 2026 -12

Literally not what I said.

-12

plsbeagoodneighbor Apr 19, 2026 +14

You are literally spending your time comparing two liars against each other to stack rank them, despite them being equivalent for all practical purposes. How dumb is that?

14

Guest_0_ Apr 19, 2026 +1

Because the president of the United States is a f****** brain dead moron. Yesterday for example he made something like 7 claims that were all verifiably untrue including that the US is going to go into Iran, and WITH Iran's help take their enriched uranium. He also claimed for the 87th time the strait was open. So I go and see what Iran's saying and low and behold they are claiming the strait isn't open and they agreed to nothing DJT is saying. An hour later they fired on some boats. So yea I find it hilarious, that when you want an accurate representation of what's actually happening Iran is actually a more reliable source.

1

fec2245 Apr 19, 2026 +1

>guy who doesn't follow mainstream media but wants to be a media commentator

1

MrTriangular Apr 19, 2026

The only way to know for sure is to risk tankers crossing the strait, or for the US to send ground troops in to occupy Iran and capture launcher sites and production facilities.

0

Idiot_Savant_13 Apr 20, 2026 -1

You do realize that ALL headlines are propaganda, right? Billionaires have literally declared what y'all get to see & learn about the world by buying up all the bottlenecks. Your entire digital reality is curated.

-1

macross1984 Apr 19, 2026 +8

Replace at higher rate? Seem normal reaction when you're at war.

8

xmuskorx Apr 19, 2026 +61

We can ignore anything they say. Just like we can ignore anything Trump says

61

TalkersCZ Apr 19, 2026 -56

I am much more likely to trust random iranian commander than to US president or any US secretary at this point. Who would have guessed before Trump, that ANYTHING US administration says is by default expected to be a lie.

-56

cytokine7 Apr 19, 2026 +32

I’m guessing you’re not Iranian…

32

xmuskorx Apr 19, 2026 +27

Why? Trump being untrustworthy does land any credibility to Iran propaganda.

27

TalkersCZ Apr 19, 2026 -16

I mean I would trust random word generator over Trump, Iranians are probably somewhere on the level of the random word generator.

-16

Opposite_Living_7927 Apr 19, 2026 +46

I keep seeing these comments on listnook and they’re so dumb lol

46

Luciifuge Apr 19, 2026 +14

Dude is bragging about being gullible enough to fall for Iranian propaganda.

14

ThePlanner Apr 19, 2026 -23

Which part strikes you as so dumb? Genuinely asking.

-23

Opposite_Living_7927 Apr 19, 2026 +32

Believing the irgc

32

ThePlanner Apr 19, 2026 -11

They’re absolutely lying, without question. And he is also a pathological liar. Two things can both be true.

-11

plsbeagoodneighbor Apr 19, 2026 +23

Yeah, that’s why it’s dumb as hell when you see all these Listnookors using Trump’s untrustworthiness to represent the IRGC as credible.

23

TalkersCZ Apr 19, 2026 -9

Nobody is saying they are credible or trustworthy. Trump has basically 0/100 trust, random IRGC commander 1/100 and random guy in a pub 10/100. Basically I would believe probably any human being more than Trump at this point. Thats the point.

-9

Opposite_Living_7927 Apr 19, 2026 +12

This is a horrible point lol, yes trump is untrustworthy but the irgc is a genocidal authoritarian regime that murders its own citizens, so how does that make an irgc commander more trustworthy?

12

plsbeagoodneighbor Apr 19, 2026 +13

Spending your time differentiating 0/100 and 1/100 is such a stupid point to spend your time making.

13

TalkersCZ Apr 19, 2026 -3

OK, 0/10 for Trump,1/10 for most people I dont know.

-3

Opposite_Living_7927 Apr 19, 2026 +6

Yeah so we agree whats the confusion

6

ThePlanner Apr 19, 2026 -2

Indeed. Yes.

-2

OP_Skis_In_Jeans Apr 19, 2026 +12

All of it. It's a dumb premise based on a dumb comparison that relies on a dumb false dichotomy. Deciding that the IRGC is more trustworthy than the US when "both sides are untrustworthy" is an option is even dumber.

12

SnooMemesjellies9003 Apr 19, 2026 +7

Yeah you’re exactly the target audience for the IRGC

7

TalkersCZ Apr 19, 2026 +2

How? I am not saying I trust them. But I am more likely to trust them over what Trump says.

2

BenHelldiver Apr 19, 2026 +2

Or you trust neither?

2

crazyol84 Apr 19, 2026 +10

You can’t compare the two. Trump sucks but believing actual terrorists is just moronic

10

TalkersCZ Apr 19, 2026 -1

Trump is proving on daily basis he is not trustworthy. I dont know that commander, so there is a chance he is telling truth.

-1

OneMagicMango Apr 19, 2026 +3

Dude they’re all lying to us. Doesn’t matter if it’s America, Iran, Israel, etc. you can’t trust anyone at this point.

3

Ultra_Metal Apr 19, 2026 +38

Reuters is once again acting like a superspreader of disinformation by amplifying lies coming from an untrustworthy source. This isn't journalism. It's propaganda.

38

Thurak0 Apr 19, 2026 +11

Learn some media literacy. They are - in the headline - telling you who claims that. It is for you to decide whether you believe that or not. You could act like a fully functioning person.

11

FeedbackOther5215 Apr 19, 2026 +2

And the structure of the headline is nearly a direct example of what not to do from my college journalism course. They’re doing it intentionally and if you can’t that you’re clearly the target.

2

Ultra_Metal Apr 19, 2026 +6

Thank you. It's crazy that people can't figure out that basic journalistic principles are being violated by Reuters here.

6

Thurak0 Apr 19, 2026 -3

What did you college course tell you what to do here? If you tell me "not reporting about it" you don't understand reuters job at all.

-3

FeedbackOther5215 Apr 19, 2026 +6

How to form headlines in an object frame. It’s a major part of most journalism courses.

6

Thurak0 Apr 19, 2026 -3

So... teach me. What's your headline?

-3

Ultra_Metal Apr 19, 2026 +2

You should be the one learning media literacy. The media should not be spreading unverified claims from unverified sources. By doing that, they are becoming a superspreader of lies and disinformation. Journalism is about spreading the truth, not the lies of tyrants and terrorists.

2

fec2245 Apr 19, 2026 +12

Why doesn't listnook do something about this AI spam?

12

OP_Skis_In_Jeans Apr 19, 2026 +25

Listnook is even worse than Reuters. Many subs here openly pull for the IRGC...

25

fec2245 Apr 19, 2026 +5

Ultra metal spams AI replies and listnook just let it happen. They're letting their product be destroyed.

5

OP_Skis_In_Jeans Apr 19, 2026 +7

> They're letting their product be destroyed. Tends to happen when you stand for nothing whatsoever except the next quarter's fiscal results.

7

fec2245 Apr 19, 2026 +1

If they cared about their stock value they'd be more aggressive in addressing the problem. Part of it is that it's a difficult problem but also companies sometimes get "lazy" which results in them favoring the status quo.

1

OP_Skis_In_Jeans Apr 19, 2026 +5

The problem with that is a crackdown would inevitably cause user numbers to decline in the short term, which would probably also cause the stock price to decline. IMO this would benefit the product in the medium and long terms like you're suggesting, but that isn't good enough when the latest quarterly results are a much more important metric for shareholders and, accordingly, executives. This problem is hardly unique to Listnook, but it certainly manifests itself here in particularly problematic ways IMO.

5

fec2245 Apr 19, 2026

I think, especially in 2026, the idea that shareholders only care about the next quarter DAUs is overstated.

0

FeedbackOther5215 Apr 19, 2026

With this economy I’m inclined to think it matters more than normal unfortunately.

0

fec2245 Apr 19, 2026

Bad read on Wall Street priorities. DAU don't hold the sway they used to and many companies are currently making long term investments.

0

SawToothKernel Apr 19, 2026 +3

Yeah, they should just report what Trump says instead. That's much more reliable...

3

Ultra_Metal Apr 19, 2026

You think Trump is reliable? LOL. Clearly you don't know much about him.

0

Virillus Apr 19, 2026 +1

I don't understand your complaint here. A news organization is reporting what a military leader is saying in an active conflict zone. Is your stance that Reuters should not cover conflicts? What would be better?

1

Ultra_Metal Apr 19, 2026 +1

My stance is that the press should not spread unverified claims from unreliable sources.

1

takesthebiscuit Apr 19, 2026 +3

They have had their local Ford and GM Factories fire them out

3

Loki-L Apr 19, 2026 +25

I wouldn't believe a word they are saying. The US has likely crippled their production lines. On the other hand they had years to prepare and decentralize their production and dig bunkers, so I wouldn't be surprised if they did restock some stuff.

25

OneMagicMango Apr 19, 2026 +4

Have we? I can’t trust a single thing any side says.

4

ArtificialExistannce Apr 19, 2026 -14

The US hasn't crippled a thing, other than their own global reputation and the global energy market for months/years to come. Not to mention accelerating multipolarity's return.

-14

Fit-Magazine-6669 Apr 19, 2026 +8

i mean they could say what ever they want, facts speak for themselves and they tell different story.

8

[deleted] Apr 19, 2026 -8

[deleted]

-8

Fit-Magazine-6669 Apr 19, 2026 +3

projecting, are we?

3

lokken1234 Apr 19, 2026 +2

Isn't that a normal thing though? Why would you be refilling them faster pre war than during the war?

2

Bandai_Namco_Rat Apr 19, 2026 +2

So stupid. Of course they're replenishing faster than before the war, they weren't using any before that and didn't need to replenish

2

pentox70 Apr 19, 2026 +2

Breaking news, weapons become more of a priority for a country in the middle of an active war. Seems like a water is wet, sort of headline. As long as they have money, they will continue to acquire weapons.

2

princemousey1 Apr 21, 2026 +1

“… the Revolutionary ⁠Guards Aerospace Force commander said on Sunday, according to Nournews.” Yup, an extremely credible source and also absolutely no reason whatsoever for him to lie.

1

East1st Apr 22, 2026 +1

Replenish Rate: Before war = 0 During war = 1 Sure, the logic works, but so what?

1

AffectionateRub1857 Apr 19, 2026 +1

i saw in video somewhere that Ukraine has 50% excess capacity for thier c**** Shahed interceptors which amounts to 5000 surplus of interceptors per month at USD 6000 per pop. If this is true and if the GCC placed the orders in advance with training. There may be a very robust drone defence system in place when the 2nd round starts

1

doskey123 Apr 19, 2026

What if Trump both "negotiating" and criticising Israel for their Lebanon strikes is just theatre so that the GCC and Israel can replenish their interceptors. There were other reports that Saudi Arabia was pushing for regime change / more aggressive action and so far they only lost (e.g. implementation of a toll that did not exist before).

0

AffectionateRub1857 Apr 19, 2026 +2

GCC definitely wanted military action approved through the security council. As for trump playing 4D chess, i remain skeptical to say the elast

2

plsbeagoodneighbor Apr 19, 2026 +2

The toll doesn’t exist

2

PhDinDildos_Fedoras Apr 19, 2026 -17

Propaganda? Yes. Probably true? Maybe yes. Iran is a huge country that has been preparing for this for a long time and they know what the US/Israel can do and they've now seen that their missiles are very effective in screwing the US over.

-17

OP_Skis_In_Jeans Apr 19, 2026 +31

Probably true based on what exactly? It's pure propaganda straight from the IRGC with no evidence. It isn't worth the energy it takes to display it on your screen.

31

ReasonableMuscle1835 Apr 19, 2026

The evidence will be when missiles start falling again

0

PhDinDildos_Fedoras Apr 19, 2026 -15

Based on what? Based on the fact that Iran is a nation of 90 million with massive industrial capacity. It's prefectly capapble of arming and re-arming itself. It's been preparing for this kind of war for years. It's a perfectly reasonable assumption. The only reason to doubt it is basically copium.

-15

OP_Skis_In_Jeans Apr 19, 2026 +20

You're conflating plausibility with actual proof. The IRGC hasn't presented even a shred of actual proof in this case. Assuming that plausibility automatically means that actual or even implied proof exists is absolutely wild. That is not a logical thought process. > The only reason to doubt it is basically copium. So healthy skepticism in the face of an unreliable and untrustworthy actor (IRGC) making a far-fetched claim with no supporting evidence when it highly benefits them to make said claim is "copium" according to you? LMFAO, straight up unhinged!

20

PhDinDildos_Fedoras Apr 19, 2026 -14

"Actual proof"? Really? That's the bar? You need *actual* f****** *proof* of the status of Iran's missile systems before you can let go of the copium that Daddy Trump has this fuckup covered?! You think this is a War Thunder forum?

-14

OP_Skis_In_Jeans Apr 19, 2026 +20

Actual hard evidence is kind of a big thing regardless of whether you think it is or not lol.

20

PhDinDildos_Fedoras Apr 19, 2026 -2

Yes, sure, let me get some hard evidence for troop and equipment numbers for a country at war, dumbass.

-2

plsbeagoodneighbor Apr 19, 2026 +16

Lmao yes dude, the bar is “actual proof”.

16

PhDinDildos_Fedoras Apr 19, 2026 -1

Oh yes, lmao, let me get actual proof of US troop numbers and locations while I'm at it /s

-1

--TheCity-- Apr 19, 2026 -8

Based on resupply. I read a story this morning about air traffic Europe to Iran, before coffee and didn't save it but it's not the only story of other countries supplying Iran for this war. China anyone? It is happening but to what resupply only they know.

-8

Heizard Apr 19, 2026 -18

Pretty sure crucial manufacturing is moved in to their underground cities that are 90+ meters bellow the ground, so even direct nuclear attack won't reach them. They had 40 years to do that.

-18

plsbeagoodneighbor Apr 19, 2026 +17

This fan fic is wild

17

AWhole2Marijuanas Apr 19, 2026 -9

So many people are saying this is Propaganda but what has Iran said that has been false from the start of this conflict? - They said if you attack us we'll bomb US bases, they bombed US bases. - They said if you continue we will strike Israel, they Stuck Israel. - They said if you don't agree with our 10 point plan we'll shut down the straight, they shut down the straight. - They said they downed 2 air men, two air men were downed. - They said if Israel keeps attacking Lebanon they'll be no peace. And there's no peace. - They said they'll start changing tolls, and have. It's not really a stretch to say they've rearmed. Israel and the US have as well that's what cease fires are for. The only side that has grossly lied about military operations is the US, "the Straight is open", "their military is gone", then why are you negotiating with them to open the straight??? Edit: for the record literally every country involved, including Israel has been honest about the situation, the US releases are the only ones living in lala land.

-9

GoldenMegaStaff Apr 19, 2026 -3

How difficult is it to make a launcher. Isn't it just a flatbed with a couple rails and a lift? They could probably put together 2 or 3 of them in an afternoon.

-3

Iran replenishes launchers at higher rate than pre-war, guards commander says

💬 Send a Message

143 Comments