We’re gonna start seeing videos of American soldiers getting killed by FPV drones. All for Trump’s ego.
1
Big_Introduction1952Mar 29, 2026
+1
If Iran starts using tactics from Russia, this could get ugly real quick. Drone warfare is not something the US has experienced.
1
zipcadMar 29, 2026
+1
Biden kept channels open for intel sharing with Ukraine.
Trump closed it because probably a pee tape exists. No one is really watching drone warfare. I’m sure the CIA assets reporting shit back and being filed in the trash can at DoD.
1
IRMaschinenMar 29, 2026
+1
Maybe it exists. Or maybe he really is the dumbest POS to ever ooze down an escalator.
1
hahaz13Mar 29, 2026
+1
Oh they’re well aware.
They cut off those channels because they don’t want to buy c**** Ukrainian drone tech since they can’t dip their greedy hands into it.
It’s why his sons invested heavily into drone tech. My bet is they’re trying to reward any upcoming drone contracts to his sons to skim as much money as possible.
1
completelypositiveMar 29, 2026
+1
Good thing about owning all the social media is that you get to choose what your platform displays.
1
scripcatMar 29, 2026
+1
Doing this before midterms when popularity is already at a record low is certainly a choice. What are the chances that the election is manipulated or “delayed” with this as an excuse?
1
MrWillMMar 29, 2026
+1
Doubt it. Elections are still run by the states not the federal government. I think trump is just as much of a con man as the next guy but thats not how things work.
1
SquirllMar 29, 2026
+1
Theyve yet to care about how things work every other step of the way that theyve broken the system.
1
DavidCaller69Mar 29, 2026
+1
There’s no mechanism for him to do it. It’s not “he can’t” as in “OMG Trump would never”, it’s that he physically can’t.
1
NumeralJokerMar 29, 2026
+1
There is 0 legal basis for it, but who knows what they will attempt to say?
1
ElderSmackJackMar 29, 2026
+1
Literally impossible. States run elections.
1
PegeolaMar 29, 2026
+1
That was always the intent. One can't justify pausing elections for anything other than an 'emergency'. If there isn't one available, just create one!
1
omfgeometryMar 29, 2026
+1
I don't see how this could be spun into it being an emergency though? Elections weren't on hold during Afghanistan.
1
untamedlazyeyeMar 29, 2026
+1
I mean shit, we held a presidential election during the civil war
1
omfgeometryMar 29, 2026
+1
It would probably take an all out nuclear war to cancel elections. Wait... Oh shit
1
wongl888Mar 29, 2026
+1
Yeah you said it. Oh shit we cannot put the genie back into the bottle.
1
a_wild_dingoMar 29, 2026
+1
I don't think he thought about it that hard, as is this the case with most major Trump decisions. He heard that sometimes elections don't happen during wars, thought "ooh I'll do that!" and here we are. You can literally see his *lightbulb* moment in this video from August 2025.
President Trump Quips About Canceling 2028 Elections If U.S. Is At War | Video | C-SPAN.org https://share.google/nznFDrjcwA96XJHl9
1
JedistixxxMar 29, 2026
+1
He cannot cancel state run elections and he knows that. The SAVE act, Elon, and Ice are what they intend to throw at locations that are close enough to matter. This is where Palantir, the data Elon stole, and I’ve come in.
The issue is if people show up in mass and not give a f*** about the meddling around them, they lose.
1
Naive_Personality367Mar 29, 2026
+1
Im betting its rigged. They would be stupid to not rig it
1
thewolfsheadMar 29, 2026
+1
Well they are stupid.
1
MrWillMMar 29, 2026
+1
Are you kidding? Any credible evidence of vote rigging in this country would cause a huge amount of civil unrest. It would not be good for anyone.
1
r_boozaMar 29, 2026
+1
i am still waiting for that civil unrest to this day
1
WeAreHereWithAllMar 29, 2026
+1
Lmao that’s pretty funny.
1
Katekyo-tsunaMar 29, 2026
+1
Americans aren't going to do shit. They are gonna take it up the ass like they always do
1
OrangeBird077Mar 29, 2026
+1
It’s a gambit to see if they can accomplish whatever goals can be accomplished to make a case for voters at midterms. Originally the idea seemed to be that the administration would get quick wins in Venezuela, Iran, and then Cuba, but Iran has been more stubborn which required more troops in the region. If this gets quelled in another month then it could very well become a non factor for voters in 8 months. 8 months is basically a decade when it comes to the electorate in the US.
Voters who are more susceptible to conservative talking points basically make it a badge of honor that they’re so busy that they genuinely have no idea what’s going on outside of their own county let alone a country on the other side of the planet. They’ve bought in to the idea that their civil service ends at casting a vote maybe twice every two years, and after that it’s not their responsibility. Anything contrary to their point of view is met with militant resistance that they consider “unpatriotic”, and they believe that you should back their guy no matter what because “he’s YOUR President” as if everyone should just kneel like a King.
Those voters have the memory of goldfish and they likely don’t even know where Iran is on a map, let alone what they’ll have for dinner on a given day.
1
Scared-Room-9962Mar 29, 2026
+1
I think they'll try and postpone due to the nation being at war.
1
J-the-KidderMar 29, 2026
+1
Iran has clearly been learning how warfare has evolved with the prominence of drones. The US has refused to even bother talking to Ukraine about how warfare has evolved with drones and how to adapt. The US is still operating with a playbook from 30 years ago. Combine that with the utter incompetence and lack of planning from the US top ranks. Oh yeah, and a fanatical enemy who's spent generations being told the country they should hate will try to destroy them, finally does try to destroy them... this is going to be a bloodbath.
1
Brasi91LucaMar 29, 2026
+1
Wow Trump must not care about the midterms. Iran was never even a serious threat. All this just to make Israel happy is something else
1
CarthonnMar 29, 2026
+1
Maybe going to Israel is his exit strategy. The Mossad protection is probably pretty powerful.
1
Gloomy-Inspector-834Mar 29, 2026
+1
Iran is like a fortress.
3,000-meter mountains and cliffs in the west toward the Strait of Hormuz.
5,600-meter mountain ranges in the north. Deserts in the east.
No real infrastructure, extreme heat, and almost no water. Without supply lines, it quickly turns into a losing position for the U.S.
Iran can, at its own pace, exert control over the Strait of Hormuz until the U.S. is forced to confront its limitations.
1
SHITBLAST3000Mar 29, 2026
+1
You’re looking at possibly 20,000 Iranian troops on Kharg alone. Which itself is a geological fortress.
1
your_grandmas_FUPAMar 29, 2026
+1
Ground penetrators to bring them out and cluster munitions once they surface.
These guys cannot hold a small island while US has air superiority. Its not going to happen.
1
NPExplorerMar 29, 2026
+1
Do I think the US will “win” if they go all in? Of course, but at what cost. It won’t be easy.
1
Personal-Try328Mar 29, 2026
+1
So just Afghanistan then? Which fell in how many days? The problem with Iran is the lack of a northern alliance. Not “mountains”.
1
donharrogateMar 29, 2026
+1
'Just Afghanistan which fell in how many days'
My god I wish you knew enough to know how dumb this comment is
1
Huskies971Mar 29, 2026
+1
The same people bitching about forever wars are gleefully signing up for another one.
1
Personal-Try328Mar 29, 2026
+1
I’m not bitching about forever wars though? Stop inventing positions like the rest of your ilk here because you are too redacted to form an argument.
1
Personal-Try328Mar 29, 2026
+1
If the US had similar control over Iran as they did Afghanistan would it be feasible in your (braindead) opinion to then destroy the nuclear program of Iran?
1
NageefMar 29, 2026
+1
Trump already destroyed the nuclear program I thought???
1
Personal-Try328Mar 29, 2026
+1
Obviously he didnt and nobody above your intelligence level thought so back then either. Now answer the question goofy
1
FedoraTippingKnightMar 29, 2026
+1
Yes, iust like Afghanistan which left 100,000 dead and the taliban run the country now
1
Personal-Try328Mar 29, 2026
+1
A 20 year occupation would be more than sufficient to destroy the Iranian nuclear program. Also the US casualties were 2,500
1
Cephei101Mar 29, 2026
+1
Casualties for the US alone were over 20,000. Deaths were ~2500.
Allied casualties were an additional ~3000 with 1,000 killed.
Casualties =/= deaths.
And what was accomplished in Iraq or Afghanistan for those deaths ands 2-4 trillion dollars?
Also, a 20 year US occupation would not be possible in Iran.
Edit; one month old hidden comment account guy. Because of course it is.
1
thatasianguy88Mar 29, 2026
+1
Remind me how much did the Afghan occupation cost tax payers ? You think trump will live another 20 years ?
1
Personal-Try328Mar 29, 2026
+1
You don’t need 20 years to destroy the nuclear program though? Also yeah I think the taxpayer cost of a war in afghanistan would be perfectly acceptable to prevent the islamic republic of Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons. Its astonishing that you dont agree with that actually. So I suppose you just dont think nuclear Iran is that bad.
1
Cephei101Mar 29, 2026
+1
Sure thing, hidden comment one month old account guy.
We’ll all give your comments the weight and consideration they clearly deserve!
1
ElderSmackJackMar 29, 2026
+1
lol, keep grasping at straws. Iran is infinitely better equipped and connected globally than Afghanistan/Iraq were, and we botched both of those wars. Both of them.
It isn’t about not wanting Iran to have a nuke (a problem we created by pulling out of an agreement they WERE COMPLYING WITH). It’s about this path being the wrong way to go about it.
But you’re too drowned in the Kool-aid to listen to reason, I imagine.
1
thatasianguy88Mar 29, 2026
+1
I’m surprised a 1 month old account is so knowledgeable. Maybe you should sign up to defend your beliefs I heard they have increased recruitment age limits.
1
Personal-Try328Mar 29, 2026
+1
Your inability to defend a position that you hold has been noted.
1
thatasianguy88Mar 29, 2026
+1
Thanks you for identifying yourself as an Israeli bot by the way how are the internal protest going ?
1
Personal-Try328Mar 29, 2026
+1
Right. You wanna hop on discord then? Or you just enjoy making baseless claims because you cant actually defend any of the positions you hold?
1
thatasianguy88Mar 29, 2026
+1
Who’s next Pakistani or North Korea ? Or are they Ok ?
1
Personal-Try328Mar 29, 2026
+1
If nuclear weapons could be removed from those countries without said weapons being uses I would support that yes. Unlike you I don’t think unstable autocratic countries having nuclear weapons is a good thing and the more countries that have nukes the more likely they are to be used in the future.
1
HaideezMar 29, 2026
+1
There’s a difference between deaths and causalities…. 2,500 is a grossly inaccurate underestimation for any major conflict the US has ever engaged in.
1
NewPositive3461Mar 29, 2026
+1
They could do it in 10 the people of Iran yearn for change
1
smashinjin10Mar 29, 2026
+1
And how's the Afghanistan regime change doing now?
1
Personal-Try328Mar 29, 2026
+1
20 years would be more than sufficient to dismantle a nuclear program. You are conflating nation building with the ability to occupy a country for long enough to destroy its nuclear program. Why is that?
1
AmbotnimoPMar 29, 2026
+1
You actually think this is about dismantling nuclear capabilities? Lmao
1
smashinjin10Mar 29, 2026
+1
You're conflating Trump and Hegseth's bumbling to having any semblance of an actual plan. Why is that?
1
NageefMar 29, 2026
+1
Good point, they themselves have also said the goal is regime change, not that they can be trusted anyways
1
omfgeometryMar 29, 2026
+1
that war took you 20 years and then when you left the Taliban retook it all almost instantly lol
1
thereoncewasahatMar 29, 2026
+1
It didn't fall.
The Taliban are in power. With lots of our new shiny gear.
1
Personal-Try328Mar 29, 2026
+1
So the US didn’t occupy the country for 20 years?
1
thereoncewasahatMar 29, 2026
+1
Being there for so long before defeat makes it even worse.
1
Personal-Try328Mar 29, 2026
+1
So to be clear. You think losing control of your country for 20 years before the occupier decides to leave is not “falling”? France, belgium, poland, the netherlands etc etc didn’t fall in the second world war? The”fall of france” is literally used to refer to the battle of france in literature constantly lmao
1
BaitmasterGMar 29, 2026
+1
I don't remember Afghanistan "falling", more like melting into the shadows and picking off yanks a few at a time until the US withdrew. Will be interesting to see how long a force of 3500 lasts like that
1
Personal-Try328Mar 29, 2026
+1
What an unbelievably regarded take lmao. Listnook really is the place where dumbasses have circle jerked themselves into believing that losing control of your country for 20 years isn’t collapsing.
1
BaitmasterGMar 29, 2026
+1
How long did it take them to reappear when the Americans left? Yanks were running at the end with their aircraft being fired on as it left Kabul airport. Like I said, they just went underground
1
Personal-Try328Mar 29, 2026
+1
You can collapse and reappear later. Half the european countries did this in 45. Whats the brexitor (untrustworthy and should never be admitted back in to the union) yapping about lmao
1
BaitmasterGMar 29, 2026
+1
Iran isn't going to collapse with 3500 US troops hitting the ground with no plan and not knowing who the enemy is
And did you just call me a Brexiter, wtf?!
1
konartMar 29, 2026
+1
Afghanistan is notably less developed, 2.5 times smaller in area and has 0.5 of Iran’s population.
1
Personal-Try328Mar 29, 2026
+1
Yes. Iran also has a notably more hostile population but notably lacking an armed organized form of it.
Notice how we have moved away from the “mountains” argument to a different one now. One that is in its entirety solved by something like the northern alliance of a sufficient size.
Also afghan population in 01 was ~20m so less than a fourth. Get your facts straight if you are going to use numbers. Though I suppose that reveals exactly how much you know about either country. Classic listnook actually, all yap zero knowledge
1
AmbotnimoPMar 29, 2026
+1
>Iran also has a notably more hostile population but notably lacking an armed organized form of it.
Impossible to describe how absolutely and fully wrong this is.
1
fedroxxMar 29, 2026
+1
The US had a decisive loss in Afghanistan.
1
cryptid_snake88Mar 29, 2026
+1
3500 vs 1 million, hmmmm 🤔 so he's basically sending them all to their deaths for nothing then
1
xPareshMar 29, 2026
+1
I just hope this doesnt turn into America's meat grinder.
1
National-Two2417Mar 29, 2026
+1
America doesn't have the stomach for even 50 casualties a day.
1
LevelFix83Mar 29, 2026
+1
They were cool with 2k a day during Covid. They’ll figure out how to be ignorant again.
1
weinshe2Mar 29, 2026
+1
Thoughts and prayers, but certainly not vaccines.
1
patientzero_Mar 29, 2026
+1
no problem, the press will not be allowed to report anything bad about it
1
National-Two2417Mar 29, 2026
+1
They'll be kicked out of the WH only Ruzzian news agencies allowed.
1
zipcadMar 29, 2026
+1
You also have to admit he’s stupid enough to glass cities in response after awhile.
1
Werkstatt0Mar 29, 2026
+1
These folks signed up for it 🤷♂️
1
NPExplorerMar 29, 2026
+1
I believe our President referred to them as suckers?
1
PearljamAndEarlMar 29, 2026
+1
Trump’ll be like “Well I told you there’d be thousands of ground troops..”
1
rmp266Mar 29, 2026
+1
3500 troops? Is....that it? You'd struggle to take over a village with that
1
WorstAverageMar 29, 2026
+1
Sending troops is a slaughter, Iranians are dug in, all 1 million
1
ElectronicHold7325Mar 29, 2026
+1
Imagine playing HOI4. Doing a Normandie landing with 3,5000 troops while Germany has a million of infantry ready.
Why would one do that?
1
Aggressive_Top_1380Mar 29, 2026
+1
MAGA said no more wars, then they said it’s necessary but without boots on the ground, now they’re saying war is good for our interests and boots are needed.
Do these people have any shame or any capacity to reflect at all? Like I’m genuinely flabbergasted.
1
The_chosen_turtleMar 29, 2026
+1
He really is adamant about making this a full scale war to cancel elections huh
1
Funny-Ambition-7631Mar 29, 2026
+1
I highly doubt they enter Iran fully, they will probably secure couple of key locations in south to secure Hormuz
1
SPQR-TightanusMar 29, 2026
+1
To secure Hormuz you need to take the coast of Iran.
1
thereoncewasahatMar 29, 2026
+1
And you need to take it for miles back, and hold it.
Requiring tens of thousands of troops; in extreme terrain, against infinite drones, in extreme heat; it would be a financially unsustainable bloodbath, only for the regime to return when you give up.
Afghanistan is child's play in comparison; and we lost there.
There was a retired general in The Times detailing this today; it's not going to happen.
Iran controlling the straights and charging a premium to pass will be the new normal.
It's going to take time for the world, americans in particular, to accept this.
1
just_anotjer_anonMar 29, 2026
+1
>Iran controlling the straights
Who are controlling the gays then?
1
NPExplorerMar 29, 2026
+1
Mike Pence is trying his hardest to
1
Funny-Ambition-7631Mar 29, 2026
+1
That is what i meant
1
MediocreAssociate466Mar 29, 2026
+1
Ahh I hear the ghosts of all our multi decade wars that continued to escalate in your comment.
And then Iran lands a large strike on those soldiers. And then the us is forced to respond , and then suddenly you've spent a trillion dollars on Iran and ten years later a extremist group is still in charge .
1
Funny-Ambition-7631Mar 29, 2026
+1
Iran respond with what exactly?
1
thefunkybassistMar 29, 2026
+1
He's already full on mafia mode, he doesn't care as long as he's in control of US's resources and everything will be done to keep it that way
1
AnastasiaWookieTitsMar 29, 2026
+1
bumbletrump thought he could just drop some bombs and the population would rise up and take over. done deal. This is the guy who thought he could end the Russia/Ukraine conflict in 24 hours. He keeps bringing his bag of marbles to chess matches and it works out about as well for him every time.
1
Musicman1972Mar 29, 2026
+1
Exactly. And he was gonna claim the popular overthrow as his own.
1
TheBestintheWest11Mar 29, 2026
+1
bro Iran knows where they gonna land..This is gonna be like Juno.
1
SheSaidOtakuMar 29, 2026
+1
Trump is a genius! He definitely got inspiration from the movie 300.
That amount is more than enough to kill a million Persians.
1
CreativatorMar 29, 2026
+1
Maybe I’m dumb or something, but don’t you need multiple hundreds of thousands of troops to invade a country like Iran?
1
DamunztaMar 29, 2026
+1
For the love of sanity, can we please do another round of TACO?
1
Which_Appointment450Mar 29, 2026
+1
Instead of trying for peace this violence Loving people are trying to provoke even more death and damage
1
Texden29Mar 29, 2026
+1
Trump is off his game, if he thinks having a ground invasion is going to be accepted by the public. We don’t want this war. We never asked for it. And we certainly don’t want to start sending troops to Iran. Every time we send troops to the Middle East for a conflict, he mission always creeps into a full on invasion or protective force; resulting in us having to depart 10 years later when we finally admit that the war was a failure.
1
HarEr89Mar 29, 2026
+1
Well...we are waiting too.
1
FlashOfFawnMar 29, 2026
+1
This will be the event that shows the world we should never have been as confident in our military as we were. Drone warfare has changed everything. In 2003 our military was easily the strongest in the world. In 2026, drone warfare can turn any mediocre military into a powerful guerrilla force. This is going to be very very bad.
1
PraetorGoldMar 29, 2026
+1
This is what Israel ordered…
1
Creative-Mode-6097Mar 29, 2026
+1
Now is the pro soldiers of the Kurd army ready to a atack Iran with supply from USA . Meny tousen Iranien to have join tje kurdere army . And USA shal give they airborn supply . So it will be 2 front for the iranien army . I think meny soldiers will give up to abd meny sivilens will act inside to . So Iranien goverment are not save . If Jemen begin so have all the arabisk state around Iran act against Jemen
1
ElectronicHold7325Mar 29, 2026
+1
Once again, the Kurds are asking to be used as a sacrifice—knowing they’ll be abandoned afterward. Fascinating.
1
Naive_Personality367Mar 29, 2026
+1
They said "were waiting" weeks ago. How rude can one nation be to not oblige them?
1
Crafty_Aspect8122Mar 29, 2026
+1
Why don't they strike Kharg island's oil infrastructure? Oil prices are already f\*cked anyways and Iran's oil exports are a small percentage compared to everyone else. Might as well cut off the regime's funding.
1
Korgoth420Mar 29, 2026
+1
Because then the oil prices are fucked for a really long time
1
TurneroffMar 29, 2026
+1
Why would that make Iran more likely to let ships through the Strait of Hormuz? It would strengthen their resolve even more.
1
Crafty_Aspect8122Mar 29, 2026
+1
Iran isn't going to negotiate for any reason after Trump attacked during negotiations. The only way Trump could open the strait is by defeating Iran and starving them of oil.
118 Comments