ListNook

16ozbuddz Mar 28, 2026 +151

Was wondering when they were going to start shooting

151

Top-Fig-8846 Mar 28, 2026 +53

2 hours before the Monday US stock market open

53

Traditional-Koala279 Mar 28, 2026 +14

This makes no sense

14

Filthyquak Mar 28, 2026 +14

Comment OP probably read somewhere that war actions have something to do with stocks and wrote the first thing that came to mind.

14

lost12487 Mar 28, 2026 +14

Attacking ships to put economic and political pressure on people that are attacking your allies is like baby's first war strategy though. It's an obvious, legitimate strategy.

14

just_me_ma_dude Mar 28, 2026 +5

OP's comment was sensible. Houtis could sync their attacks with the stock opening. It's not an exaggeration.

5

Filthyquak Mar 28, 2026 +1

Yeah honestly I didn't read properly because it was 6 AM when i wrote that and thought it was about Israel/US attacking which wouldn't make sense before stock market opening. That was my bad

1

TheOriginalBroCone Mar 28, 2026 +9

Dudelio if you want to say buzzword political statements, make sure its accurate. Shooting begins after markets close on Fridays

9

Top-Fig-8846 Mar 28, 2026 +8

I meant Houthis

8

TriXter69 Mar 28, 2026 +463

And another front has opened up. If they start attacking ships in the red sea oil is gonna skyrocket

463

Sudden_Fix_1144 Mar 28, 2026 +86

They’re simply waiting till they get the call to let rip id imagine

86

Unicorn_Colombo Mar 28, 2026 +59

What you mean "another front"? This one was opened long time ago.

59

Webbyx01 Mar 28, 2026 +42

And its been essentially paused for some time.

42

GeshtiannaSG Mar 28, 2026 +1

It has been completely safe for the past 5 months.

1

SHITBLAST3000 Mar 28, 2026 +10

They don’t even have to do a lot here. Hitting a ship or near one is going to spook shipping in the region. The fear will be amplified because of what’s going on in the strait.

10

FigureMost1687 Mar 28, 2026 +36

They will certainly attack ships in the red Sea, oil will hit 200 in a week...and Trump will invade small island iran will bomb anything move in Persian gulf and oil will hit 400$ will cause global economic depression riots all over the world ...

36

clarkrd Mar 28, 2026 +76

But, her laugh!

76

DankMemeMasterHotdog Mar 28, 2026 -79

Arguments ad absurdum dont make you look smart, if you cant admit there were *massive* issues with how the Democrats ran their campaign in '24 than IDK what to tell you. No primary, just an annointed candidate, an unpopular person who got less than 2% of the vote in 2020 primaries, barely made any real appearances or talked about policy... It's like the Democrats *wanted* to lose. I guarantee the amount of people who were disgusted with all of that and didnt vote at all as a result would have been enough to tip the scale.

-79

Admiral_Tuvix Mar 28, 2026 +52

no appearances? are you huffing glue? she was everywhere and got 75.5 million votes in just 100 days of campaigning. blame Biden all you want for staying in the race and eating up time that should have gone to a primary, but pretending Harris was a flawed candidate, especially in comparison to a rapist pedophile says a lot about you

52

DoubleJumps Mar 28, 2026 +1

Damn near everything they said was an absurd lie. Like just an utterly ridiculous fabrication of recent history.

1

DankMemeMasterHotdog Mar 28, 2026 -15

They were both flawed candidates, I didnt say anything positive about Trump, all I said was the democrats strategy and candidate selection is just as much to blame as republican voters. It's not hard, but again, you arent willing to take a hard look inwards and ask yourself how the "rapist pedophile" beat Kamala, and dont just lie to yourself with soft plattitudes about how most of the country is "evil" or whatever. Even here you all just assume I supported the fucktard in chief, when all I said was Kamala was a dogshit candidate who pushed away more voters than she won. It's not rocket science, and it prevents you from asking the real questions of "how do you fix this?", and if your response is a flippant quip about breaking up the US than you're just as far gone as any maga cultist.

-15

A_screaming_alpaca Mar 28, 2026 +9

Person your replying to didn’t say you supported pedo in chief Kamala talked more about policy in the debates than Trump and had a lot more on her site about what she wanted to accomplish and how not sure what’s causing your ignorance of it, but she had it The problem is we’re all collectively dumb as f***, we had a big demographic of people like yourself that thought she had nothing, or the group of people that spite voted against her either because of her view on Palestine or because she was “rushed through” Ideally Biden wouldn’t have ran and we would have had a regular primary, but guess what, that didn’t happen. And that doesn’t even matter, because there’s no shot in hell anything right now would have been worse under Kamala

9

DankMemeMasterHotdog Mar 28, 2026 -5

"people like yourself that thought she had nothing" You dont know what I thought lmao, you didnt bother to ask. You are agreeing with me here that the democrats made critical mistakes in 2024. That is literally all I have said from the start. Kamala didnt effectively reach the people she needed to reach. The democrats have been screwing themselves over since they fucked over Bernie, and it doesnt make me a republican or adjacent to them to point that out.

-5

A_screaming_alpaca Mar 28, 2026 +3

You literally said in your original comment she “barely made any real appearances or talked about policy” what else is there to a candidate lmao Kamala couldve personally had phone calls with every registered Democrat and it wouldn’t have changed anything, the people that were listening did and the people that didn’t want to, think they weren’t reached I didn’t call you a republican or adjacent either I agree with you that dems f****** over Bernie in 2016 led to this, but the idea that it’s solely Kamala’s fault for losing is disingenuous, she did everything right The greater Democratic Party failed by letting Biden run and dem voters failed by not showing up

3

DankMemeMasterHotdog Mar 28, 2026

"She did everything right" Please, this is childish, you can't seriously believe she did "everything right". Registerred dems werent who she needed to win over. Those voters are either "blue no matter who" or so anti-trump they were about to vote for a literal corpse. She needed to reach the center, she failed miserably. "Her" positions were simply Biden's positions. She offered nothing beyond the status quo of corporatism. She needed to cross the aisle, or at the very least court the center. She didnt. You might think she made tons of appearances, but I saw a different reality, and the fact remains that when she ran on her own in 2020 she was *massively unpopular*. Sorry, it's simply nonsense to say she did "nothibg wrong" or "ran a perfect campaign". That's nuclear grade copium, and I think deep down you know it.

0

imactuallyugly Mar 28, 2026 -19

Not a trump supporter by any means, but the 'rapist pedophile' won America and Harris didn't. Says a lot about how the Dems managed the election, and a lot about who the Repubs back. Democrats might've won the cultural war, but cultural wars don't win American votes or American elections. Until Dems understand that, we will continue getting 'rapist pedophile' as presidents.

-19

Persimmon-Mission Mar 28, 2026

Don’t forget what they did to Bernie in favor of Hillary!

0

[deleted] Mar 28, 2026 +9

[removed]

9

Hevens-assassin Mar 28, 2026 +2

>if you cant admit there were *massive* issues with how the Democrats ran their campaign in '24 than IDK what to tell you And if you can't admit that it shouldn't have mattered when the alarm bells were well and truly ringing with Trump as the other side, idk what to tell you. Bite the goddamn bullet if you have to because the alternative is what we got. Good job to those with the "moral high ground" though. Don't bother voting then you are just as at fault.

2

DoubleJumps Mar 28, 2026 +1

> No primary, just an anointed candidate After Biden dropped, there was an open invitation for candidates and literally nobody volunteered to run for the nomination against Harris. >barely made any real appearances or talked about policy... I This is an egregious lie.

1

double-beans Mar 28, 2026 +4

when you think about it, Trump was lowkey cookin with that “eating the dogs” strategy

4

zibdabo Mar 28, 2026 -6

Republican simply had more funding.

-6

boilface Mar 28, 2026 -4

>No primary, just an annointed candidate Do you think the country was better served by choosing between a senile guy whose nickname is sleepy Joe compared to her? Trump f****** won one way or the other. Why wouldn't you be happy the democrats are so incompetent, celebrate the win, and move forward with your controlling party's platform? Thinking and commenting on Kamala is about as useful as focusing on Ross Perot

-4

DankMemeMasterHotdog Mar 28, 2026 +1

I am not a republican lmao, I am not a trump supporter. Criticizing the shitty decisions the democrats made does not make me automatically a member of "the other side". I am not happy with a weak democrat party, we all benefit from strong, smart candidates regardless of political affiliation. The *better* choice would be to hold an emergency primary and allow for the people to pick who represents them, but they didnt and Trump won. All I have advocated for here is for people think more critically about the decisions that led to a democrat loss, and to stop pretending like they did nothing wrong in 2024.

1

boilface Mar 28, 2026 +1

Fair enough. I hate the one side or the other view of American politics, but here I am applying it to you. I'm not sure the American political system is ready for a true plurality of parties. What I definitely believe is that the smaller parties have to stop focusing on winning the presidency and start establishing a real popular base who have the opportunity to support and vote for candidates at the local level. The Green party gets worked up for the presidential election like it's the super bowl, but they haven't been to practice the previous 4 years. I've never registered as a member of a political party, and I don't think I ever will. I've primarily voted Democrat, but holy shit are they incompetent these days. I agree entirely that people need to look at what their party is actually doing beyond opposing your supposed enemies. I know many people on the left urging people on the right to take a closer look at their leadership, but they don't really critically look at how the Democrats have lost touch with a lot of the base they have historically relied on.

1

theHoustonian Mar 28, 2026 +6

Sad that this is definitely going to be someone who can’t afford it bet on some stupid “trade” (gambling) app.. bruh, we’re fucked lol

6

MeMeRevieweR_23 Mar 28, 2026 +1

If they attack ships in the Red Sea consistently , then the suez canal is effectively closed. And then everything will skyrocket.

1

krtalvis Mar 28, 2026 +1

then israel can open their own canal which was the plan at some point?

1

Basis-Some Mar 28, 2026 +2

April 9-12ish is when it’s gonna get bigger

2

GenitalPatton Mar 28, 2026 +1

The Yemen “front” has been active for like ten years

1

GBrunt Mar 28, 2026 +1

Big political problems for Bahrain where a pro-Iranian protestor has died in police custody. Revolutionary upheaval of the populations in Arab countries currently supporting US and Israeli aggression on the cards I think.

1

forever__newbie Mar 28, 2026 +1

Oil prices have detached from real world events long ago. It's all big players and algorithms. A full scale Red Sea conflict would only drive the oil price up by 10 dollars or something under current conditions. Of course, this cannot be sustained indefinitely, but it is what it is right now.

1

Khamvom Mar 28, 2026 +100

Context: Israel said it detected a ballistic missile launched from Yemen and targeting southern Israel, which they’re working to intercept. The Houthi’s have held their fire since Oct 2025 when a formal ceasefire was announced with Hamas. However, the Houthi’s have said over the past few days that they might get involved in the current conflict if “Red Lines” are crossed, which seems to be the case now.

100

Xilthas Mar 28, 2026 +214

I'm starting to think relying so heavily on a resource that's primarily located in such a volatile region is a point of global stupidity.

214

PoliticalyUnstable Mar 28, 2026 +74

Agreed. Realistically this should drive the world to become energy self sufficient and to produce nuclear energy at a much more progressive rate using modern tech and ingenuity. Continuing to be tied like this to a finite source like oil is stupid. Maybe I shouldn't say realistically. I should say ideally, because realistically we are stupid.

74

G00b3rb0y Mar 28, 2026 +15

We need to find a replacement for all the stuff we need oil for, not only because the Middle East could go to hell in a handbasket as it has just done, but also because oil, like coal isn’t infinite

15

nuvo_reddit Mar 28, 2026 +7

What is meant by world to be energy self sufficient? Is not Gulf region a part of world? Dependency to Gulf is dictated mainly by economics. World was moving towards more renewable and as China and part of Europe shown that renewable can be scaled up considerably. It is Trump who doubled down in oil and reduced renewable projects.

7

anonskiboo Mar 28, 2026 +3

Nuclear energy takes 6 years to get the energy flowing. Wind and solar takes less time and capital.

3

KingShaka23 Mar 28, 2026 +1

Realistically, your plan doesnt make a lot of money. Better idea. Make people believe the energy we own and can harvest is the best option. We'll make it the most available or something. We profit on what they think is essential. Rinse and repeat. Goodluck.

1

Drugba Mar 28, 2026 +1

It might drive richer countries to use technologies like nuclear, solar, or wind. Unfortunately, there are plenty of poorer countries out there who will fall back to things like coal.

1

XRaisedBySirensX Mar 28, 2026 -8

Same goes for chips in Taiwan. We could just make em at home, but we like to pay their workforce .01 dollars per hour. When we ultimately go to war with China it'll be for the tech executives instead of the oil executives.

-8

MukdenMan Mar 28, 2026 +38

The US doesn’t pay Taiwan’s workforce. TSMC is a Taiwan company that makes the chips, including the highest end ones. Currently the US CANNOT make the chips. It is not a matter of salary. Chips are not t-shirts. Taiwan’s GDP per capita is only slightly below the US and above Korea, Canada, and Germany by PPP, or roughly the same as Spain and Italy using nominal. The average salary is definitely below the US in tech, but TSMC is one of the most desirable companies to work for in Asia. The workers there do not make 1 cent per hour. The average salary for a TSMC worker is US$127,700/year. It’s not Intel-level, but saying they make a cent per hour is pure ignorance, and you cannot “make em” at home.

38

XRaisedBySirensX Mar 28, 2026 -24

I didn't get into the the finer detail because it's a stupid comment on listnook. The US could absolutely manufacture chips domestically. Or atleast in whatever other country. Make a deal with China to say we out in 15 years. We don't because it's expensive and a couple dudes are making bank as is. It's just not widely and publicly treated as huge matter of national security, as it should be. Founder of TSMC was in the US fo a while. Started that company in Taiwan for a reason. I would be all for defending Taiwan. Just not for the benefit of a few billionaires.

-24

Boner4Stoners Mar 28, 2026 +9

You’re just straight up wrong. TSMC’s EUV engineers in Taiwan possess domain knowledge nobody else does. We can — and are — transfer that knowledge domestically (see TSMC’s Arizona fab), but this isn’t something you can do overnight. I think the AZ fab is currently producing 4nm chips and haven’t cracked 3nm yet, while the Taiwanese fabs are already making 2nm chips. It takes a lot of time to build the experience in using the machinery; these are the most advanced/complex/intricate machines ever created by mankind. The engineers in Taiwan have so much more experience, and US-based engineers are playing catch-up.

9

MukdenMan Mar 28, 2026 +1

Morris Chang the founder of TSMC got his PhD at Stanford in the 60s and worked for American electronics companies until the 80s. That’s 40 years ago. Since that time TSMC became the domain leader in chip manufacturing and, at least for now, is the only company on Earth with the technical knowledge to make the most advanced chips at scale (which they do using Dutch machines that no other country is able to manufacture). It has nothing to do with Taiwan having c**** labor and paying engineers 1 cent an hour. Intel is the only US company that could conceivably manufacture cutting edge chips at scale in the US; they have been trying to do so for a long time and, so far, have not achieved this. You “didn’t get into the finer detail” because you don’t actually know anything about this. Who do you think “a couple dudes making bank” are in your scenario? The person making the most is arguably Jensen Huang, Taiwanese/American founder of NVIDIA, which does not manufacture chips (“fabless”). TSMC makes the chips for them, in Taiwan. The only fabs that can manufacture 2nm node chips at Fab 20 and Fab 22, in Hsinchu and Kaohsiung respectively. The leading edge node in the US (18A, from intel) is not as dense as TSMC 2nm and the Us is not able to make chips at the same density as TSMC as the stack of technical knowledge is not there. Intel is instead using other technological advancements to attempt to compete with TSMC. It remains to be seen if this will happen.

1

p00nslaya69 Mar 28, 2026 +15

Chip making is one of the hardest engineering processes in the world. It’s not as simple as “just make them here”

15

bugeyeswhitedragon Mar 28, 2026 +4

Can someone ELI5 this for me? I understand Taiwan posses the majority of the world’s chips. I have no idea what these are beyond some form of crucial technology.

4

lostchicken Mar 28, 2026 +3

It's not that Taiwan is uniquely good at it. It's that there's one company that makes the best chips, so everybody who needs performance buys from them. And they happen to be in Taiwan.

3

XRaisedBySirensX Mar 28, 2026 -6

Def wouldn't be easy but w could do it. Need to heavily subsidize the industry and wait 1p - 20 years

-6

Petremius Mar 28, 2026 +6

US does not currently have the expertise to make chips. This is not c**** unskilled labor. If it was, china would already dominate.

6

PoliticalyUnstable Mar 28, 2026 +6

Yeah, the U.S. really fell behind in many areas. Leveraged the citizens to the t*** in the last 26 years roughly. Really stressed our systems like crazy. The rich have completely reshaped the U.S due to their control in the government, media, etc.

6

BuckNZahn Mar 28, 2026 +1

Nuclear energy is very expensive, takes ages to build, is more dangerous, produces nuclear waste, has difficulties operating under extreme weathers, is a target for terrorism AND still makes you dependent on uranium, for which Russia is the main producer. I will never understand listnook‘ms boner for this technology.

1

HourPlate994 Mar 28, 2026 +1

Lol. Uranium doesn’t make you reliant on Russia. Canada, Australia, Kazakhstan, Namibia and Uzbekistan produce more uranium anyway, don’t make things up. It’s not more dangerous either. More people die from air pollution caused by oil/coal/gas than from nuclear.

1

Many_Lemon_Cakes Mar 28, 2026 +1

Diversity is the key. If you have a little bit of everything then the effect of one supply line dying is minimised

1

meechu Mar 28, 2026 +39

The region is so volatile in part due to said resource.

39

EliteKill Mar 28, 2026 +1

Ah yes, because the Middle East was a stable paradise before Oil and not at all a highly contested and war torn area for centuries.

1

Admiral_Tuvix Mar 28, 2026 +18

counterpoint, maybe the region wouldn’t be volatile if we didn’t have a thousand bases there and pepping up dictatorial regimes

18

Dispator Mar 28, 2026 +1

I mean it was volatile AF before all the bases but they are not helping with that in many areas. Though a few have either become western aligned or western tolerated so it has not done nothing in that regard even if they are super authoritarian. It's mostly about controlling resources. Sucks for the local population as they are rarely benefits from all the wealth but even if we were gone it's not like they can just skip tech tree steps and magically effectively do a good job....so it would take a more favorable government/s and time and unfortunately they don't got either as they would and are constantly attacked by neighbors/proxies/espionage even in "peace" time.

1

mattcannon2 Mar 28, 2026 +1

Tbf in the gulf coast countries (not Iran), citizens are benefitting massively from the wealth. Have a look at the social security systems in Qatar, Kuwait etc.

1

bluetenthousand Mar 28, 2026 +6

Causation is the wrong direction. The REGION is so VOLATILE because people are so dependent on the resource. If Iraq and Iran produced potatoes instead of oil no one would care that there was a revolution in the 1970s leading to the Gulf Wars and the US would also have no reason to invade Iraq in 2003.

6

UltimateLmon Mar 28, 2026 +8

May be foreign powers should stop poking at it for once.

8

HungryAddition1 Mar 28, 2026 +1

Don’t you think the region is volatile BECAUSE of the resource?

1

Top-Fig-8846 Mar 28, 2026 +11

You should think why provoking a war in such a volatile region when peace treaty used to be an mutually agreed option , trump is dumb

11

Segull Mar 28, 2026 +3

Europe should open their own environmentally destructive lithium mines already. They have been unwilling to do so so far

3

HourPlate994 Mar 28, 2026 +1

Not anymore destructive than current coal mines like Garzweiler in Germany. Depending on extraction method, potentially a lot less (there’s some that operate more like salt mining where you pipe in water and then pump out the brine).

1

evan81 Mar 28, 2026 +2

Meanwhile: the sun .... the wind..... exist and are relatively benign ways to source power, which aren't reliant on any one specific region/location (1 or the other or a mix of both are accessible, checks notes, everywhere). But yeah, let's keep burning oil and dealing with this nonsense.

2

quite_a_gEnt Mar 28, 2026 +1

Well windmills kill birds so we shouldn't invest in that!

1

ILikeVancouver Mar 28, 2026 +63

Let Uganda loose on em

63

SpiritualB0x3 Mar 28, 2026 +41

It’s always U-ganda and never We-ganda 😔

41

iamapizza Mar 28, 2026 +22

What are Uganda do about it

22

WhatTheActualDuck1 Mar 28, 2026 +5

Uganda be kidding me

5

BehavioralSink Mar 28, 2026 +1

You’re killing me, Jaro

1

3lfk1ng Mar 28, 2026 +14

With good enough credit, you can ~~buy~~ lease a Hyundai Ioniq 5 for $189/mo which includes free charging for the first 2 years. That's $185 a month with zero added cost to travel. If you're worried about gas prices, here is an exit option that will save money. ...and before anyone shames me for peddling an EV, just know that I drive a 1989 Mercedes that gets about 11MPG.

14

ProbablySlacking Mar 28, 2026 +1

I switched to EV in 2018. Not because I wanted to save money but because I was frustrated with the maintenance that I ultimately fucked up and killed my VW. So I bought a used Chevy bolt with 30k miles on it. First used car I had ever bought in my life. Complete grudge purchase. Wasn’t really ready for a $350/mo car loan, but needed to get around. What I didn’t realize is that the savings on gas would more than make up for it. Gas wasn’t even $5/gal back then. It was like $3. It didn’t even feel like I had a car payment. Now it’s 8 years later. Still have the same car. 150k miles on it. I have literally no idea how long these things last.

1

Obvious_Cranberry607 Mar 28, 2026 +1

That's a 3 year lease though, right? https://www.notebookcheck.net/Hyundai-Ioniq-5-lease-crashes-to-189-month-limited-time-offer-for-245-mile-EV.1164113.0.html

1

3lfk1ng Mar 28, 2026 +1

Oh, good catch, it looks like that deal is for lease only. I edited the post, thank you. It still might be worth considering since lithium batteries will likely be replaced with solid-state batteries in \~3 years anyway. The resale value of lithium-based EV's will plummet when solid-state batteries enter the market so it's not something that you would want to own when that time comes.

1

Obvious_Cranberry607 Mar 28, 2026 +1

With my driving habits, switching at this wouldn't make sense. I use maybe 33 litres a month in a small car. Once that dies though, I'm looking for a used EV.

1

3lfk1ng Mar 28, 2026 +1

Yea, I'm looking to sell my old Merc at some point later in the year. I highly doubt that rising gas prices will help me with the sale though.

1

Obvious_Cranberry607 Mar 28, 2026 +1

Yeah, it'll be lower than you hope. I had to buy mine during the used car price hike, so I'd be taking a loss even without this.

1

freeblowjobiffound Mar 28, 2026 +1

I needed a converter to calculate in l/km.

1

3lfk1ng Mar 28, 2026 +1

Looks like it's .21L/km or 21.38L per 100km if Google serves me correct info.

1

Every-Development398 Mar 28, 2026 +24

Which likely means Saudi Arabia will get dragged into and pakistan given there defense agreements.

24

lobster_liberator Mar 28, 2026 +14

> Which likely means Saudi Arabia will get dragged into Lol there is a headline today that the Saudis are *urging* US to keep attacking Iran, who is dragging who?

14

di11deux Mar 28, 2026 +2

I’m not super worried. One missile launch feels performative. The Houthis depend entirely on Iran for their arsenal and that’s not getting replenished. They can’t produce much domestically. They’re going to launch a missile every week or two just to serve as a reminder, but they’re not going to unload their inventory until they’re confident it can get replenished.

2

Admiral_Tuvix Mar 28, 2026 +3

lol no chance Pakistan fights Iran

3

Every-Development398 Mar 28, 2026 +4

You may wish to educated youself, admiral [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strategic\_Mutual\_Defence\_Agreement](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strategic_Mutual_Defence_Agreement)

4

ariglgn Mar 28, 2026 +6

If they were going to get involved they would’ve done so already as Iran attacked Saudi Arabia several times now. I don’t think that pact means much after this war

6

Every-Development398 Mar 28, 2026

It has not been invoked up in till now Saudis have threaten to do so, so who knows.

0

GeshtiannaSG Mar 28, 2026 +1

This is why there was a recent “news” (within the past 24h) about a Pakistani ship being hit, even though the video supporting the news show a completely different ship that’s Malta-flagged and likely belongs to UAE.

1

MeeKiaMaiHiam Mar 28, 2026 +3

GG. Whats the orange commander in chief gonna do.

3

donkbeast Mar 28, 2026 +9

Probably r*** some more kids

9

ericrobertshair Mar 28, 2026 +5

I really hope that we can expand this war so the whole world can freely join. #WorldWarFree on truthsocial!

5

jawndell Mar 28, 2026 +8

Damn, I thought Trump said the war was over??? Fox News told me that Iran has been obliterated and are begging for peace??

8

AccomplishedSoft1350 Mar 28, 2026 +3

This is going to turn out to be a dumb move by the Houthi. I think US and Israel have run out of good targets in Iran and Lebanon since all the bad guys are in hiding. Houthi just waved a big red flag and said "look over here..."

3

eglin99 Mar 28, 2026 +19

If Israel could end the Houthis they would've years ago. They always come back, doing minimal damage but costing a lot of money and resources to deal with. The best they can do is contribute to war fatigue in Israel.

19

DarkLeoDude Mar 28, 2026 +18

America's attention is already split with resources running low. All they have to do is scare the ships in the region and then go to ground. Shipping will grind to a halt, and oil prices will skyrocket even higher. With the war growing more unpopular by the day, the economy falling apart, and America finding no allies willing to help with a ground war... I mean I honestly don't see a winning play for Trump. Their decapitation strike failed, so this was always going to be the outcome. As far as the Houthi's are concerned, this is going to hurt America and Israel more than ever, they just need to be smart about avoiding retaliation.

18

AccomplishedSoft1350 Mar 28, 2026 +6

Oh in long run I agree. In short run, my guess is Houthi will pay a pound of flesh

6

smeeagain93 Mar 28, 2026 +8

Genuine question, where do you get the information from that the resources are running low? They've spent like $20B so far, that's basically nothing when compared to their military budget each year. From what I saw, they've mostly used weapons with high accuracy that may be running low and need to be resupplied to that region, not that they are out of them. If they start using inaccurate weapons / cluster munitions is when hell really starts to reign down. Which you can argue they may start using since Iran used them already.

8

DarkLeoDude Mar 28, 2026 +5

There have been numerous articles in this very sub over the past 4 weeks citing the US military/government themselves saying they are diverting equipment from Asia and other European countries as an emergency measure to shore up anti-missile interceptors. They are even taken bought and paid for supplies that were meant for Ukraine and sending it to the ME now. Those weapons were bought and paid for, but are now basically being stolen to fight Iran instead. Imagine the political fallout from that going on behind the scenes. We also have reports from the US military that they estimate to have only destroyed 30% of Irans total missile stockpile. Take that and add it to reports that patriot missile batteries in the region were set to 'auto' and were shooting 6 or more multi-million dollar missiles at single threats, possibly even just c**** drones, and you add all these little snippets together and it paints a very grim picture of the supply situation for both America and Israel who are, from what we can tell, are under missile attack every day and burning through more interceptors. America was clearly not ready for this level of intense retaliation, otherwise they wouldn't be scrambling to move these assets into place now. Edit: Also the pentagon has come to congress and asked for another 200 billion dollars to fight this war, with previous estimates that the war was costing 1 billion+ dollars a day. That was like two weeks ago, before they announced mobilization of another 20ish thousand soldiers to be sent to the area. The bill is skyrocketing at this point.

5

tagillaslover Mar 28, 2026 -6

Are you sure the war is becoming more unpopular? The more it goes on the more I support it so it can end and gas prices go back down already

-6

EarballsAgain Mar 28, 2026 +6

Surely the US pulling back would be at least equally as, probably far more, likely to reduce oil prices than escalating even further?

6

tagillaslover Mar 28, 2026

You think Iran is just gonna go home and let oil through the strait again?

0

EarballsAgain Mar 28, 2026 +4

Probably not, but they definitely won't if they keep getting bombed.

4

donkbeast Mar 28, 2026 +2

Even the bots get brain damage now, crazy

2

hoppertn Mar 28, 2026 +4

Ask again in 2 weeks when we’ve got dead marines and infantry coming home in boxes. Of course I doubt the news will show any of that.

4

Gall_Mistni Mar 28, 2026 +2

Did you drop the /s tag? There's no way you believe what you just wrote

2

tagillaslover Mar 28, 2026 +3

You can’t put the tooth paste back in the tube. Iran isn’t going to willingly un blockade the strait

3

Top-Fig-8846 Mar 28, 2026

Unless you send 1million troops there

0

Spike205 Mar 28, 2026 -7

Resources running low. The US wasted more resources in daycare fraud in Minnesota during the first 2 weeks then they did in Iran

-7

VectorObserver Mar 28, 2026 +4

Israel and US did a massive bombing campaign in Yemen last year as well. Doubt this time the result will be any different (if they even want to waste missiles on Yemen in the first place).

4

AccomplishedSoft1350 Mar 28, 2026 +23

By all accounts it did make a difference and is a big reason for the reluctance... In fact after the American bombing campaign, the Houthi agreed to stop attacking ships. So the Americans did actually win that one.

23

DungeonDefense Mar 28, 2026 +3

No it didnt. The US agreed to stop bombing the Houthis and the Houthis agreed to not attack only US military vessels. >the Houthis agreed to halt their attacks on U.S. vessels but otherwise would continue their attacks on vessels in the Red Sea https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2025_United_States%E2%80%93Houthi_ceasefire >Mohammed al-Bukhaiti, a senior Houthi official, told Bloomberg News that the group would stop attacking U.S. military ships if Washington halts its strikes, “but we will definitely continue our operations in support to Gaza.” https://www.politico.com/news/2025/05/06/trump-us-stop-bombing-houthis-00330884

3

Orpa__ Mar 28, 2026 +1

Stretching the US thin sounds like a really smart move though

1

mad-data Mar 28, 2026 +1

And this time they will hardly get any ammunition and supplies from Iran, their are probably suicidal.)

1

Top-Fig-8846 Mar 28, 2026 +1

Bahrain and Iraq both retaliated … too many targets to work on

1

Ender_D Mar 28, 2026

The U.S. and Israel weren’t really able to significantly degrade them last time they were fighting the Houthis. If they can block off the Red Sea it’s going to put the U.S. into even a worse spot as the global economy takes a serious downturn.

0

PieceMaterial5213 Mar 28, 2026 -5

Israel says a lot of things, just like Trump. When media like Reuters simply reports "Israeli military says...", it's time to be skeptical, especially these days.

-5

protomenace Mar 28, 2026 +11

Reporting the statements of various officials is part of the job. As the reader it's your job to determine the credibility of those officials, bit for the news to editorialize on it. They equally report statements from Iran, for example.

11

donkbeast Mar 28, 2026 -5

Except we only know with 100% certainty one of them is a rapist. How should that be danced around for you?

-5

yosisoy Mar 28, 2026 +14

Israeli military and the US military are more trustworthy than their governments though

14

ATangK Mar 28, 2026 -15

Not by much. Really clutching at straws to be the more reliable source of the two.

-15

iamapizza Mar 28, 2026 +3

The trifecta of credibility: US says. Israel says. Russia denies.

3

bungnard Mar 28, 2026 -11

Israel might say a lot of things but they also don't give a f*** and drop bombs

-11

PieceMaterial5213 Mar 28, 2026 -18

Well the two are usually linked, such as "militants are hiding in hospitals", linked with the bombing of hospitals. Amazing how many places they hid in Gaza isn't it.

-18

Gall_Mistni Mar 28, 2026 +7

Do you even know about Yemen? Do you know it's possible to be against all parties involved in this war? F*** IDF and Netanyahu and all that, but at this point you're clearly just cheering for anyone who isn't Israel, even if it means supporting literal terrorist orgs. Dumb fucks

7

Little-Carpenter4443 Mar 28, 2026 +3

time to settle Yemen!

3

nvn911 Mar 28, 2026 +1

Baby al-Mandab strait about to make it's grand entry into lexicon

1

GeshtiannaSG Mar 28, 2026 +1

Unless you’ve been watching Sal Mercogliano.

1

Basis-Some Mar 28, 2026

Israel says a lot of shit

0

Bolter_NL Mar 28, 2026 +1

Is this the same as the launches towards Diego Garcia??

1

dontlooktothesky Mar 28, 2026 -8

israel begs for aid again what a f****** surprise. dude, youre colonizing lebanon. the target was Iran. what the f*** are those people doing? our united states committed our children, and the future of our country, to the destruction of tyranny in ww2. your future was saved when we won and now you guys are doing everything you can to destroy it. you're no better than radical islamists at this point. allow yourselves to each other.

-8

GreyClay Mar 28, 2026 -1

*Ansar Allah* have joined the chat.

-1

_kinglouis Mar 28, 2026 -3

those troops heading to the middle east will probably end up in yemen

-3

Traditional-Koala279 Mar 28, 2026 +8

I’d bet a lot that they don’t

8

MGM-Wonder Mar 28, 2026 -6

I'll wait for a more reliable source

-6

JeroJeroMohenjoDaro Mar 28, 2026 -10

Next, they're gonna say they identified missiles from Jordan and finally have a reason to "take control" over Jordan territories too

-10

Israeli military says it identified a launch of a missile from Yemen

💬 Send a Message

146 Comments