ListNook

whiskey_smoke Mar 28, 2026 +1

All the bitching and moaning by: 1. Americans; shutup, you're not doing anything about it. Where are the protests, impeachments, armed revolution - 2A supporters, where are they? 2. Rest of the world government - Isolate the US, f*** 'em until they get rid of their stupid president. Everyone is just complaining about it, no one is doing a damn thing.

1

lazyness92 Mar 28, 2026 +1

Do what?

1

1-randomonium Mar 28, 2026 +1

Push the Democrats, particularly the ones who keep crossing over to support Trump, like Fetterman, to do more. And try to ensure the GOP lose both the Senate and the House in November. And then to ensure that the newly elected Democratic Congressmen will actually do something to rein in Trump instead of just enjoying their newfound power to make money while giving in to his agendas. If a Democrat President had done everything Trump has in the last year Republican Congressmen would have impeached them 5 times over by now.

1

lazyness92 Mar 28, 2026 +1

Republicans are losing sits left and right. No Kings protests are being planned. All that's left is to go vote in midterms (and I can't wait to see the shitshow that will be with voter suppression)

1

SituationalPenguin Mar 28, 2026 +1

There’s tons of protests. They just don’t get coverage anymore.

1

1-randomonium Mar 28, 2026 +1

As Pedro Sanchez said about this war(which has cost Spanish firms alone $100 billion due to its effects) >"It's not fair that ⁠someone sets fire to the world and the rest of us have to swallow the ashes," Going forward, will world leaders will have to prepare for a new war in the Middle East and a global energy crisis every 4 years, whenever the Israeli government completes its term? We have seen that there is nothing the US Republican Party will not do for their Israeli far-right counterparts, including economic suicide. Netanyahu and his ilk will only ask America for more and more having set this precedent.

1

Karpattata Mar 28, 2026 +1

Uh huh. All those damn Israeli elections. No agency at all for the strongest country in the world, no siree.

1

1-randomonium Mar 28, 2026 +1

It's irrelevant when their leaders actively ignore the wishes of their own populace to do whatever Israel wants at the cost of their own interests and that of the world. Evangelical Christians are the only Americans who have agency with regards to the "special" relationship with Israel and the necessity of such wars.

1

StekenDeluxe Mar 28, 2026 +1

> a new war in the Middle East and a global energy crisis Just in ice-cold *Realpolitik* terms: I don't think all wars in the Middle East automatically lead to a global energy crisis. To my knowledge, the destruction of Gaza did not move the price of oil one cent. I doubt the Syrian civil war did, either. Iran, then, is a special case. As the current war is clearly showing: If you f*** with *that* particular country you will indeed get a global energy crisis. So the hope would be that future policymakers - in Washington, if not in Tel Aviv - having learned their lesson, will take that into account, and leave Iran alone for the foreseeable future.

1

skeleton949 Mar 28, 2026 +1

Leaving the Iranian Regime alone just allows it to fester and get worse, like an infection.

1

jphamlore Mar 28, 2026 +1

Spoilers -- they are openly talking now about the need to regularly "mow the grass" in Iran, for eternity, as long as the IRGC and the theocracy rules it.

1

1-randomonium Mar 28, 2026 +1

Netanyahu has spoken about the need to 'Balkanize' Syria even after it stabilised under a new pro-Western dictator. He still launches strikes there every few weeks or months. This has more to do with Israel's vision for its neighbours and less to do with the IRGC.

1

1-randomonium Mar 28, 2026 +1

> So the hope would be that future policymakers - in Washington, if not in Tel Aviv - having learned their lesson, You hope in vain. Trump even said early on that his idea of an exit ramp was just pulling out and telling the Iranians he'll come back for more strikes every few months if they rebuilt their nuclear and missile programs. These policymakers were warned of the risks. Their ideological fanaticism about Iran and disregard for the consequences on everyone else(they assumed America could weather them) overwhelmed all rational considerations.

1

StekenDeluxe Mar 28, 2026 +1

You are, of course, 100% right about Trump and current crop of American politicians. But you'll note I was talking about *FUTURE* policymakers. It's not a given that *all* American presidents, until the end of time, must automatically kow-tow to Tel Aviv, kiss the ring, jump when asked to jump, etc. Eisenhower didn't. Such a man might rise again.

1

iwantboringtimes Mar 28, 2026 +1

> and a global energy crisis every 4 years believe or not, I'm actually feeling... kinda good that we'll skip that cause of how in demand solar and renewables have been since the war started. it's been about a month now. for example, the countries who invested significantly in renewables back in 2022 are doing better than the ones who double-downed on fossil fuels.

1

1-randomonium Mar 28, 2026 +1

> believe or not, I'm actually feeling... kinda good that we'll skip that cause of how in demand solar and renewables have been since the war started We're blaming the symptoms, not the cause, which is the mentality of the most powerful men in the world. If the entire world switched to renewables the US would start wars and force regime change in countries that produce copper and other critical minerals needed for wind and solar power just to maintain their energy dominance.

1

iuuznxr Mar 28, 2026 +1

Solar panels and wind turbines last +15 years, strategic oil reserves for 90-120 days.

1

iwantboringtimes Mar 28, 2026 +1

material parts are harder to hoard than consumable fuel check out how lithium crashed for example

1

1-randomonium Mar 28, 2026 +1

You mean easier. But will Trump and his successors understand that? What he's doing in Latin America is partly for their critical minerals. He's been pressuring Venezuela and Cuba to ease restrictions on mining and grant access to American companies to their critical minerals deposits.

1

iwantboringtimes Mar 28, 2026 +1

he will try, but it's just nowhere as easy as hoarding consumable fuel check article below about how solar panel makers have been shifting away from silver, for example https://www.reuters.com/sustainability/climate-energy/solar-industry-accelerates-shift-silver-costs-soar-2026-02-19/ AI has also been turbo-charging the hunt for new materials AND a solar panel can still work enough even if its components weren't made with the most optimal materials Also, China AND India ain't gonna let US of A or any petrostate strangle their solar energy industries. Apparently, India is number 2 when it comes to solar tech.

1

Timoleiro Mar 28, 2026 +1

So it looks like it's not happening this weekend..

1

StekenDeluxe Mar 28, 2026 +5

An Iranian policymaker is now claiming that: > The Axis of Resistance intentionally allowed Yanbu to become the key player in oil exports — then Ansarallah [=Houthis] entered the game. That is, Iran mainly targeted the GCC's eastern ports, which led Saudi Arabia to redirect its flow towards Yanbu on its west coast, which the Houthis have now been tasked to attack. I doubt it was all "intentional" from the start, but Yanbu being the Houthis' main target wouldn't surprise me all that much.

5

141_1337 Mar 28, 2026 +6

It sounded to me like Houthi leadership didn't want to die for their moribund patron, until the Houthi hardliners pressed their leadership and the organization as a whole to react The House of Saud is not gonna take this well and this might be what pushes them to get their hands dirty again.

6

Far-Iron-4281 Mar 28, 2026 +11

No invasion?

11

SocialistNixon Mar 28, 2026 +9

It sure the Tripoli is even there yet and the Boxer is a couple weeks out. The GHWB is just leaving the US also even though the White House acted like it would be in place already.

9

DozingUnderTheSun Mar 28, 2026 +14

Weekend is young yet, but maybe Trump gave the April 6th deadline so he can move more troops into place for the next two weeks.

14

iwantboringtimes Mar 28, 2026 +10

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2026/mar/28/gulf-countries-threat-iran-backed-militias-proxies-war-us-israel-middle-east > Gulf countries warn of rising threat from Iran-backed militias and proxies > Fears grow that Tehran may start activating sleeper cells across Middle East as part of war with US and Israel

10

demonica123 Mar 28, 2026 +14

It's been a month of constant bombing and leadership losses. If Iran had any sleeper cells to activate, they'd have activated them.

14

Most-Round-4132 Mar 28, 2026 +2

logistics take time, especially when the best drones and sats known to man have their lenses zoomed on you 24/7

2

MajorMess Mar 28, 2026 +2

Houthis just entered the war

2

Ali-Salman Mar 28, 2026 +1

Tell that to gulf countries’ leaders, clearly you know more than them.

1

Raftar31 Mar 28, 2026 +1

have you never heard of the Houthis? Iran has steps left on the escalation ladder yet.

1

demonica123 Mar 28, 2026

If they were a serious threat, Iran would already have pressured them to join. Threats are empty at this point.

0

StekenDeluxe Mar 28, 2026 +5

> Threats are empty at this point This is just plainly incorrect. To take just one example, the Iranian strike on Qatar's Pars gas field shows that they are willing and able to carry out their threats. As for the Houthis, we don't know if and then they'll enter the war. But the threat must be taken seriously.

5

Raftar31 Mar 28, 2026 +5

Iran has been cooperating thus far to prevent the global oil market from spiraling completely out of control. Fully restricting trade through Hormuz while the Houthis close the Bab-el-Mendeb is not an empty threat. That requires a single sunken ship. Things can get much worse.

5

Emblemator Mar 28, 2026 +2

Iran doesn't care about upholding global markets. They care about being a relevant oil supplier to generate money and to stay relevant. If Iran goes too far, the world may consider Iran a lost cause and they lose all of that. It's a thin line to walk. The world CAN survive without Iran even if it's painful.

2

Raftar31 Mar 28, 2026 +1

"Iran doesn't care about upholding the oil commodity market, they only care about selling oil as a commodity." What are you even saying? The US lifted sanctions on Iranian oil because of the supply squeeze. Iran is taking advantage of the economic pinch that they've placed on the petrodollar. Iran has every reason to maintain this situation until it's no longer tenable for the US to continue. "The world" is not going to stop buying Iranian oil. There's plenty of non-NATO buyers out there. The risk is the US and Israel further escalating the war. That's terrible economically for everyone, but Iran will choose its continued existence over economic pain. The US will not force Iran to surrender before the American public learns what $15/gal feels like. Trump's political survival depends on him easing the economic pain that Americans are already signed up for merely a month in.

1

SneakyFire23 Mar 28, 2026 +12

The Houthis are a mess, Hezbollah's been slapped so hard they're trying to figure out who is in charge. The proxies are broken apart and nowhere as effective as they were a few years ago

12

Raftar31 Mar 28, 2026 +2

And? That's besides the point. The US and Israel's missile defenses are spread thin and depleting. Israel has committed almost all of its ground forces to the invasion of Lebanon and the US is in a horrendous position if it commits to a ground invasion. The war is already politically toxic for Trump.

2

iwantboringtimes Mar 28, 2026 +2

Think of it this way - Iran has illustrated that they can twist the arm of the most powerful nation on Earth just by strangling oil deliveries. Every oil-related facility in the Middle East is a target.

2

SneakyFire23 Mar 28, 2026 -5

Sure and then we flatten Iran's oil fields and flatten their power grid. They had a week (roughly) of water left in Tehran.

-5

FrostPDP Mar 28, 2026 +15

Sure. We can do that. Consign millions of people to death via thirst as collective punishment with no electricity to even try to save themselves. We can do that. We can even pretend that isn't incredibly immoral and punishing civilians for their leaders' deeds. What does Iran do in response? The same exact thing to our allies.

15

iwantboringtimes Mar 28, 2026 +1

drone warfare plus the other middle east countries rely heavily on desalination plants for now, the only way I think of for Iran to stop using oil as... hostage is for the value of oil to drop

1

jphamlore Mar 28, 2026 +1

Israel seems to know the location of so many Iranian leaders at any given moment, so do they know the more fixed locations of Iran's underground missile cities, basically all of them? So now some are saying only 1/3 of these missile cities are destroyed, and maybe 1/3 have their entrances blocked off (but were there alternative entrances designed for them). Given that there were presumably decades spent preparing for the possibility that underground Iranian sites would need to be destroyed, for various reasons, was the bombing campaign always planned to go long enough to take almost all of these sites out? Or does it turn out that even a superpower like the United States simply has constraints on how much money it is willing to spend on deep underground bunker buster bombs.

1

Emblemator Mar 28, 2026 +3

Less about constraints and more about priorities. As missile stockpiles in Iran also deplete, it becomes a better bang for buck to bomb some other facilities than to take out a dozen missiles with a giga-explosion.

3

jphamlore Mar 28, 2026 +1

I think the argument by many on the Israeli side for immediate action, say by Caroline Glick, is that Iran was on the verge of moving underground not just the missiles themselves, but missile production facilities. The argument was that Iran was close to industrializing ballistic missile production in a 100 a month range while the interceptors were being produced only 7 a month. Once the Iranians built up a big enough stockpile and had underground facilities to shield storage and production, no one would have dared attack them to stop them from reactivating their program to develop and deploy nuclear weapons.

1

StephenHunterUK Mar 28, 2026 +1

Another factor is availability of launchers and trained crews.

1

Current-Function-729 Mar 28, 2026 +17

> Sarah Makin at CPAC USA 2026: "Russia has bombed, shelled, and looted 650 Christian churches. They have murdered, a conservative estimate is 49 pastors, priests, evangelical leaders, and other faith leaders in Russian-occupied Ukraine." > Russia is exporting religious persecution to Ukraine. On the official CPAC Twitter of all places.

17

ScruffleKun Mar 28, 2026 +6

Looks like somebody figured out who's buddies with Iran.

6

DaGrouchy5196 Mar 28, 2026 +4

Surprised those evangelical freaks care about Orthodox churches.

4

JTanCan Mar 28, 2026 +2

I don't think the Russian government is going after Orthodox. Last I knew, Putin was trying to portray himself as Orthodox. It's the non-orthodox denominations he's going after.

2

NoComfort6676 Mar 28, 2026 +1

Russian and Ukrainian orthodoxy split from another Amid this war

1

KeySerious4363 Mar 28, 2026 +4

Anyone know how much American soldiers are paid compared to their NATO counterparts?

4

skeleton949 Mar 28, 2026 +2

In general US soldiers are payed higher than their European counterparts, but it varies with rank and situation. An entry level private is paid over 2,000$ a month. Taking Germany as an example, voluntary soldiers are payed less than other soldiers, about €1500 ($1600). However, career soldiers in Germany get paid much more than volunteers, about €2000 to €3000 monthly.

2

FinallyArt Mar 28, 2026 +1

24K a year... what an awful salary for a job that changes your entire lifestyle and risks your life.

1

skeleton949 Mar 28, 2026 +1

It can get much worse. Like I said in my other comment, some countries in Europe alone have it about €1000 (about $1100 USD)

1

KeySerious4363 Mar 28, 2026 +7

Thanks for the information. My son leaves for regular force basic training in the morning (Canada) for him, full time military employment will net him $55 000 a yearly. Searching through google now, an American doing the same as my son, is set to earn 25-30k yearly? That got me thinking about how the rest of NATO stacks up. Thanks for the info.

7

Most-Round-4132 Mar 28, 2026 +1

I think you are talking Canadian pre, vs US post taxes, also a recruit truck driver in the army makes considerably less than a recruit who is filtered to crew a nuclear sub w the navy etc... Edit: was curious so I looked it up, canadian recruit GROSS pay is 52k yikes, still better than most of nato I guess https://www.benefitscanada.com/news/bencan/feds-increasing-pay-retention-bonuses-for-caf-personnel/#:~:text=That%20means%20the%20annual%20salary,be%20retroactive%20to%20April%201.&text=A%20new%20annual%2C%20pensionable%20compensation,for%20each%20move%20after%20that.

1

lonewolf210 Mar 28, 2026 +6

Is he going to be enlisted or an officer? Also, most enlisted in the US spend very little time as an E-1, so are making about $30k/month base salary, but the US military members also get a whole bunch of other types of pay like BAS and BAH, which are to cover food and housing. Quite a few career fields also get bonus pays that can add anywhere from \~200/month to over an additional $1k/month US officers start making around \~50K but by year 4 are making nearly 90k before all their additional pay I mentioned above

6

KeySerious4363 Mar 28, 2026 +2

He is going enlisted. Im very proud of him but id be lying if I said I wasn't apprehensive. Thanks for the additional information. I appreciate it.

2

skeleton949 Mar 28, 2026 +2

It's important to note that European countries vary wildly with their pay, for example Spain pays an entry level soldier only around €1,000, and obviously the much smaller countries pay less.

2

yuvaldv1 Mar 28, 2026 +32

A ballistic missile was launched towards Israel from Yemen. First time this war.

32

jphamlore Mar 28, 2026 +3

How do ballistic missiles arrive in Yemen to the Houthis. Is someone simply shipping them to the Houthis in some port? Or can the Houthis manufacture them?

3

JTanCan Mar 28, 2026 +3

Iran supplies the Houthis like they supply Hezbollah.

3

David_bowman_starman Mar 28, 2026 +3

They get stuff from ports on Yemen's West coast.

3

justiceformahsa Mar 28, 2026 -3

You'd think they'd take note of what's happening to Hezbollah after they decided to join the fight. But guess they aren't that smart.

-3

darshfloxington Mar 28, 2026 +23

Israel can’t invade Yemen. They can bomb them but so far the NATO bombing campaign against the Houtis has been ineffective. Don’t know if Israel can handle two large scale air campaigns at the same time.

23

justiceformahsa Mar 28, 2026 +1

The Saudis and UAE may get involved depending on how much the houthis escalate. And of course the US navy if they start messing with the red sea. It won't end too well for the houthis regardless

1

darshfloxington Mar 28, 2026 +18

You know what happened when Saudi and UAE invaded Yemen last time right?

18

Breadfruitdeeznuts Mar 28, 2026 +1

This time Saudi can bring Pakistan on its side.

1

JY0950 Mar 28, 2026 +1

That's not going to go well with the public

1

Groundbreaking_Can_4 Mar 28, 2026 +7

Saudi+Yemen coalition controls 75% of Yemen now and the houthi hasn't resupplied in years. It's not a stretch to say that they're on their last leg

7

darshfloxington Mar 28, 2026 +4

Yeah because they captured the territory occupied by the faction supported by the UAE. The Saudis and Emerates have been fighting each other the past year. The Houtis have largely been sitting it out.

4

Groundbreaking_Can_4 Mar 28, 2026 +1

The UAE backed area was taken in like a month it wasn't even extended fighting

1

AccomplishedSoft1350 Mar 28, 2026 +4

Last time they had little support from the US last time except logistics and some intelligence. This tiime, US will be fully involved. Different fight.

4

justiceformahsa Mar 28, 2026 +2

Yea, but the circumstances are certainly different with the massive USAF and US Navy presence willing to be directly involved probably, along with their weapons provider being unable to spare too many extra weapons at the moment.

2

RelegatedRick Mar 28, 2026 +13

Quite a substantial event.

13

ChartMurky2588 Mar 28, 2026 +4

Highly significant.

4

pairofdimeshift92 Mar 28, 2026 +11

Y’all sound like a family guy bit about dudes trying to sound informed.

11

TheGhostofJTWalsh Mar 28, 2026 +11

shallow and pedantic.

11

Archaeellis Mar 28, 2026 +8

You sound like the punchline

8

pairofdimeshift92 Mar 28, 2026

Fair

0

EmbarrassedHelp Mar 28, 2026 +19

The Iranian regime effectively controls the entire strait of Hormuz as far as shipping and insurance companies are concerned. That puts Iran in a more powerful position than what they started the war with, and they intend to keep control of the strait after the war. The Gulf countries are unlikely to accept this new reality, and that would mean another war in the near future. So the question right now is, does the US military have a viable plan to regain control of the strait?

19

TyblosiinU Mar 28, 2026 +3

The gulf countries can shut the straight down for Iran too if they wanted to all they geo to do is say they'll target Iranian friendly ships.

3

StekenDeluxe Mar 28, 2026

> they intend to keep control of the strait after the war We don’t know that. Could be all talk. The kind of thing you grandly announce, but then let go of as part of a future peace deal.

0

InACoolDryPlace Mar 28, 2026 +12

I think the political reality of what would be required by the US to "win" this is untenable by Trump, and the US' influence in the Gulf will be sacrificed in service of that, and also that this is the best possible outcome from what is already the likely biggest blunder of this century so far.

12

IntroductionAgile372 Mar 28, 2026 +2

Delusional

2

jphamlore Mar 28, 2026 +11

I think Russia's invasion of Ukraine still takes the cake for biggest blunder. They're now getting their oil infrastructure lit up by Ukrainian drones deep inside their own territory, and they don't dare strike back at Ukraine's NATO backers.

11

InACoolDryPlace Mar 28, 2026 +1

IMHO it's Russia's blunder there which makes this the bigger blunder, because Europe and many economies need Russia and/or Gulf oil, either by direct supply or to keep the price affordable. It's by sequence of events that the Iran war is the one that has the bigger effect on global markets. Russia also needed the money this is bringing them badly.

1

StrangeStephen Mar 28, 2026 +7

They wont. UAE and Qatar just discussed to strengthen ties with the US.

7

InACoolDryPlace Mar 28, 2026 +1

Yeah the Gulf countries really need the strait open so they can sustain their economies, and my opinion is the US population doesn't support the political cost of what's required to do that. Trump would need to survive the images of dead soldiers with approaching midterms and rising prices across the board.

1

_THEWATERB0Y_ Mar 28, 2026 +1

Does Trump really care? I know we like to make jokes about him running for a third term, but no he can’t run again.

1

StrangeStephen Mar 28, 2026 +1

Not just the Gulf. Asia and Europe relies in it.

1

iwantboringtimes Mar 28, 2026

> shipping and insurance companies yup, no ship is gonna sail without insurance

0

wynveen Mar 28, 2026 +4

I’m sure all those ground troops are plotted in a DoD OPS plan in the near future.

4

Various_Maize_3957 Mar 28, 2026 +7

Could this war have been "avoided"? Like if several decision had been made differently, could the world be functioning as usual right now, without the oil debacle? Edit why are people downvoting me?

7

BigHandLittleSlap Mar 28, 2026 -22

Yes, but at what price? Iran was moving their chess pieces in position to invade Israel. They established proxy forces to the north, south, and east of Israel, the latter especially created a “land bridge” through Iraq and Lebanon. If they got nukes they would be immune to retaliation and they could sucker punch Israel with just two bombs, one for Tel Aviv and one for Jerusalem. The fall of Assad, the invasion of Gaza, and various other recent losses by Iran gave Israel an opportunity to knock them out for at least a decade. They took it. Sooner or later “this” war was going to happen, everyone just hoped it wouldn’t happen on their watch. Trump just doesn’t care about consequences, which Netanyah exploited. So here we are. Fans of repressive violent regimes will argue that Iran never did anything to provoke the attack, blithely ignoring their funding of Hamas, Hezbollah, and the Popular Mobilization Forces (PMF) in Iraq. Not to mention their persistence in enriching uranium to the level only required for bombs… in facilities suspiciously well defended and deep underground, which is a totally normal thing that countries do. Actually, only one other country: North Korea. Nobody else. PS: Similarly everyone knows that sooner or later China will invade Taiwan. They’ve been preparing for it for decades. There’s almost no way to avoid some wars, too many people *insist* for too long, eventually they can’t back down and most plod onwards towards the inevitable.

-22

RedHeadRedemption93 Mar 28, 2026 +4

Attack Israel - sure Invade Israel - not a chance

4

MajorMess Mar 28, 2026 +2

Iranian forces marching straight from Teheran, of course not. But let's not forget that Islamic jihad combatants were directly participating in Oct 7 attack and hezbollah started shooting rockets on Oct 8, while IDF was still busy hunting down the terrorists inside Israel.

2

InvictusShmictus Mar 28, 2026 +5

They could have prepared better

5

abbzug Mar 28, 2026 +24

Every prior president has avoided it. Netanyahu finally found one dumb enough to do it. Yes, anyone with an IQ over room temperature could have avoided this war.

24

Khshayarshah Mar 28, 2026 +8

Not allowing the regime to come to power in 1979.

8

G00b3rb0y Mar 28, 2026 -10

TBF we would have had this same oil debacle sans this war, in about 50 years once all oil deposits were depleted

-10

iwantboringtimes Mar 28, 2026 +1

nah, cause solar tech is probably gonna be god-level in 50 years fyi, there are solar companies making liquid fuel specifically for cargo ship purpose. maersk, for example, launched a ship last year or year before to use such fuels

1

GCU_ZeroCredibility Mar 28, 2026 +5

Peak oil is garbage. The real danger is that we had too much easy oil, leading to climate change, not that we won't have _enough_.

5

wynveen Mar 28, 2026 -7

I don’t think so

-7

spatchi14 Mar 28, 2026 +41

Yes. They could have just… not bombed Iran?

41

Predictor92 Mar 28, 2026 +5

the problem then is the missile vs interceptor gap(that is likely what caused the war now)

5

skeleton949 Mar 28, 2026 -5

And the Iranian Regime keeps causing wars, over, and over, and over......

-5

Skycourts_safety_rep Mar 28, 2026 -7

Kicking the can down the road.. and in the meantime Irgc would’ve killed many more citizens for dissent

-7

matthieuC Mar 28, 2026 +13

You realise that they will still be in charge and will keep killing civilians after that?

13

ScruffleKun Mar 28, 2026 -1

>You realise that they will still be in charge Like Assad is?

-1

SpitefulSeagull Mar 28, 2026 +19

Thank goodness we're gonna stop the IRGC from killing them by killing them ourselves now. Brilliant stuff

19

141_1337 Mar 28, 2026 -10

Considering the particular low level of civilians casualties despite Iran hiding on civilian spaces and recently starting to use 12 year-old children as human shields.

-10

FrostPDP Mar 28, 2026 +12

Did...Didja miss the opening bombing of this war - a girls' school? Didja miss Israel bombing Tehran so badly it rained f****** oil? "Low levels?" What low levels?

12

Terrenator Mar 28, 2026 -7

the fact that you have to go back to the first days of the war means its low level. high level would be a girls school equivalent every hour.

-7

GCU_ZeroCredibility Mar 28, 2026 +8

We had to destroy the village to save it.

8

GuelphEastEndGhetto Mar 28, 2026 +8

No country involved can justifiably stand on moral ground. Atrocities abound, both internationally and domestically, anywhere and everywhere.

8

GCU_ZeroCredibility Mar 28, 2026 +14

Of course it could, and should, have been avoided? Literally the only thing that needed to be different was Trump could have not torn up the Iran nuclear deal for the sole reason that Obama negotiated it.

14

spatchi14 Mar 28, 2026 +33

This war has, in one month, killed the market for ICE cars in Australia (especially diesel) and started a nationwide shift to EVs. Everyone’s talking about buying one now. Crazy times.

33

89ElRay Mar 28, 2026 +1

I would like an EV but I can't get a charger installed at my house because it's on street parking. I don't really wanna have to keep on top of driving to the supermarket in the evening just to charge my car. Really annoying.

1

iwantboringtimes Mar 28, 2026 +11

yup yup. And once people get used to filling up their car at home, they usually don't go back

11

G00b3rb0y Mar 28, 2026 +5

Unfortunately Australia relies on diesel for industry/agriculture

5

spatchi14 Mar 28, 2026 +5

Of course but surely people don’t need to be buying diesel passenger cars in 2026!

5

Lenwa44 Mar 28, 2026 +4

Yeah but if consumer demand goes down, less demand more supply cheaper prices. Of course none of that happens quickly, I'm not saying the short and medium term doesn't look ugly.

4

case-o-nuts Mar 28, 2026 +12

Thankfully, reducing demand makes more fuel available for other uses

12

[deleted] Mar 28, 2026 -1

[removed]

-1

Cortical Mar 28, 2026

because Americans don't like socialism

0

abbzug Mar 28, 2026 +6

It's a global commodity and will always drift to the highest price. There is some discrepancy due to transportation costs and fuel taxes, but it's going to be pretty close to the rest of the world. Only way around that would be to nationalize the oil industry and prevent export, but that's not going to happen. Though Trump was dumb enough to think tariffs would work so maybe he's dumb enough to try.

6

bobbyturkelino Mar 28, 2026 +1

On paper they are net energy exporters, but this doesn't mean they're energy independent. The USA exports more oil than they import because they can't process all of their own oil with the infrastructure they have. The USA imports \~4 million barrels per day from Canada, and that is \~60% of their crude imports, while another \~10% comes from Mexico. US refineries are built for heavy, sour crude, while their shale-oil fracking boom has produced lighter, sweet crude, so they export it to countries who can refine it.

1

LtLlamaSauce Mar 28, 2026 +5

Gas prices are determined in large part by speculative risk, and not just supply/demand. The US cannot process around 40% of oil it extracts, which means it is exported. 60% is refined in the US at US refineries, which happen to be capable of processing more than that. So to operate a max capacity, the US has to import oil. The US is entwined in the global oil market in a significant and direct way. It simply cannot refine enough for its own consumption.

5

Various_Maize_3957 Mar 28, 2026

Why would the US be unable to refine the 40% of oil it extracte?

0

LtLlamaSauce Mar 28, 2026 +2

Not all oil is the same. Different types of oil need different types of refineries. The US doesn't have enough refineries of the right types to process all of it's own oil. At the same time, it has refineries that cannot get enough of the right kind of oil from just US sources. This is one of the main reasons for the US taking de facto control of Venezuelan oil. Venezuela holds largely a type of oil that American refineries are hungry for. Refineries are very expensive and take a long time to build. Other countries have refineries that can process the oil US refineries cannot, so it gets sent there. This kind of thing is what inevitably ties all countries in a globalized economy. Nobody is isolated anymore.

2

Zippitydo2 Mar 28, 2026 +4

Its a global economy. The people pumping the oil are always gonna sell to the highest bidder.

4

Mr_Dobalina71 Mar 28, 2026 +3

So Trump banging on about how the US don’t need the Strait of Hormuz open is to a degree incorrect as it is going to drive the price of oil up for US consumers also?

3

matthieuC Mar 28, 2026 +3

Oil companies will make money. Consumers will lose money. If you're not an oil company owner the situation is bad for you

3

asetniop Mar 28, 2026 +5

Not "to a degree". Just plain incorrect.

5

ScumbagGina Mar 28, 2026 +4

America isn’t a closed economy. If oil prices rise internationally, our oil companies will export more and sell less here chasing those higher prices. This is turn raises our prices too. Once there’s an equilibrium (the cost to export oil matches the difference in the domestic and international price), you have our new gas price at home.

4

wynveen Mar 28, 2026 +1

People here have been convinced refining oil is bad. We’d rather have foreigners do it and pay prices based on speculation.

1

Various_Maize_3957 Mar 28, 2026 -1

Does that mean that Americans still pay a bit less for gas (compared to, say, countries in Europe that don't have natural oil deposits) because it costs less to sell it in the USA than to export it? Or does it not work that way

-1

forevabronze Mar 28, 2026 +2

because its a business and if japan is willing to pay 120 they are not going to sell it for 60 even to themselves.

2

Rainey06 Mar 28, 2026 +3

Random question for the day but does anyone know why US-Israel have not struck the Semnan Space Center/Imam Khomeini Space Center east of Tehran yet? Well maybe it has been but I haven't seen anything reporting as such. Earlier studies had shown that this center is at the heart of Iran's nuclear and missile research programs.

3

_HiWay Mar 28, 2026 -4

their research probably has value to the world, but we can't speak to globalism cause bad. edit: not dismissing any innocent lost as not having value, just military strategy

-4

jphamlore Mar 28, 2026 +5

Israel bombs 2 IRGC-linked steel plants, 2 nuclear facilities as Iran vows revenge https://www.timesofisrael.com/israel-bombs-2-irgc-linked-steel-plants-2-nuclear-facilities-as-iran-vows-revenge/ > The Fars news agency reported that Israeli strikes hit Khuzestan Steel near Ahvaz and Mobarakeh Steel in Isfahan, two major production facilities. > The strikes on the plants, which an Israeli security source briefing reporters said were partially owned by the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, were expected to cause billions of dollars in damage to the Iranian economy, as well as “paralyze” Iran’s steel industry.

5

iwantboringtimes Mar 28, 2026 +2

Sharing because stress-relief. I've been reading about the countries which made substantial investments in renewables when 2022 energy crisis happened. They're making the case for more renewables, especially when compared to the countries which (example) JUST shifted fuel sources from Russia to Middle East and US. Also, atm, I'm just auto-suspicious of governments which are so anti-diversifying of energy sources. Like, seriously - investors (for example) are told time and again to diversify their investments, so I expect at the very least that government officials know the importance of diversifying energy sources. It's stupid for just one energy source to have a monopoly. Dear Lord, it's probably because fossil fuels can be treated like a subscription service. Ala continuous revenue source. Governments can't tax the sun.

2

[deleted] Mar 28, 2026 -19

[deleted]

-19

Mr_Engineering Mar 28, 2026 +15

What? Donald Trump is Temu Mussolini. He's the farthest thing from Churchill

15

elykl12 Mar 28, 2026 +10

Bait used to be more believable

10

Various_Maize_3957 Mar 28, 2026 -5

Why do you say I am baiting?

-5

DaGrouchy5196 Mar 28, 2026 +7

You might as well have asked how I'd compare Jupiter to my last dump. Like, it doesn't even compute.

7

johnwaynewearsadress Mar 28, 2026 +2

One is a fatass draft dodging pedophile the other one served his country

2

Recidiva Mar 28, 2026 +3

Churchill at least comprehended wit, grit, diplomacy and sacrifice. Trump only understands MEMEMEMEMEME.

3

DillBagner Mar 28, 2026 +4

I guess Churchill was a bit overweight too but other than that, there's nothing there.

4

[deleted] Mar 28, 2026 -9

[removed]

-9

[deleted] Mar 28, 2026 +10

[removed]

10

[deleted] Mar 28, 2026 +5

[removed]

5

EyeRizzzZ Mar 28, 2026 +3

I genuinely needed to hear this. God bless you.

3

technologyisnatural Mar 28, 2026 -3

lay quiet and alone in the cold and dark, waiting for the end. no matter what you will become dust and be forgotten. this way you will cause slightly less suffering to others

-3

ChartMurky2588 Mar 28, 2026 +1

No u

1

technologyisnatural Mar 28, 2026 +1

no u

1

Retrothesequel Mar 28, 2026 +1

Dude what the hell are you talking about

1

technologyisnatural Mar 28, 2026 +1

ww3. ww3! WW3!!! world 👏 war 👏 threeeeeeeeeeeeeEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE

1

Worf65 Mar 28, 2026 +6

In the USA there is relatively little to worry about besides the economic issues. Things like rising cost of gas (and everything that impacts), possibly higher unemployment, and falling stock values. And the USA is relatively insulated from those effects compared to other countries that actually depend on the middle east for oil and other exports. So make sure your emergency fund is topped off but otherwise you shouldn't be that worried. Even extreme worst case for the USA is just a prolonged bad economy and maybe a terrorist attack, not an invasion and "Red Dawn" scenario.

6

EyeRizzzZ Mar 28, 2026 -2

I've genuinely been so worried about a possible invasion and what that could escalate to.

-2

Cortical Mar 28, 2026 +1

like afraid of getting drafted into invading Iran?

1

EyeRizzzZ Mar 28, 2026 +1

That's one worry. Another is other countries getting involved, then bam, world war.

1

Cortical Mar 28, 2026 +1

The war is already incredibly unpopular if they start drafting people the Republican party is toast. They're never going to do that. And what other country wants to get involved in that shit flinging contest? China? They're winning by doing nothing. They're not going to interrupt their enemy while they're making a massive mistake

1

wynveen Mar 28, 2026 +2

You’re really that scared about an invasion? Be more scared about not dying in a f****** car crash.

2

[deleted] Mar 28, 2026 +5

[deleted]

5

EyeRizzzZ Mar 28, 2026 -2

I figured that, but I was talking about us invading Iran 😅

-2

/r/WorldNews Discussion Thread: US and Israel launch attack on Iran; Iran retaliates (Thread #11)

💬 Send a Message

170 Comments