hah I think we can stop with the headlines that suggest this moron is thinking of anything other than his daughter and golf.
21
Significant_Cup_238Mar 30, 2026
+6
Ivanka is way too old for his tastes.
6
Highside1269Mar 30, 2026
+1
Is now
1
DragonTHCMar 30, 2026
+1
He's thinking about how to stay out of prison for raping children.
1
seKer82Mar 30, 2026
+1
He will be long dead before that would even have a chance of happening sadly.
1
tedecristalMar 30, 2026
+29
Headline is misleading.
Should be "to steal Iran's uranium"
29
ResidentKelpienMar 30, 2026
+12
WSJ is a Murdoch rag like Fox News and the NY Post. Misleading headlines is their M.O.
12
Turambar87Mar 30, 2026
+1
Also, "weighs" like he is actually giving shit serious consideration. "hmm, this might be a bad idea, gas prices will skyrocket and our chances of achieving any goals are incredibly low"
Mr. Poops His Pants and Doesn't Read Briefings is weighing the options.
1
mok000Mar 30, 2026
+1
If I had to guess that Uranium is in Russia for safekeeping.
1
Luckydog12Mar 30, 2026
I don’t think this specific point garners much sympathy.
I am against the war. I am also against Iran having close to weapons grade uranium.
This ain’t the same as Trump blatantly stealing Venezuelas oil.
0
blazesquallMar 30, 2026
+5
Who's allowed to have weapons grade uranium?
5
HelloYesItsMeYourMomMar 30, 2026
+1
Anyone is “allowed”. But can they get away with it is a different question.
1
Luckydog12Mar 30, 2026
+1
You literally want to start at square one?
1
blazesquallMar 30, 2026
+8
Seems everyone needs nukes. Keeps the Americans out.
8
asdf-keyboardmanMar 30, 2026
+1
Even more obnoxiously, by all accounts Iran was honoring the agreement to not develop nuclear weapons. Look where that got them. The US has now taught every country that they can and will randomly attack you with the justification that you've nearly manufactured viable nuclear weapons regardless of reality. Any country that doesn't have nuclear weapons would be stupid not to develop them at this point. They'll attack you either way, and if you finish before the US attacks, they never will.
1
Luckydog12Mar 30, 2026
-9
Iran regularly arms terrorist organizations. Should terrorists get nukes?
Again, I’m not supporting the US here, but I’m not supporting Iran getting nukes and opening up that risk.
-9
blazesquallMar 30, 2026
+9
The US regularly arms "moderate rebels" and "freedom fighters".. should someone intervene because we might give them nukes? I mean, we practically gave Israel highly enriched uranium.. we're the ones proliferating nukes.
Maybe they need it for navel propulsion systems.. we seen to be carving out exceptions for nuclear powered subs for some countries.
9
Luckydog12Mar 30, 2026
-5
Please, share a modern equivalent group that the US arms to Hamas, Hezbollah, or the Houthis and their recent attacks on civilians population.
-5
blazesquallMar 30, 2026
+6
Of course, thank you. We're a bit more sophisticated and highbrow with it.. You are drawing a line between a 'terrorist group' and a 'state military' but since I know we both share a genuine concern for the slaughter of civilian populations using foreign weapons, you'll see the pattern.
If you want to talk about the Houthis.. we can look at the exact same war in Yemen (remember when Dems killed a war powers act here.. lol). For years, the US armed, trained, and provided logistical support to the Saudi-led coalition. The United Nations and Amnesty International have exhaustively documented how the coalition used US made guided bombs to repeatedly strike Yemeni civilian infrastructure (markets, hospitals, weddings, and a even a school bus full of children). US weapons were used to indiscriminately massacre civilians and create a massive famine.
If you insist on a non-state group.. then let's look at Syria. We poured weapons into 'moderate' rebel groups during the civil war. Many of those groups committed documented atrocities against civilians, and massive stockpiles of US weapons were ultimately seized by or willingly handed over to extreme jihadist factions.
We can get into our proxy's proxy's like in Sudan with the UAE->RSF (or Israel for that matter) if you want.
6
CowboyNealeMar 30, 2026
+1
Israel
1
Luckydog12Mar 30, 2026
+1
Yeah that was the obvious choice. I suppose I meant nongovernmental globally recognized terrorist organization but Israel is hard to argue.
1
no_kids-and-3_moneyMar 30, 2026
+1
We don’t have enough time to list all of the examples.
1
Luckydog12Mar 30, 2026
+4
Let’s start with just one.
4
PhoenixTineldyerMar 30, 2026
+1
> Iran regularly arms terrorist organizations.
And the U.S. doesn't?
1
mok000Mar 30, 2026
+1
It kinda seems like Iran needs those nukes for deterrence though.
1
Examinator2Mar 30, 2026
+1
Iraq had weapon grade uranium as well, until we invaded and there wasn't jack shit.
At any rate, even if they have some the military has no idea how to handle it without killing everyone involved.
1
Luckydog12Mar 30, 2026
+1
Neither of those statements are true.
1
SidewaysFancyPranceMar 30, 2026
+7
So that's the prize they decided on? Seizing some amount of uranium?
7
InsideAside885Mar 30, 2026
+9
Send in a few Marines. Get a few ounces of uranium, get out and declare victory. Then tell Europe, China, and mid-east to figure out the Strait.
That's the off ramp they will take.
9
H4NKSCORP10Mar 30, 2026
+5
I highly doubt Trump could point to Iran, Greenland, Venezuela or even Cuba on a map let alone have some grand geopolitical strategy on what natural resources they have to loot. This idiot puppet is 100% getting orders from behind the scenes (an actual Deep State because every accusation is a confession with Republicans) with the promise of some kickback to line his own pockets at the expense of the American people.
5
OntheragnarockMar 30, 2026
+4
So a smash and grab operation.
4
lhomme_photographeMar 30, 2026
+3
Admiral Ackbar meme
3
skeptolojistMar 30, 2026
+1
Have fun mixing uranium an insurgency and improved explosive devices
This is the kind of decision that will feature in future top ten lists of historically bad decisions
1
GoneSilentMar 30, 2026
+1
I think we are gonna need a few shovels maybe a pick axe too.
1
guttanzerMar 30, 2026
+5
So, they’re going to occupy a country as big as the east coast of the USA, with a population of 90 million that all hate our guts, to look for something about the size of a truck that may or may not exist, and if it does it might be buried hundreds of feet deep? And this country is on the other side of a planet?
What could go wrong? /s
5
BigHungryFlamingoMar 30, 2026
+2
Sounds like a bunch of bullshit but okay.
2
chimaryaMar 30, 2026
+2
I'm surprised they don't want to secure their precious mineral mines as well.
https://www.cnbc.com/2023/03/06/iran-says-its-discovered-worlds-second-largest-lithium-deposit.html
2
def_indiffMar 30, 2026
+2
We will fund the war with ~~oil~~ uranium sales, and we’ll be greeted as liberators.
2
BabyYodaXMar 30, 2026
+1
This is bad. So f****** bad.
1
Accomplished-Pace207Mar 30, 2026
+1
So, everything is about grab and steal from other nations. To summarize.
Venezuela, Greenland, Cuba, Iran, Canada...
1
TheGOPisTheDeepStateMar 30, 2026
+1
Trump: Can’t wait for the “suckers and losers” to die for me when we steal uranium for my family and the Epstein class.
1
16ozbuddzMar 30, 2026
+1
I gotta see this
1
SnootSnootBasiliskMar 30, 2026
+1
So Trump bombed Iran to prevent from using radioactive material to bombs so he could go in and steal radioactive material to make nuclear bombs. Do I have that right?
1
PopularRain6150Mar 30, 2026
+1
Isn’t that a war crime?
1
111anzaMar 30, 2026
+1
He is just trying to pivot to find whatever reason that will stick to explain why we are looking at least 200-300k deployment to Iran.
1
JackBurton___MeMar 30, 2026
+1
The US is just bald faced thieves at this point
1
Adventurous_Test_296Mar 30, 2026
I'm betting this is a false flag to put Pahlavi back there and hand over the wealth, using our troops as security.
47 Comments