· 194 comments · Save ·
News & Current Events May 7, 2026 at 9:57 PM

U.S. destroyers face second round of Iranian attacks

Posted by Guilty-Top-7


U.S. strikes 2 Iranian ports as American warships come under fire
www.cbsnews.com
U.S. strikes 2 Iranian ports as American warships come under fire
Three U.S. Navy destroyers transiting the Strait of Hormuz came under attack on Thursday, and the U.S. struck on two Iranian ports abutting the strait, putting into question an increasingly fragile U.S.-Iran ceasefire.

🚩 Report this post

194 Comments

Sign in to comment — or just click the box below.
🔒 Your email is never shown publicly.
BOPSurfcasting 5 days ago +587
During this ceasefire both sides are only allowed to attack each other a little bit.....not too much.....or else that will be a breach of the ceasefire. A few missiles launched here and there is fine, fire on US Destroyers no problem, bomb a oil port in the U.A.E that's no big deal. As long as nobody breaks the ceasefire.
587
gogreengolions 5 days ago +23
This is like a quote from Catch-22
23
TheGongShow61 5 days ago +145
I think Iran is baiting Trump so he has to face Congress or can be ousted after the mid-terms over this. 
145
SalbakutaMasta 5 days ago +248
Lmao you STILL think Congress gives a f***?
248
Idiot_Savant_13 5 days ago +39
No, and neither does Iran. It does, however, force the U.S. to address the issue publicly - in front of other nations, who may or may not be sizing up the moment. The U.S. has dominated world affairs with might making right... and that might is now being proven to be much like Russia's:: reputation. If the U.S. can't walk the talk, and folks are apt to test the strength, things around the world will change as fast as the petrodollar is.
39
Bigbigbigrock 5 days ago +14
I've been saying this but feel ignored. I think we're not far off being a paper tiger ourselves in this modern age of war. We have most expensive military in the world, and as my independent coworker loves to say, where you find a penny you find corruption. So by his logic we have the most corrupt military in the world and as such our forces are likely far weaker than we project because everyone has been siphoning off money til soldiers are living in moldy barracks eating dogshit food. 
14
LeviAEthan512 5 days ago +16
It seems to me that the US military has an arm and 4 fingers tied behind its back right now. They don't look like they're fighting their hardest, just what they can get away with. Like if you're playing "I'm not touching you", you could maybe get off a forehead flick without mom turning around, but you know just one punch is going to escalate things. Also, Trump's goal is stock manipulation, not a swift victory. This is compared to Russia, which does look like they're throwing all they can at Ukraine, besides nukes, and can't make real gains.
16
HoldFast31 5 days ago +24
I think they're just stuck. They built their entire doctrine around air dominance and it's not working against mountain bunkers full of drones. In order to untie that other arm, they would have to accept large casualty numbers and some serious asset loss. Americans don't have the stomach for either. Imagine the reaction when an air craft carrier and most of its crew ends up at the bottom of the Indian ocean. There's a reason those carrier are parked half an ocean away.
24
Svennis79 5 days ago +19
US power is in shock and awe. Go hard go fast, overwhelm. Iran has shown that if you decentralise and survive the first few weeks, then they don't have the stock to keep it going. And counterong with low cost weapons can make it very expensive very quickly
19
Jamaz 5 days ago +6
The US military is not so much corrupt (e.g., Russia) as it is wasteful (money doesn't go to the right places). It's more logistical incompetence and is FAR less debilitating than having a kleptocratic military - where soldiers and officers steal everything and break ranks at the first sign of combat.
6
garimus 5 days ago +2
While warfare doctrine *is* changing, the major issue with this instance is it being initiated in the first place. No coordinated or experienced general would have even bothered because they'd know it'd be a pointless endeavor. The only thing the U.S. is really proving is how incredibly incompetent its leaders are.
2
TheGongShow61 5 days ago +12
I think the second democrats have majority and an easy case of a codified law being broken, he will be gone. This is that.  You think differently? I don’t think Congress cares about you, I, the country, or anything other than their own greed. But dems will absolutely shit house Trump back - that is unequivocally true.
12
sketchahedron 5 days ago +68
Democrats can impeach him but they can’t remove him from office without a 2/3 supermajority in the Senate.
68
Hungry_Ad_4278 5 days ago +4
Right, and these people don't get that 2/3 super majority isn't happening in the midterms. Democrats will be lucky to win a slim majority in the senate if at all.
4
LogoffWorkout 5 days ago +2
I think the powers that be want him out. He's not useful for them anymore. I think theres a schism on the right between Israel and the Billionaire techbros, and the techbros want him out and Vance in, but they can't alienate the MAGA base. I think they could make it happen now, but they want to wait until after midterms because its going to be a bloodbath, and they want to keep the stink off of Vance.
2
johannthegoatman 5 days ago +18
Republicans have had so many chances to slow or stop Trump's stupidity at every turn (in this administration and beyond), and they've given him their full support every time. I would love for what you're saying to be true but all evidence points to the contrary
18
onebyamsey 5 days ago +2
I could agree with all of that, but do you think the maga base will not falter under Vance?  If he even loses 15% of the base that worships Trump, the GOP is fucked.  They really backed themselves into a corner with Trump.  I get why they did it, but I am so curious how they get out of this hole they dug for themselves 
2
Royal_Airport7940 5 days ago +1
This. The angle is to use Trump as the focal point of everything bad so everyone after can be distanced from accountability. Playbook at old as time
1
Plastic-Fox0293 5 days ago +31
Translation, you'll spend months hoping and then be disappointed and mad. 
31
Vibrant-Shadow 5 days ago +25
Bro. Jan 6th. Nothing. The super classified documents in Mar a lago, in the f****** bathroom... Nothing. Epstein files. Nothing. The corruption runs deep, and was really some 5D chess type shit with appointing certain judges, before hand. You gotta give it to him, he's one squirmy son of a b****. The man has been grifting for decades. He has lawyers that he never paid, for defending him against other lawyers he never paid. He owed the banks so much money they paid him a yearly amount to keep him afloat, in the chances he may someday be able to repay his debts. He's really something else. One man should not have that much power, Trump definitely shouldn't.
25
GTI_88 5 days ago +16
Uh impeaching him doesn’t make him go away unfortunately.
16
Jamaz 5 days ago +4
My prayers are with the last Big Mac that gives the fat f*** a heart attack.
4
InvestmentSorry6393 5 days ago +3
25th amendment would make him go away, and install Vance as president even though he's entirely unlikeable and wouldn't win an election.
3
84Cressida 5 days ago +11
1. The house has to impeach. 2. Senate has to vote to convict. 3. You need 2/3rd majority to remove. Which won’t happen even if they take back both houses.
11
thewerdy 5 days ago +5
No, they need a supermajority to remove him in the Senate. There's no world in which the Dems gain that many votes in these midterms. Republicans won't vote to remove him.
5
DeeMinimis 5 days ago +6
The senate won't have enough votes to remove so he isn't going anyway based on impeachment.
6
IPissExcellentThrows 5 days ago +3
You need much more than a simple majority to remove him lol, keep dreaming
3
dystopianartlover 5 days ago +3
They also have to consider, if gone, what happens. Is a lame duck vance better for the doemocratic party or is a raving like a lunatic lame duck trump better for the democratic party in the next election?
3
blitzkregiel 5 days ago +2
dems have to have more than a simple majority to do anything because they always have dem traitors that will cross the aisle to give them the loss.
2
ScoobiusMaximus 5 days ago +28
You still thinking Congress will do literally anything to impede Trump in any way? Congress has already accepted the bullshit excuse that this "ceasefire" means the 60 days before the president needs to notify congress about military actions has been reset.  Also they let him tear down half of the White House and don't give a f***. Furthermore many of the people currently in congress had their lives directly threatened on January 6th by Trump and still have never made him face a consequence. They have drowned in the kool-aid.  This congress is entirely subservient to Trump. They're an atrophied husk of what was once a theoretical check and/or balance on the office of a man who isn't supposed to be a king, but is being given the powers of one anyways. 
28
DebentureThyme 5 days ago +13
You do realize there is no ousting him after the midterms, right?  There is no path in which we can mathematically have Dems get 67 Senators from these midterms. The House will impeach him, but that solely forces a trial in the Senate.  Without 67 Senators willing to vote to convict, he faces no consequences from impeachment.  We impeached him twice in his first term. The GOP will not cross the aisle to dump him. They all know keeping their heads down is still better than facing political suicide removing him - MAGA would target them, the RNC and donors would ensure they're cut off from funding and leadership. Any that voted to convict and actually caused it to happen would be persona non grata in the GOP. Maybe you get a couple to flip who put country before party, or think dumping him is the only way forward, but you will not get even close to 67 votes needed. Yes, they may want to pivot away from him when it's clear he's toxic for the party and not their future.  But they won't remove him from office.  They'd be shooting themselves in the foot with their voter base that would abandon them if they abandoned Trump.  Theyll be labeled traitors by their own, and risking their own personal safety. They'd seek instead to run out the clock on his term and rebrand around "moving forward" and "austerity," as they'd be facing a likely incoming Dem president after two years of a lame duck Trump.  They would start rebuilding around being opposition, screaming about the debt again (despite doing nothing but ballooning it while in power).  They'll set their sights on retaking the House in 2030 and winning POTUS in 2032. Abandoning him and voting to remove him would ensure a MAGA revolt that at best kills GOP enthusiasm to actually show up to vote, and at worse fractures the party.  They'll never do it.
13
ineververify 5 days ago +3
Iran doesn’t care what congress will or won’t do. It views them as complicit to this nonsense. It’s strategic thinking but you have to be really naive to think any USA administration would succumb to outside pressure to remove their president.
3
MechMan799 5 days ago +3
Iran knows pain. They know suffering. They know hard times. They knew this day would come. They'll play the long game all day, every day.* Americans feeling the pain at the pump for months...that'll scare any US politician. Don't ruin Bubba's time of driving his 1991 Chevy down to the liquor store to pick up some Buds and maybe a Mountain Dew for the morning. That kind of pain and suffering will not be tolerated back home. *the Iranian regime sucks, but they are way more cunning than this administration.
3
RS_EJB 5 days ago +7
Fortunately for him, Iran attacking US military forces after Trump already declared US hostilities being over, enables him to do whatever he likes.
7
myownzen 5 days ago +5
Cause he definitely wasn't doing whatever he likes before this turn of events....
5
CasCrus4L 5 days ago +7
You talk like it matters, like he didn't start this
7
cavalier8865 5 days ago +2
If its not over by then, they will probably end up false flagging JD or Marco as an excuse to delay midterms.
2
Leafybug13 5 days ago +2
Ousted by whom?
2
Poobbly 5 days ago +5
Republicans would rather be exposed as the pedophiles many of them are than go against Trump with a re-election in the future.
5
Admirable-Guest-2560 5 days ago +3
Then they've got another thing coming to them. Trump isn't getting ousted the very idea is ridiculous. 
3
fafatzy 5 days ago +5
Gentleman! No fighting in the war room!
5
takesthebiscuit 5 days ago +2
Love taps only!
2
[deleted] 5 days ago +441
[removed]
441
LeftJabDaz 5 days ago +331
F*** I’d hate to be on the “small boat” team going against some Destroyers.
331
[deleted] 5 days ago +104
[deleted]
104
Bluinc 5 days ago +51
Same. Ah I can hear the 50 cal Chung Chung Chung Chung sound in my head as if it was yesterday — granted all I ever shot at was a killer tomato.
51
DonnieBallsack 5 days ago +20
I hope you got the tomato.
20
Bluinc 5 days ago +15
Sort of. It takes lots of hits to deflate.
15
ImRespondingToABum 5 days ago +6
As tomatoes do
6
harmless_gecko 5 days ago +3
Am tomato, can confirm
3
morrison0880 5 days ago +4
[Return... Of the killer tomatoes!](https://youtu.be/mRbuXRtnMN4?si=ThlPC8g25QeechbA)
4
Possible_Attics 5 days ago +6
Unfortunate acronym
6
Thuradzon 5 days ago +16
That's an absolute suicide mission. Small Boat team vs 3 US Navy Destroyers & whatever aircraft and helicopters the US military deployed for the operation.
16
Possible_Attics 5 days ago +5
I'm surprised they don't have submersible drones. Unless they do
5
yuje 5 days ago +43
How do you know they had crew? It’s trivially easily nowadays to rig up boats as remotely piloted suicide attack vehicles, and well within Iranian capabilities.
43
Snigglybear 5 days ago +44
There’s videos of Iranian troops on the boats. They most likely gig blasted out of the water.
44
SilenceDobad76 5 days ago +4
They arent exhausting the US Navy if thats what youre arguing here.
4
wanderlustcub 5 days ago +2
It’s more about exhausting the patience the American public. Asymmetric war is not about winning via might. It’s through attrition of will. And the U.S. made sure that Iran has a lot more will to survive than the U.S. has the will to win.
2
user745786 5 days ago +3
Humans are probably still cheaper for Iran.
3
RiPPeR69420 5 days ago +9
Well within their capabilities, but they have had a pretty large flotilla of FAICs for decades. It's been the backbone of the IRGCN since they were founded, and they have a bunch of different platforms that can carry everything from machine guns and dumb fire rockets to C802s and torps. They have definitely added drones to the mix, but they've been training for this exact scenario since the 80s. This particular attack might have just been drones but I'd bet a shiny nickel a good portion of the small boats were crewed, mostly to test doctrine and gain battle experience.
9
irregular_caffeine 5 days ago +5
Gain experience on a one way trip
5
Old_Wallaby_7461 5 days ago +2
The US has also been preparing for mass FACs for 40 years- it's what LCS was supposed to be built for. They don't have any substantial AAW capability though. Just autocannons and MANPADS. Helicopters and aircraft can slaughter them
2
RiPPeR69420 5 days ago +7
Autocannons a MANPADs can f*** up your day if you are a helo. I wouldn't bet against the USN in open water, but I wouldn't bet on them in the narrows. Losing a single ship would be disastrous. The USN would have to make a bunch of really stupid moves that I could absolutely see Trump ordering.
7
jideru 5 days ago +10
I’d hate to be on any side here, like said, only one needs to get through.
10
Dopamineagonist21 5 days ago +7
Yea wouldn’t want to be that cannon fodder
7
ResoIver 5 days ago +17
But what if you were doing it for Allah
17
Garrick420 5 days ago +29
Still not really feeling it tbh
29
rawb19 5 days ago +16
42 virgins > 3 guided missile destroyers
16
aaaaaiiiiieeeee 5 days ago +10
You don’t get to choose the virgins
10
HighlordSarnex 5 days ago +18
Tell me about it. None of mine will play World of Warcraft with me :<
18
bearwrestlingwolf 5 days ago +13
Wrong kind of virgins.
13
Confident_Intern_755 5 days ago +2
It’s Star Wars fans innit
2
okram2k 5 days ago +28
so.... oil prices back up again tomorrow, yeah?
28
atcshane 5 days ago +19
Believe it or not, all time stock market highs!
19
Tuesday_6PM 5 days ago +3
Well yeah, it’s about to be the weekend! Gotta pretend things are calming down during the week, then waste billions of dollars blowing shit up after hours
3
TowelCarryingTourist 5 days ago +51
Only one missile needs to get through. Those ships have a finite supply of defensive capability. that isnt a good combination for those on board or the civilians the usa is targeting.  Iran still is not the aggressor here. There is no cease fire. The usa is still at war. this has only made life worse for those being used as one of the excuses for originally attacking.
51
Dreadedvegas 5 days ago +26
US live fire exercises show that American warships can sustain a lot of hits if struck. The last Oliver Hazard Perry Frigate USS Ingraham took a lot of hits from the new NSM antiship missile, AGM-154s, and Harpoons before it sank. And that was without a crew doing damage control. So even if 1 missile gets through, it likely won’t sink the ship.
26
RealisticEntity 5 days ago +5
>So even if 1 missile gets through, it likely won’t sink the ship. That may be so, but I'd think the lives of the crew would be more important than the ship.
5
vand3lay1ndustries 5 days ago +92
A siege definitely used to be considered an act of war during medieval times. 
92
Ratattack1204 5 days ago +116
The US by their own admission is engaging in a naval blockade. A naval blockade by itself is an act of war.
116
VonVader 5 days ago +24
Correct. And technically an act of war against the ships that you are stopping, from any country.
24
ThellraAK 5 days ago +5
Didn't we blockade cuba from russia during the Cold war?
5
OhGodImOnRedditAgain 5 days ago +13
War is not a binary state. Violence tends to escalate. It was absolutely an act of war, and compromises were eventually reached to avoid escalation. The end state of a war between the US and the USSR was a nuclear exchange. A lot of people today don't fully appreciate how close that came to happening.
13
VonVader 5 days ago +5
Yes, and it almost started WW3.
5
EmperorSadrax 5 days ago +15
Is there a difference between a siege and a naval blockade? Because we don’t have enough manpower to lay siege to a country of 90 million people and fulfill all of our other security obligations.
15
nicklor 5 days ago +12
The Iranians are conducting a naval blockade also
12
vand3lay1ndustries 5 days ago +4
Aren’t the airports shut down too?  I guess refugees can escape across land borders though. 
4
moermoneymoerproblem 5 days ago +2
Iran is a relatively large country though
2
Smell_the_funk 5 days ago +10
Relatively? It's about the size of Alaska.
10
hasslefree 5 days ago +3
Relatively to a banana, say..
3
RT-LAMP 5 days ago +4
Ceasefires do not require the ending of blockades.
4
CBT7commander 5 days ago +50
Way more than one missile needs to get through to sink a modern destroyer, and the amount of defensive measures those ships have is not the only thing that’s limited. Iranian stockpiles of capable anti ship missiles are as well
50
ThellraAK 5 days ago +10
Sink, yeah probably could survive quite a few. Damaged enough to be out of service and kill a lot of the crew takes just the one.
10
faceintheblue 5 days ago +8
Way more than one? HMS Sheffield didn't survive an Exocet missile during the Falkland Wars. The Moskva was a cruiser that didn't survive two Neptune missiles. I'm not saying the US Navy isn't the best in the world in many, many ways. They’re also not invulnerable. If a missile hits a destroyer, even if the ship doesn't sink, she'll be combat ineffective, and the worst naval disaster since at least the USS San Francisco ran into an underwater mountain.
8
Old_Wallaby_7461 5 days ago +2
Arleigh Burkes were designed with heavy input from the Sheffield experience, and experience from other craft hit by exocets during the '80s like USS Stark. US warship survivability standards post Falklands were head and shoulders above pre Falklands ships. Sheffield and Moskva were comparable to Spurance and Ticonderoga, not Arleigh Burke
2
kombiwombi 5 days ago +5
The opposite problem is that ships are crammed full of stuff. So the missile will hit *something*. There is a long history of that thing being just disabling enough to turn the odds in favour of a further enemy attack. The US Navy needs some hard questions here. Why is its only choice a $2B destroyer? Isn't this a job for a frigate? Those decades of mismanaged and abandoned frigate development programs are now putting bigger ships and more people at risk.
5
Xenine123 5 days ago +5
The civilians the US is targeting? Can you expand on that?
5
ColdShower96 5 days ago +10
“The civilians the USA is targeting” You are a bafoon
10
newintown11 5 days ago +2
Tell that to the hundred of little girls that the USA bombed to oblivion while they were at school in Iran....
2
ColdShower96 5 days ago +1
Are you under the impression that the USA targeted that school?
1
helloholder 5 days ago +2
Putin is watching closely. I hope we dont put ourselves in the position where we are caught with our pants down.
2
InnocentExile69 5 days ago +10
Iran has been the aggressor for the last 40+ years. I’m no fan of Trump but the sooner the Islamic regime is gone the better.
10
meltbox 5 days ago +14
I don’t know a lot of people are debating that in particular. Most people are focused on the insane strategy this whole method has taken. Decapitate and blockade? With zero effective internal resistance? I mean even our intelligence thought the whole thing was insane and everything we know points to us attacking because Israel did. There was zero plan or strategy here. It’s such a misplay.
14
Devils--Advocate 5 days ago +3
Orange man is dumb, but it on the surface was the best time to take out Iran's regime. Their key ally, Russia, has their hands full. All of their proxies are degraded from what they were a few years ago, and just three weeks before the strikes started they had massive protests against the regime. If only orange man wasn't dumb.
3
Throwaway_6799 5 days ago +4
The reasons we're here start with the USA interfering by removing the democratically elected government of Iran in 1953. Once again, the USA interfering in geopolitics made the world less safe.
4
UCF_Knight12 5 days ago +18
Iran is still not the aggressor here? Lmao
18
faceintheblue 5 days ago +12
Remind me who launched Operation Epic Fury against who? The United States went in looking for regime change through air power, failed, and now we're here. Iran didn't start this war.
12
SuperNobody917 5 days ago +19
I mean you mightn't like them but a blockade is pretty universally considered an act of war. And if we go further back to the start of this current phase of the conflict, it was Israel and America who fired the first shots
19
atxlonghorn23 5 days ago +6
“this current phase” The Islamic Republic of Iran started it in 1979. They have killed lots of Americans through terrorism over the last 50 years. Their leaders say “Death to America” in every speech they give. The US offered them a deal before this current phase started for Iran to hand over their nuclear material in exchange for free fuel for nuclear power forever, but they refused again and started trying to rebuild their nuclear program. On top of that, they killed somewhere around 40,000 of their own people who protested the government in January.
6
Douglas1994 5 days ago +3
Bro, are you unaware of the 1953 Iranian coup d'état?
3
Uhstrology 5 days ago +18
Uh it started when the cia and uk government overthrew the elected prime minister of Iran with a coup to install a puppet regime that would give them access to Iran's oil in the 50s. 
18
Accomplished_Rip_362 5 days ago +3
It started with them invading Greece and the Spartans kicked their ass
3
Tsakax 5 days ago +3
Hope you continue yapping that when your paying 7 dollars a gallon.
3
meltbox 5 days ago +4
As far as I can tell they were on track for some sort of deal until Israel decided they didn’t like the idea of a deal and grabbed Trump by the balls. There was zero strategic value to entering this conflict when we did in the way we did. So dumb.
4
UCF_Knight12 5 days ago +5
The straight up Hormuz is international waterways. Iran is trying to control it. That is against international law. The US is enforcing or trying to enforce a freedom navigation act. Iran shoots missiles and launches drones at them. The US strikes back. Don’t forget all this started on October 7. You forget all the terrorist regimes that Iran funds to act as their proxy against the west.
5
DonnieBallsack 5 days ago +11
The US overturned Iranian elections to install the shah of Iran. And then talks about defending democracy. Maybe you should sit this one out.
11
goforbroke71 5 days ago +4
Man people really fall for propaganda don't they?
4
[deleted] 5 days ago +7
[removed]
7
Status-Image-9181 5 days ago +2
You must be one of those who find a four way stop too difficult.
2
kerkyjerky 5 days ago +3
If this was the case as you say, then why shouldn’t they just go ahead and do it. Since it’s so easy, and Iran has the upper hand, then why wouldn’t they just sink all these destroyers with their incredible prowess and infinite capabilities?
3
faffc260 5 days ago +2
iran has aggressed against the israeli's for decades via proxies, israeli's going to strike anyways was apparently the impetus for the americans joining in, so most of this can be traced back to october 7th as the opening shots in a proxy war gone hot again and the israeli's finally deciding to target the backer of said proxies who OK'd the october 7th attacks.
2
apartheid__clyde 5 days ago +2
Tell that to master tactician Donald Trump
2
fafatzy 5 days ago +1
Iran is blocking the strait f****** all the world economy This is no Ukraine
1
NiewinterNacht 5 days ago +6
Who started this war, again?
6
DonnieBallsack 5 days ago +6
The dumbest US president in history?
6
Guilty-Top-7 5 days ago
I agree. The longer this goes on the more likely a ship gets hit and people get hurt. It’s terrifying.😳
0
Illustrious-Ice6336 5 days ago +11
Many innocent Iranian people have already been killed.
11
Matchett32 5 days ago +12
Yes, mostly by their own government
12
Jatobi1993 5 days ago +8
They didn’t blow up a girl school and call it freedom.
8
dontfigh 5 days ago +2
What are you even trying to say here?
2
KingCroesus 5 days ago +5
Theyre saying the US started a war of aggression and killed hundreds of civilians for no reason
5
Darth_Innovader 5 days ago +6
How does that change the fact that the US and Israel killed 1700 civilians? Whats the relevance
6
Douglas1994 5 days ago +5
Cognitive dissonance?
5
epanek 5 days ago +4
“The ceasefire is still in effect. The attacks were just love taps”. Hmm. Gaslighting earth.
4
the_millenial_falcon 5 days ago +347
Congress *really* needs to take back its war powers.
347
DeMiNe00 5 days ago +204
Elect people to Congress who actually give a f*** first.
204
takesthebiscuit 5 days ago +52
Excuse me, they do give a f***! They value their income, their power, their status and their freedom All of which come from being a Trump sycophant
52
Killer-Iguana 5 days ago +9
No no, you don't understand, they need to pass an act condemning any affiliation with ***reads notes*** a twitch streamer. They don't have time for a war powers act.
9
Independent_Tea_33 5 days ago +30
Like concerns about the debt, congressional oversight is for blue presidents
30
Kurichan77 5 days ago +2
Congress belongs to the colony in Palestine. This could not be going better for the colony.
2
MrGrieves- 5 days ago +2
The Republican controlled congress isn't going to do that to daddy Trump.
2
coreychch 5 days ago +122
The war that’s not-a-war is over, and there’s a ceasefire that’s not-a-ceasefire in place. Got it.
122
The_Existentialist 5 days ago +15
Um it's not a war. But it is a war. But the war was over on day 1. But actually wars can be fought forever. Ok but it was an operation and that operation is done. We have a new operation, but it doesn't matter because we're close to a deal, although we need to keep bombing, but it doesn't count.
15
BOPSurfcasting 5 days ago +13
The fast boats don't engage warships, they'd get wiped out if they did. What they do is harass the warships, ignore radio warnings and close the distance etc, but from a safe distance. When it hits the news that Iran launched missiles, drones and fast boats at US warships it intimidates commercial shipping and raises insurance costs.
13
TiredOfDebates 5 days ago +2
The president referred to these attacks as a “trifle”.
2
WhaleSexOdyssey 5 days ago +105
Totally still a ceasefire tho
105
YakResident_3069 5 days ago +18
Lebanon: hey over here, it's me.
18
Rizeres 5 days ago +16
Obviously it's because they used missiles instead of fire. It's a ceasefire, not a ceasemissile
16
samhouse09 5 days ago +35
Didn’t DUI Pete declare the strait of Hormuz stuff was different than epic fury? A completely different operation? So the cease fire doesn’t apply, right?
35
Guilty-Top-7 5 days ago +15
Yup
15
Gustomucho 5 days ago +5
They halted project freedom cause the Saudi told Trump he cannot use its airspace to do the operation…. Allies in the region don’t see America as a protection anymore, that will be a big problem down the line. Trump is killing the US influence in the middle-east as it gave Iran much bigger influence than if it developed Nuke. If Iran used a Nuke, the whole western hemisphere would be joining the war… Now, oil fields, ports, US base are all getting hit, showing USA military dominance is failing.
5
Off-BroadwayJoe 5 days ago +19
Maybe I’ve been misinformed about what a cease-fire is
19
hesawavemasterrr 5 days ago +6
Totally not a war at all guys /s
6
Spacepickle89 5 days ago +5
Ceasefires have changed man
5
endeend8 5 days ago +96
They’re testing irgc response and surveillance capabilities of the strait. Also certainly tracking telemetry of Iranian anti shipping missiles and recording all the launch sites and vehicles. The IRGC are likely throwing older missiles at them for the same.
96
fec2245 5 days ago +61
If the IRGC could hit them why would they hold back? They're using what they have.
61
BOPSurfcasting 5 days ago +54
The IRGC just need to stop tankers coming through, not US warships..... unless those US warships can carry 2-3 million barrels of oil through the strait.
54
faceintheblue 5 days ago +44
To put this in context armchair generals might understand more clearly, during the Second World War German U-Boats were not trying to sink the destroyers and corvettes that hunted them. Firing a torpedo at an e***** ship was only done in life-or-death self-defense. The U-Boats were there for the merchantmen trying to make their way to the British Isles. Strangling the UK's ability to wage war was Germany's best chance to win, or at least limit it to a one-front war against the Soviet Union. Iran doesn't get much by sinking a US Navy ship. In fact, that is almost certainly going to pull down a disproportionate response from the United States as Trump tries to save face. No, harass and harry to demonstrate the Strait is contested achieves Iran's war aim of making the Strait too risky for oil tankers to transit. That's their equivalent to Germany attacking the convoys supplying Britain. That's how they force the United States to admit it cannot win.
44
fec2245 5 days ago +3
Iran would gain a ton of leverage if they showed their military was far more capable than people thought and if they could push the US Navy further from their shores. There's no reason. To think they're holding back other than Listnook's admiration of the IRGC leading to them overstating their capabilities.
3
this_dudeagain 5 days ago +6
Iran is worried about Destroyers protecting said tankers while going through the straight.
6
fec2245 5 days ago +34
That's a better argument than "they're not even trying, these were their old missiles anyway", that argument (made by a different person) was just a pro-Iran account cope posting.
34
alemorg 5 days ago +13
That’s what the military is doing, I think trump is just sending destroyers through to show that it’s possible to break the strait of Hormuz. He keeps doing this every single time the market starts dipping
13
DownwardSpirals 5 days ago +1
Remember, older missiles or not, those ships only have *so much* ammo. Then, they're kinda fucked until backup arrives.
1
Pro-Masturbator 5 days ago +4
Same applies to Iran, especially if their potshots invite reprisals that destroy their launchers. Cant launch a good missile if your launch crew died firing a crappy one.
4
psychocandy007 5 days ago +26
The war is over folks. Has been for weeks. This is just more fake news from the liberal media. /s
26
jimbopalooza 5 days ago +5
Iran has no military left!
5
Careless_Guitar_463 5 days ago +9
What does this tell us relative to the US gov.'s insistence that the war isn't ramping up again and that there have not been any ceasefire violations?
9
Darth_Innovader 5 days ago +8
Did people believe that?
8
xxxxxxxsandos 5 days ago +3
That was for my brokerage account.
3
[deleted] 5 days ago +13
[deleted]
13
SawDust_Creations 5 days ago +8
In two weeks….
8
AvgChrisEnergy 5 days ago +3
Stay safe and come on home, troops! So they can try to take your VA healthcare and disability away!
3
caliboy559 5 days ago +3
Trump is in no hurry to end his war
3
SublimiNOLE_msg 5 days ago +14
How is this possible? I was told their entire military—ground, navy, and air were completely obliterated.
14
multic94 5 days ago +5
Im so sick of this ceasefire narrative. Once a single shot is fired by either side the ceasefire is over. On the spot. Without question.
5
CaveDances 5 days ago +4
The U.S. military has been decapitated by a corrupt US regime. Trump and Hegseth are firing the competent generals and replacing them with yes men. They started the war with no planning. They like thumping their chest and making threats, and that isn’t diplomacy. The military is the strongest on Earth and it isn’t even close, but they’re bogged down by incompetence at the top.
4
Dying2Learn 5 days ago +2
Is this the U.S. version of a “special military operation?”
2
beflacktor 5 days ago +2
iran " u know those tankers you were gona e*****...well". proceeded to torch every tanker sitting on the gulf side of the strait .........
2
JayPlenty24 5 days ago +2
I thought Trump said all Irans boats floated to the bottom of the ocean like dead butterflies?
2
Guilty_Passenger4483 4 days ago +2
He's fucked this deal up so badly. This will take years to recover from, worldwide.
2
NMLEOC2 5 days ago +17
Impossible - the Prez said hostilities are over and there is a ceasefire that is holding with his trusted partners in Tehran. Remember, he also said any attacks on US forces would result in a resumption of the war and that hasn’t happened…. Oh yeah, I forgot this administration is full of shit and has no skill at war-fighting. My sincere apologies.
17
legbreaker 5 days ago +5
Yeah, since he drew a red line with US boats being targets, Iran has attacked at least 4 US boats and Trump just sits on his thumbs. Imagine being on those boats and seeing the US just take it.
5
jimbopalooza 5 days ago +10
Wait a minute. I was told Irans military was completely obliterated. I was told that several times. You mean that’s not true?
10
sharp11flat13 5 days ago +2
But it *is* true, iran’s military capability has been reduced by 600%. /s
2
reddititty69 5 days ago +4
Is it really a seasfire? A lot of people think it’s a seesfire, but no, it’s a seasfire.
4
askjeeves29 5 days ago +2
I cant imagine being a SWO in the mix right now D: wheres my conn at we need to lock in
2
Housendercrest 5 days ago +4
It’s so peaceful, it’s crazy.
4
Bassturd-man 5 days ago +3
I love how the article says Mr. Trump instead of President Trump. 🙄
3
Shirolicious 5 days ago +4
No, no, those were peace boats and drones….
4
SpeakerOdd 5 days ago +2
Where are the attacks coming from? We have been told they have no Navy nor Airforce. We were told we destroyed all their weapons. Are we supplying them? Or is just Trimp selling them so he makes a profit of the war he started. Isreal destroyed the oil fields, so this must be it!
2
bannerad 5 days ago +2
How many times now have we sunk their whole navy? Its so hard to believe US is actually winning.
2
sharp11flat13 5 days ago +3
Asymmetric success. To win the war it started, the US has to achieve regime change, install a democratic government and stabilize Iranian society. All the Iranian regime has to do is survive. If a shooting war were all it would take to topple the Ayatollahs, smarter presidents would have done it years ago. But they were smarter presidents who listened to their military leaders.
3
Webecomemonsters 5 days ago +3
Democratic? lol, no way our admin wants that. They want a puppet like the Shah
3
gamerprincess1179 5 days ago +1
So much for diplomacy
1
← Back to Board