ListNook

Creative_Ad_8338 Apr 12, 2026 +560

The two week "cease fire" was nothing more than the US realizing it failed and required more time to bring in additional missiles. These "talks" were nothing more than buying time. Guaranteed Iran is doing the same.

560

ArugulaElectronic478 Apr 12, 2026 +151

I don’t think more missiles will win this war. The war was lost before it even started.

151

Kaiisim Apr 12, 2026 +116

One of the exact things that US MILITARY told Trump. They are low on interceptors and it is more expensive and takes longer to replenish those stocks than Iran to replenish theirs.

116

thepianoman456 Apr 12, 2026 +6

Was there actually reporting on this? I don’t doubt it, and I’ve heard similar stuff about our munitions depletion rate, but I didn’t hear anything directly about the military warning Trump / Hegseth about this. I wonder if some of those now-fired generals were canned for warning people that this war won’t work out in anyone’s favor.

6

Yangmits Apr 12, 2026 +6

Well, you wouldn't want to announce to potential enemies that you are low on defensive munitions or even offensive ones for that matter. The truth is probably somewhere in between.

6

TSL4me Apr 12, 2026 +6

Yea, its all out in various congressional hearings. Israel is also low and we would need a massive domestic manufacturing mobilization to continue at this rate.

6

Particular_Main_5726 Apr 12, 2026 +29

The war isn't with Iran; it's with the US public. This is my own tinfoil hat thinking right now, but I genuinely think that the administration is going to use the Iran war to draft people that they consider undesirable but who they can't necessarily detain or deport without significant push back. The tyrant's war with Iran also gives him free reign to manipulate US markets to some extent, which in turn gives him the ability to arbitrarily increase his own fortune. Even if the war were ordered ended, *and* by some miracle there was enough pushback and resistance within our own government to actually enforce such an order, he'd merely set his sights against those he deems "traitors" and round them up anyway. In Trump's eyes, any outcome of the war is good because he "wins" regardless. Like I said, this is my own conspiratorial thinking, but ... Given how things have gone, it doesn't seem (to me) that far beyond the pale of what we've already seen.

29

Siderophores Apr 12, 2026 +8

War is terrible, and just an excuse to kill your brothers and sisters. Become a conscientious objector

8

Consistent-Throat130 Apr 12, 2026 +9

I believe military voting rights are pretty well established and protected. In fact, I'd go so far as to say that's probably the safest place to vote. Now, arbitrarily increasing his and his lakeys wealth is definitely a "benefit" to the conflict. I'm expecting either a nuclear discharge against Iran or severe (likely false flag) cyber attack against the US in October - some sort of manufactured emergency, basically -which'll be used as an excuse to grab at power and cement the regime. Think about it - Iran genuinely has non-zero cyber capabilities - but it's better for the US to control the timing. Blame that emergency and federally "offer" cyber security for the vending machines...

9

Particular_Main_5726 Apr 12, 2026 +3

I'm inclined to agree with you; though I still think they're going to push for a draft. Trump's proven that he can do nearly whatever he wants because the people, it seems, have forgotten that we hold the monopoly on violence over our government. So... In my mind, he'll be quick to exploit that to try and concentrate his power by targeting specific groups/individuals with a draft.

3

Consistent-Throat130 Apr 12, 2026 +6

It's a dumbass move. Not that that would stop bone spurs... They're just gonna bring back fragging if they pull that shit. As for monopoly in violence, I think you got that backwards - the government is established to hold the monopoly on violence (hypothetically) on behalf of the people.

6

quinn943 Apr 12, 2026 +2

Second amendment baby! But for real no matter the interpretation on the militia part the intent was to safeguard the states and people against the feds.

2

Particular_Main_5726 Apr 12, 2026 +6

The idea of "interpreting" what any of the document means has always been crazy to me. It's plainly obvious why the 2A was added: The founders had *literally* just, not even two decades prior, fought a war for their independance against their own government. The notion that it was for "state militias for security against foregin adversaries" has always been nonsense, since the US army was formed *at the same time* as the 2A was written; the 2A was, and has always, clearly been meant to enshrine the idea that the People maintain the "right" to amend, adjust, or dissolve their government by the collective threat of force, if deemed necessary, specifically by ensuring their right to bear the arms required to do so, just as the 1A *specifically* protects people in things like protest, political discource, etc. If the amendments are read in order, they all follow a similar, coheseive thread of thinking: * 1A: The People have the right to critisize and protest an unjust government, and the government attempting to curtail, control or dissuade such discourse is, itself, unjust, which necessarily shoehorns into... * 2A: The People have the right to force their government to comply with their desire for fair, better governance, should the government decide otherwise. * 3A: The government shall not utilize it's own "threat of force" by quartering their soldiers in the homes of citizens; * 4A: Nor shall the government use the disatisfaction of government as a means to search or seize the property of someone who may dissent against the government; * 5A: Nor shall the government coerce or compel someone to admit wrongdoing or treason by virtue of their dissatisfaction, etc; * And so on. The first batch of consitutional amendments are literally set to be "the rules of engagement," specifically intended to be referred to as a baseline "list of grievences" that can be used as a collective rally for the People, by establishing that these things are non-negotiable - e.g. "Rights."

6

melonbreadings Apr 12, 2026 +2

I've also interacted with people who "interpret" the word "militia" in the 2A in a vacuum and anachronistically, as if it can't possibly be about the domestic government itself. They've always been older people. It feels like it would be easier to describe what color is to a blind person. It's as if they have it stuck in their head that the government can only be some kind of separate, monolithic entity, instead of also being, you know, just a bunch of citizens doing jobs that people want done.

2

Liatin11 Apr 12, 2026 +2

And taking into account the bill of rights was added to the constitution to garner support for those who were opposed against a central government where they may end up repeating what just happened with the revolutionary war. Seems pretty obvious to me

2

Smart_Resist615 Apr 12, 2026 +2

It was the opposite. The militias were called up by the feds to suppress the people during the whisky rebellion and Shay's rebellion. The idea was that a standing military stood in opposition to long term freedom so instead when they were needed you could call up all sorts of frontiersman, rough riders, and other surly characters to do the fighting for the state instead.

2

Particular_Main_5726 Apr 12, 2026 +1

The government's only authority to govern is *specifically* derived from the will of the People; I mean, regardless of what those *in government* believe, that's just how it works. The right to govern is specifically granted *by* the People, not *over* them; conversely, it is that self-same will that the People that "allows" us to *rescind* the right to govern. This has long since been established as "how it works," not just here - but everywhere; People can only be governed if they specifically allow themselves to be. Unfortunately, here, most individuals have become far too comfortable to want to risk their lives and livlihoods for the sake of a "better government" or a "better tomorrow," etc. I *do* believe that a nontrivial number of people would heed whatever call to reform things existed if such a call already had significant traction, but that becomes this weird chicken/egg problem where such a movement can't exist without participation, but nobody wants to participate because no such movement yet exists, etc.

1

Snarfbuckle Apr 12, 2026 +1

> They're just gonna bring back fragging if they pull that shit. Did it ever go away...

1

regular-cake Apr 12, 2026 +3

And just look at Russia and ask yourself, does this war seem to be benefitting Russia? And the answer is a F*** YEAH it is. Luckily Ukraine is doing all they can to keep Russia from being able to sell oil at these high prices, but Russia has had sanctions lifted, America stopped sending any military aide to Ukraine, and people aren't nearly as focused on the Ukraine war... All good for Russia and brought to you by Trump.

3

Particular_Main_5726 Apr 12, 2026 +1

>And just look at Russia and ask yourself, does this war seem to be benefitting Russia? Everything this administration does is to the benefit of Russia. Russia got him elected both times. Hell, there's even the [2019 Senate Report](https://www.congress.gov/committee-report/116th-congress/senate-report/290/1) that effectively says "The 2016 election was won by Trump specifically because Russia interferred with the election." Moreover, remember when the GRU *specifically* "Hacked" into state-level election servers (Georgia and Michigan) to wipe them *after* those states were specifically ordered by judges *not* to do so? [https://nadler.house.gov/news/documentsingle.aspx?DocumentID=391152](https://nadler.house.gov/news/documentsingle.aspx?DocumentID=391152) It's wild to me that the average person seems to not understand that Russia, effectively, defeated the United States not with bombs or bullets, but with our own ignorance and apathy... and it's even *more* wild to me that nobody (broadly speaking; collectively) seems to give much of a shit about it... considering what has happened to us *specifically because* of Russia.

1

ShortStoryLongSigh Apr 12, 2026 +1

Half the country wanted him to win, regardless of how. They think the most American thing is a foreign government interfering in an American election.

1

Particular_Main_5726 Apr 12, 2026 +1

Half? Not so much. Maybe a third. That also doesn't change the US Senate specifically found evidence of interference so severe that it literally "won" him the election in 2016. Make no mistake: He didn't actually win. Not by popular vote, nor by the electoral college. He "won" because of Russia, and manipulated votes. He cheated, and they helped him cheat. To suggest anything otherwise is an insult to your own intelligence.

1

8livesdown Apr 12, 2026 +2

> The war isn't with Iran; it's with the US public. You should've stopped with your first sentence. It's really just about tweets and social media followers. There is no other hidden agenda.

2

Particular_Main_5726 Apr 12, 2026 +1

There is no *hidden* agenda, but there are many agendas; every sycophant in the administration has their own agenda. The Kremlin, which still has some level of influence over the administration, has their own agenda. Trump has his own agenda, and the billionaires supporting this administration have *their* own agendas. It is, in my experience, a foolish thing to merely believe the "Trump is just an idiot." Ignorance is necessarily self-sabotaging by virtue that ignorance lacks intent - an idiot knows not that they are an idiot. Malice, by contrast, often succeeds specifically *because malice requires intention and thus forethought*. Put another way: I look at this administration through a Reverse Occam's Razor; There are simply too many "coincidences" that conspire or coalesce together for the behavior we've seen to be explained by anything *other than* malice. The most disasterous thing the People of our nation ever did was wrongfully assume that Trump was merely an idiot. In reality, he is *pretending* to be an idiot... which is far, far more dangerous.

1

8livesdown Apr 13, 2026 +1

Not this time. Seriously... it's just tweets. When Trump feels neglected on twitter, he increases sanctions... reduces sanctions... or does something to get attention.

1

zoodles Apr 13, 2026 +1

So do you think they might use voter registration data combined with records from the IRS, social media posts, every piece of data that DOGE got their paws on and even biometric image data collected by Palentir at anti-ice protests and using all of that create a massive draft roll of all the democrat voters and others that irritate the regime? There was that one ICE agent who told that woman she was “now on a list”.

1

8livesdown Apr 12, 2026 +3

Walking away will win this war. When Trump will "declares victory" and leaves, the strait will open.

3

jacobythefirst Apr 12, 2026 +1

The only way to win was to do a actual invasion of Iran and manually overthrow the government. Which Trump would never do cause he TACOs and it’s political suicide.

1

ttn333 Apr 13, 2026 +1

Lol. Just like how we won in Iraq and Afghanistan? OK.

1

_Nightbreaker_ Apr 12, 2026 +101

Plus Gaddafi, Native-Americans, and many others have proven that the U.S. never keeps its promises. Not now nor in the past.

101

rebellion_ap Apr 12, 2026 +21

Should have started with the first treaty we ever signed and who did what to break it. The US has always been this way, *few* people in the states are finally waking up to this reality.

21

Admiral_Tuvix Apr 12, 2026 +11

missiles didn’t accomplish anything, we fired nearly a thousand tomahawks, bunker busters and Iranians are still getting shit off. the only this ends is with a massive ground invasion to permanently destroy all their underground mountain facilities. and I’m not sure people are prepared for the thousands of troops who will die for that

11

MikeOKurias Apr 12, 2026 +24

>the only [way] this ends is with... That fat f***** choking on a Big Mac or Johnson growing a johnson and empeaching that worthless piece of schist. FTFY

24

Hotrian Apr 12, 2026 +7

I appreciate that you used “f*****” but censored “schist”.

7

MikeOKurias Apr 12, 2026 +2

I don't want them to know that I'm the ICE Critic.

2

WreckNTexan48 Apr 12, 2026 +7

It was signaled, you should have bought into the Arms industry stocks

7

Creative_Ad_8338 Apr 12, 2026 +22

I must not be on the same Signal chat with you and Pete Hegseth. Edit: or maybe they've openly moved it to a pump and dump discord 🤣

22

Krillin113 Apr 12, 2026 +4

The same ones that are currently showing their state of the arms weaponry can’t really protect against a barrage of missiles, let alone do so cost effectively?

4

Adventurous_Tea_2198 Apr 12, 2026 +1

doesn't matter as long as the order contracts get signed imo

1

FuhrerInLaw Apr 12, 2026

Over 90% of missiles intercepted, believe what you want but we would have far more US soldiers/Israeli civilians dead. Nothing is 100% effective, as seen by Ukraine and Russia war. Launch 1000s of drones and missiles and some will hit yes as seen by hundreds of thousands of dead Eastern Europeans. Cost effectiveness is what those defense companies don’t care about as much, more missiles more money. Iran is looking at thousands of dead IRGC members and even more dead civilians.

0

MadRoboticist Apr 12, 2026 +2

Defense stocks don't really get much movement from conflict. They only really move when a government contract is announced.

2

TomMikeson Apr 12, 2026 +1

They actually haven't gone up that much.

1

FuhrerInLaw Apr 12, 2026 +2

They were pretty highly valued even before the war, took a decent drop after the news and if I had to guess are going to grind up with more news of ceasefire talks falling through.

2

TomMikeson Apr 12, 2026 +1

I just mean that they are higher priced, not very volatile. They are usually seen as just being stable. But they don't show the massive upswings that these shitheads love to profit on.

1

SpeshellED Apr 12, 2026 +2

US Intelligence?

2

Creative_Ad_8338 Apr 12, 2026 +2

At one point it meant something... now it's an oxymoron. 😒

2

IRedditWhenHigh Apr 12, 2026 +2

Also market manipulation.

2

shicken684 Apr 12, 2026 -10

The one thing the US military has prided itself in is it's logistics. And it's always been exceptional. I highly doubt the US needed time to bring in ammunition. I have no idea where this narrative came from but it's kind of silly.

-10

biggronklus Apr 12, 2026 +5

Logistics doesn’t mean there’s infinite supplies everywhere on earth, the US expended a huge amount of munitions and will need to ship it over, that takes days and hundreds of flights or a couple of weeks by sea. The absolutely do need to bring in more munitions and it won’t be instant

5

Creative_Ad_8338 Apr 12, 2026 +12

Narrative? They didn't plan this far ahead. They thought it would be over by now... They literally told everyone the US won. 😂

12

mtb443 Apr 12, 2026 +122

“How dare someone interfere with a war I started”

122

Who_Dafqu_Said_That Apr 12, 2026 +15

Also funny how we're against weapon sales. I thought more weapons made a place more peaceful? We don't want the federal government telling these people how to live or what pieces of metal they can't own. Sovereign state's rights!

15

plain_handle Apr 12, 2026 +311

They have already landed raw materials in Iran [https://x.com/TheStudyofWar/status/2040610378867167700](https://x.com/TheStudyofWar/status/2040610378867167700)

311

sanyam303 Apr 12, 2026 +38

Great news.

38

52-61-64-75 Apr 12, 2026 -182

I'm against the war but that doesn't change the fact that the regime f****** sucks, having weapons with which to blow up ships isn't a good thing

-182

Jimmycartel Apr 12, 2026 +270

The same can be said about the US regime and Israeli regime.

270

Zestyclose_Use7055 Apr 13, 2026 +3

So you think it’s great news that the Iranian regime has more weapons? The same regime that executes women for making TikTok’s or wearing jeans? The same regime that opens fire on peaceful protestors killing thousands? You think it’s great news that regime has more weapons with which to kill innocent Iranian civilians, which is what they that regime was doing well before this war started?

3

52-61-64-75 Apr 12, 2026 -72

Yeah and I don't think I've ever said "great news" about the US or Israel getting a weapons delivery

-72

Justintime4u2bu1 Apr 12, 2026 +46

Can’t wait until Antarctica gets their weapon shipment so they can finally fight back against these totalitarian regimes. Everyone thinks that they are above Antarctica, and IM SICK OF IT!

46

0b0011 Apr 12, 2026 +23

You shall not touch the emperors.

23

emsnei Apr 12, 2026 +6

The penguins?

6

sanyam303 Apr 12, 2026 +87

Every country has defensive weapons and Israel killed all the level headed people in Iran to ensure continued destabilization of the middle east. The root of all problems is US-Israel.

87

52-61-64-75 Apr 12, 2026 -95

Every country does have defensive weapons, but that's not always a good thing, for example in this case.

-95

regular-cake Apr 12, 2026 +50

So why is it okay for the US to block the water and all shipments to cuba starving them of oil and fuel, but not okay for Iran to block the water and shipments next to them when they're being attacked? Make it make sense Jan...

50

52-61-64-75 Apr 12, 2026 -8

It isn't, I never said it was, why do you think I think it is

-8

regular-cake Apr 12, 2026 +20

Did you not say it was so bad that Iran had weapons that could blow up ships? Every country has weapons that can blow up merchant ships... News flash, they float on water and could be blown up with a big enough rock and catapult. Iran is being attacked by countries that don't like to play by the rules. Hell they were blowing up fishing vessels outside Venezuela not long ago. If I was Iran I'd make damn sure no vessels or ships came anywhere near my country unless I knew exactly what they were and I could benefit from them. Hell it's their strait now. Good job Chump!

20

52-61-64-75 Apr 12, 2026 +4

>Did you not say it was so bad that Iran had weapons that could blow up ships? Yes, and if Cuba was using it's military to attack civilian vessels not belonging to the US I'd think that was bad as well, I'm still confused by your argument. >Iran is being attacked by countries that don't like to play by the rules. Yes, and despite people ignoring it, I've repeatedly stated that is bad, but I also don't have any love for the government/regime/theocracy/whatever else you wanna call it in Iran, and don't want to see them strengthened by this, and I think its stupid when people express views in favour of them. Two things can be true at once, the US and Israel can be fighting an illegal, unjustified and imperialist war against Iran, and the government of Iran can suck. I also think it's dumb when people conflate being against Israel bombing and invading and genociding Gaza with Hamas being good, Hamas are awful and evil, that just doesn't justify Israel's actions in Gaza.

4

regular-cake Apr 12, 2026 +11

Iran isn't attacking ANY vessel, they are attacking US and Israel allies vessels. Those vessels are providing oil and fuel to the countries that are unjustifiably attacking Iran. You could even say cargo carriers and what not are funding the war against Iran. Do you also think Ukraine shouldn't be attacking Russian oil terminals and Russian vessels that fund Russia's war against Ukraine?

11

elvesandnutella Apr 12, 2026 +2

Why do you love war so much?

2

52-61-64-75 Apr 12, 2026 +2

literally how the f*** do you read anything i've said and come to that conclusion, what the f***? I've repeatedly stated i'm against this conflict, I just think EVERYONE involved in it is bad, not just Israel and the US, how the everloving f*** do people conflate me thinking the regime in Iran is evil with being pro this war? I swear this site is braindead

2

Evolone101 Apr 12, 2026 +21

Maybe we should have left them alone. ???? Left the policies Obama had in place ? Instead the man baby and his idol are killing woman and children. !!

21

52-61-64-75 Apr 12, 2026 -1

Yes, my agreement with this sentiment was expressed in the first sentence of the post you replied to, a sentence clearly nobody read considering how controversial my comment appears to have been

-1

Admiral_Tuvix Apr 12, 2026 +24

Calling a regime won’t delegitimize their government anymore than we’ve already tried. the only reason we’re in this mess is because previous Iranian leaders were dumb enough not to get nukes immediately

24

rrfe Apr 12, 2026 +14

tHE rEgIMe. I never thought the US and its satrapies would be stupid enough to embroil themselves in two Middle East quagmires in my lifetime.

14

scotchtree Apr 12, 2026 +14

If they limit it to Americans, the rest of the world won’t care.

14

52-61-64-75 Apr 12, 2026 -12

They obviously won't though, they've been funding terrorist groups in the region for decades, they've killed thousands of their own citizens, they've shot at civilian targets in the gulf. The war was a mistake and the US is imperialist and morally wrong in most of the wars they fight, and Trump and Netenyahu are war criminals, please don't get me wrong, but the Iranian regime is horrific and nobody should be supporting them

-12

HonestBalloon Apr 12, 2026 +15

Yawn, I'm bored of this narrative, can we get something more realistic now please?

15

lokken1234 Apr 12, 2026 +2

This is the realistic thing, theres no good and bad guys like in the books you read.

2

52-61-64-75 Apr 12, 2026 +6

Sorry, which part of my comment was wrong? Do you think Trump and Netenyahu are not war criminals or that Iran hasn't shot at civilian targets in the gulf? Or that they don't repress their own population?

6

qwerty080 Apr 12, 2026 -17

You are "bored" because it doesn't help with your tribal politics. When it comes to bashing Israel or USA then at no time will your types be bored but terrorist funding iran which murders anyone who doesn't like the regime and allows child marriages, including hour long "marriage" (sigheh) are likely instantly "boring" to you.

-17

Mediocre-Ochre Apr 12, 2026 +3

Yet every time we try to intervene in a situation like this, the regime only gets worse/more extreme and the people of said country only suffer more.

3

regular-cake Apr 12, 2026 +2

Israel and the US have destabilized the whole world multiple times over. Has Iran gone around kidnapping presidents and attacking other countries unprovoked? Who the hell do you think started ISIS, hamas, and all these "terrorist" groups that seem to never strike America or Israel. They got their big bad boogie man that they can cry to their citizens about and use as propaganda to start wars and do shit like regime change whenever they want.

2

ToranjaNuclear Apr 12, 2026 +2

Iran has the right to defend itself. Neither Israel nor the US have any kind of moral high ground over them.

2

52-61-64-75 Apr 12, 2026 +1

Agreed, I clarified this repeatedly throughout this thread, that still doesn't mean Iran having weapons they can use to shoot at other countries is a good thing, and doesn't make the regime any less evil

1

ToranjaNuclear Apr 12, 2026

It's just as bad or good as any other countries receiving weapons to defend themselves. I don't see any issue with Ukraine getting weapons, would be hypocritical to have an issue with Iran. It's not like these other countries being attacked are completely innocent either, not only because of their ties with the US but also because they are all complicit in Sudan's genocide.

0

52-61-64-75 Apr 12, 2026 +1

I think Ukraine is different, in that A. They are not an oppressive dictatorship with a history of repressing their people and abusing human rights, and B. They aren't using the weapons they have to shoot at other people with relatively little to do with the conflict with Russia. If Ukraine had as poor a human rights record as Iran does, and responded to the Russian invasion by bombing Iran and North Korea as well as Russian bases in Belarus, then I think supporting them would be a lot less reasonable. Iran has a history of oppressing it's population, killing thousands of it's citizens (this is undoubtedly true even if you disagree with the ridiculously large estimates of deaths during the protests), and a history of persecuting religious minorities, and supporting groups with a history of killing civilians and attacking UN peacekeepers and commercial shipping. To say them having weapons is as good as Ukraine having weapons ignores a lot of history and context, and makes a complex and nuanced situation out to be far more black or white than it is. Real life has nuance, everyone involved in this war is bad, the war is bad, I don't understand this need to automatically pick a side, it can be acknowledged that all the belligerents in the war suck

1

ToranjaNuclear Apr 12, 2026

Iran being an oppressive regime doesn't annul the fact that the US and Israel are also actively targeting and murdering their citizens and threatening their existence -- remember Trump's threat of "ending an entire civilization". I know people love making light of the shit he says but that's not a threat one does lightly. It's a matter of survival for Iran. Also, while Israel and the US might not have a (recent) history of oppressing their own population but they sure do it with the populations of other countries. Just see what Israel did to Palestine, and that the US has been doing for decades in the middle East and Latin America. They are just as bad if not worse than Iran in some aspects. Real life has nuance, and you're the one ignoring it and boiling it down to "Iran bad" without analysing the whole context.

0

trollsong Apr 12, 2026 +1

Neither is the inability to distinguish sarcasm

1

52-61-64-75 Apr 12, 2026 +1

people have literally spent 8 hours arguing with me in detail about how i'm wrong, while maybe the comment I replied to was sarcastic, there is no way all of the replies I have received have been

1

Asleep_Document9811 Apr 12, 2026 +1

There are ways for a country to help and encourage partisans in another county, especially in cases like Iran, where women are radically suppressed and they have a system of apartheid set up for religious minorities. Our (supposed) values line up with a democratic Iran. We could have helped with _that._ However, firing missiles at girls' schools is _not_ one of those ways.

1

kharban Apr 12, 2026

Actually the best outcome for planet earth and the human race is when the US and Israel are deterred.

0

Expert-Account-5235 Apr 12, 2026

Still doesn't give the U.S the right to play world police. This (Legally) is not the way to tackle a sovereign nation's problems.

0

52-61-64-75 Apr 12, 2026 +2

Yeah, that's what "I'm against the war" means, it was my first sentence

2

Zestyclose_Use7055 Apr 13, 2026 -3

Those weapons are just as likely to be used against innocent Iranian or GCC civilians. Guess you think that’s great news.

-3

Pale_Sell1122 Apr 12, 2026 +40

How dare Iran purchase air defenses systems while the US is threatening to end it's civilization /s

40

flaptaincappers Apr 12, 2026 +51

The US under Trump: We can do whatever we want because strength is all that matters and international law is bullshit Also the US under Trump: NOOOOOO CHINA NOOOOOOO! Stop doing whatever you want!

51

SuzieQ1818 Apr 12, 2026 +117

So only the US is allowed to send weapons to other countries?

117

Umami_Tsunamii Apr 12, 2026 +9

Wouldn’t be a problem if we didn’t start pointless conflicts like Russia.

9

Flyingcoyote Apr 12, 2026 +81

The United States also sold Iran weapons...

81

SuzieQ1818 Apr 12, 2026 +50

They also spend billions in sending weapons to Israel.

50

Secret_Cow_5053 Apr 12, 2026 -15

Thor weapons are long gone

-15

Blubbolo Apr 12, 2026 +131

As they should. What, the US thought they could do the f*** Israel wanted and expected everyone to just say thank you?

131

EightGlow Apr 12, 2026 +17

You mean an ally of a country we attacked for no real reason is sending them materials? Color me surprised

17

tdclark23 Apr 12, 2026 +5

I thought the "cease fire" was over as soon as Israel attacked Lebanon. It's all the same war.

5

Joint-Tester Apr 12, 2026 +28

I feel like he started WW3 and we are waiting for it to become official. I hope I am wrong.

28

mdistrukt Apr 12, 2026 +34

Indirectly. Ww3 starts when China invades TSMC because the US pissed away all it's multimillion dollar interceptors shooting down $30k Iranian drones to distract from the fact that our president and his buddies f*** kids.

34

Standard-Image-8826 Apr 12, 2026 +5

I think the problem is they eat kids too. if it was just f******, we all know that... it has to be much worse than we expected for them to be so desperate to cover it up.

5

DuncanConnell Apr 12, 2026 +2

The problem is more that it doesn't seem to matter. People from other countries even suspected as being named in the files are being removed from their positions and distanced from. The US instead, with their president 100% confirmed named in the files almost more than Epstein himself, just keep going along business as usual.

2

Time_News_8452 Apr 12, 2026 +1

It's not yet a WW3 crisis, but if China uses the situation to take Taiwan it could be seen as one, with interlocking conflicts around the globe. I doubt the US abandoned their plans for Cuba and Greenland and once they have it even Canada might is on the menu again. Venezuela might also not be over yet, when the country starts objecting to being looted by the US oligarchy.

1

Admiral_Tuvix Apr 12, 2026 +8

I don’t see it as WW3, more like the Iranians turn all gulf states into glass, destroy all energy producing facilities and in two months time gas is at 200$, and resource squeeze hits us here in America.

8

Money_Statement_9861 Apr 12, 2026 +10

It's against US interests to attack its gulf puppets and destroy the petrodollar but it's very in line with Israel's interests to weaken and destroy the other countries in the middle east so they can be the hegemon in the region and accomplish greater israel with impunity.

10

Kagari1998 Apr 12, 2026 +1

While it is in China and Russia is interest to see the current issue persist as soft power of the US plummets and the dissatisfaction between other NATO countries and the US rises. But that only goes until a certain extent, they absolutely do not want another nuclear power arise amidst the region threatening their silk road to both EU and Africa. On a personal perspective, is there nothing the common american can do when the president they elected is actively destroying whatever peace remains in this world?

1

Fightingspirit12345 Apr 12, 2026 +1

Iran needs money too right.. if they block the strait it can’t be forever?

1

Admiral_Tuvix Apr 12, 2026

they do. but for them it’s a fight or die thing. they either withstand for a while and rebuild, or their entire country is destroyed anyway and western industrialists steal all their resources like they did Iraq and now Venezuela

0

Fightingspirit12345 Apr 12, 2026 +1

The Iran government thinks that way cuz apparently even most of their citizens don’t like the government and want the internet to turn back on

1

Admiral_Tuvix Apr 13, 2026

they already have internet boss, their own. everyone is connected locally, and vpns can’t be stopped anyway. maybe turn off the corporate media, Irans government would have fallen a long time ago if people hated them.

0

Fightingspirit12345 Apr 13, 2026 +1

I’m saying it’s kinda like the United States where a lot people hate their government to say we gonna topple the government would be a daring thing to do even though many of us want to also thousands of protesters in Iran have been killed since this oil war started

1

Huskies971 Apr 12, 2026 +2

WW3 and we have no allies, oh sorry we have Argentina and Ecuador

2

roastedcoyote Apr 12, 2026 +8

CNN is now a pay site? ffs

8

No-Message8847 Apr 12, 2026 +3

Ok? And the United States isn't currently rearming as fast as possible?

3

spin_kick Apr 12, 2026 +3

Its like us shipping stuff to Ukraine. Its super cost effective to weaken your rivals this way, popular with the home team since none of their actual citizens are put in harms way. Let the locals shed blood for you...

3

Green117v2 Apr 12, 2026 +21

US and Intelligence are two words that shouldn't be in the same sentence in 2026.

21

makualla Apr 12, 2026 +3

Free market capitalism am I right

3

jgrant68 Apr 12, 2026 +4

Paid for with the money they are getting for letting ships pass through the strait.

4

ram_fl_beach Apr 12, 2026 +1

Look close, Iran is winning, our fighter jets are vulnerable, our military is afraid of a ground invasion and most of the military knows this was not necessary.

1

29187765432569864 Apr 12, 2026 +2

and N Korea will also ship weapons, because why not do so? Iran has no great reason to end the war. Iran can do even worse things than they already have.

2

s_sam01 Apr 12, 2026 +8

Ukraine became a proxy war. Iran is becoming a proxy war.

8

No-Weakness-2035 Apr 12, 2026 +4

Yeah that tracks. War is the tool for when diplomacy fails. And these idiots didn’t even want to try diplomacy except as a distraction tactic. Wouldn’t you know it; our rivals and enemies flock together using the tool we’ve thrown away. As we actively drive our allies and treaty networks apart. MAGA is a Manchurian candidate.

4

doodlar Apr 12, 2026 +3

Don’t worry. Donnie will find a way to (continue to) screw this up without China’s help.

3

PigFarmer1 Apr 12, 2026 +3

World's #1 arms dealer is concerned that someone else is a merchant of death...

3

Efficient_Purchase26 Apr 12, 2026 +4

Sorry you lost me at US intelligence

4

ConundrumMachine Apr 12, 2026 +2

Obviously. Both China and Iran know the US is full of shit and is just stalling to rearm. It's what Israel does all the time and the US seems to be using their new playbook now.

2

DistanceToEmpty Apr 12, 2026 +3

And the US will do exactly the same for Israel, as they have been for 60 years.

3

blightsteel101 Apr 13, 2026 +1

I mean, it's in China's best interests to make sure this war is as damaging as possible for the US. Completely sensible move on their part.

1

xbikester Apr 13, 2026 +1

No shit Sherlock… if my brother was f****** attacked by A nazi i would be there to help him

1

aNuggetsUncle Apr 12, 2026 +1

China's strategy: Slowly boil the frog alive

1

Igennem Apr 12, 2026 +2

The frog in this analogy turned on the stove and hopped into the pot.

2

Linedriver Apr 12, 2026 +1

Remember, switching to a ceasefire is faster then reloading.

1

Head-Preference-7081 Apr 12, 2026 +1

As an American i can't wait till China's load of weapons sails right by tacos battleship. And waves. Hehe he taco.

1

Unco_Slam Apr 12, 2026 +1

"Country prepares to defend itself from a hostile nation"

1

NotActuallyIraqi Apr 12, 2026

China needs the oil. Badly. The US can try to continue the war, but if anyone can force the US into ending it, it’s China. They control so much of the US government’s debt they can call those loans in or crash the US economy. Trump cannot afford to upset China here.

0

iambroccolirob Apr 12, 2026 +2

> They control so much of the US government’s debt they can call those loans in or crash the US economy. They own about 3% of US debt. They have about a $200bil trade surplus with the US. For now.

2

29187765432569864 Apr 12, 2026

and if they crash the US economy the people in the USA quit buying Chinese products.

0

Kfcandwatermon68 Apr 12, 2026 -2

America couldn’t deal with Iran on its own. Let’s see how they deal with them now, now that they have help

-2

jeffspicole Apr 12, 2026

Only Russia can do that

0

Outrageous_Order_197 Apr 13, 2026

That explains the blockade...

0

lincon127 Apr 12, 2026 -1

Cool, so the US is now officially fighting a war with a Chinese proxy. Shouldn't the US convinced some other proxy state to do this? Like, if the goal wasn't to seize and hold, then why the hell did they even get involved?

-1

issm Apr 12, 2026 +6

The US is the proxy state.

6

lincon127 Apr 12, 2026 -1

Nah, that makes no sense. Since the main reason they went into this war was to restrict oil shipments to China, though through what means I'm not sure. I don't think Israel really cares about that, they were just hoping for a regime change--which apparently is off the table. The US is certainly the primary antagonizing force here, they're just wholly and completely incompetent.

-1

issm Apr 12, 2026 +1

> Since the main reason they went into this war was to restrict oil shipments to China [Citation needed]

1

lincon127 Apr 13, 2026 -1

Citation ain't needed. I'm didn't write an academic article, I'm just telling you what's likely to be the case. Whether or not you believe it is based on your own tiny grey spec you call a brain. If you come up with a better reason, you let me know and I'll likely laugh you out of the room after I dunk on said reason.

-1

issm Apr 13, 2026 +1

Aka, you pulled that motivation out of your ass. Cutting off Middle Eastern oil hurts Japan and Korea more than it hurts China - who's spent years on a massive renewables buildout for this very reason. Not only does this weaken opposition to China by straining US relations with it's regional "allies", that same renewables buildout sets China up to be the world's leading supplier of energy sources not dependent on the most unstable region of the world - and that dependence includes the US, by the way. It doesn't matter if the US is a major oil producer, unless the US government orders it's businesses to serve America first and their shareholders second (lol), Americans are still going to face the high gas prices - as is obviously already happening. This strengthens China relatively speaking. > If you come up with a better reason The thing at the top of the US regime is just an easily manipulated moron? Like, it's not exactly a secret that twitler is easy to manipulate.

1

US intelligence indicates China is preparing weapons shipment to Iran amid fragile ceasefire, sources say

💬 Send a Message

152 Comments