this post was submitted on 17 Mar 2026
290 points (98.0% liked)

politics

28935 readers
1999 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

  1. Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  2. Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
  3. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
  4. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  5. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

Trump supporters who backed his promise to avoid new Middle East wars worry Iran’s attacks on shipping are pushing the U.S. toward escalation — and maybe even boots on the ground.

When the U.S. started firing Tomahawk missiles at Iran late last month, many of Donald Trump’s allies hoped it would be a quick, surgical operation, similar to last year’s strike against Iran’s nuclear facilities or the ouster of Venezuelan dictator Nicolás Maduro in January.

Though uneasy, they were reassured by the belief that Trump’s open-ended objectives gave him the flexibility to declare victory whenever he saw fit.

Now, more than two weeks into the campaign, some of those allies believe the president no longer controls how, or when, the war ends. They fear Iran’s attacks on oil tankers in the Strait of Hormuz, which have rattled global crude markets and threaten broader economic distress, are boxing Trump into a situation where escalating the conflict — potentially even putting American boots on the ground — becomes the only way to credibly claim victory.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] aramis87@fedia.io 4 points 20 hours ago (1 children)

I particularly liked the underlying assumption throughout the article that Trump absolutely has to have Iran capitulate and therefore the only thing they can do is to continue to escalate. That "declare victory and leave" isn't something they've even considered.

[–] CuddlesMcBubblefun@lemmy.world 1 points 14 hours ago (3 children)

The problem with the 'declare victory and leave' is that the enemy gets a vote. Even if shitler pulled forces back, Iran ain't got no reason to stop shooting tankers now.

Also... Do we just have two carrier groups trapped in the Gulf now? Guess our navy is just gonna have to 'man up' like he told the tankers to? That could get real spicy REAL quick.

[–] Lucelu2@lemmy.zip 1 points 48 minutes ago

Serving on the USS Ford has to be like being in prison.

[–] WoodScientist@lemmy.world 1 points 8 hours ago

I don't believe they're actually in the Gulf, for that exact reason.

[–] CuddlesMcBubblefun@lemmy.world 2 points 14 hours ago (1 children)

Also, fun fact! We decommissioned our minesweeper fleet in the Gulf, the last of them were shipped out from Bahrain in January. You know, just weeks before we started a damn naval war. All we got now is some equipment bolted onto repurposed LCS...

[–] Lucelu2@lemmy.zip 1 points 47 minutes ago

6 months before that Patel and Hegseth fied a ton of Mideast counterterroism experts.