70
votes
Donald Trump posted on Truth Social this morning that "a whole civilization will die tonight, never to be brought back again" as his threatened attacks on Iranian infrastructure loom ahead of deadline
Link information
This data is scraped automatically and may be incorrect.
- Title
- Trump says a 'whole civilization will die tonight' as deadline for Iran to reopen Strait of Hormuz looms | CBC
- Word count
- 147 words
Im so tired of feeling helpless.
Same, friend. If Iran actually sends nukes tonight and this is it, I love you all, I wish we could have made it through Holy Week to Easter service again, and remember to plead for me when there is final justice and you're all in honoured positions to hold me accountable for so much done and so much left undone.
If he TACO's, I still love you guys.
Looks like he did TACO
Hey good morning, nice to see an atmosphere not on fire. Love ya too snowgoon
It's been crazy how we've said such things here by now a few times huh? Hope you're coping well with the emotional whiplashes lately.
I don't want to get used to this, but I suppose that's all we could do. Get our sea legs kinda thing eh? Maybe not worry about it because if buttons are pushed buttons are pushed, just aim to continue loving people and continue to try and be slightly helpful regardless of what the threat level of the day is
It wont suddenly implode over night, inflation will continue to go up as wages stagnate and us citizens will continue to die mostly from lack of access to healthcare and poor food quality like we have been for the last like
5097200forever? years.Its a boring ending which is why they gotta fluff it up with this popcorn crap
I don’t recall even Putin saying something that horrendous. He has said Ukraine belongs to Russia, not threatened with total annihilation like this. The crazy thing is how normalized these statements from Trump have become. I honestly have no idea whether tomorrow will be another TACO moment or nuclear war.
There was a time when Russian propaganda did talk about nukes publically, but as far as I remember, that happened like once and even China stepped in and was like "cool it" behind the scenes.
well, folks. A clear intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national group.
2 week cease fire
TACO, thankfully
I’m starting to really dislike this TACO meme. The last thing an ego like his, so fluent in the language of bullying, needs is for his opposition to keep shitposting about what a coward he is. Almost seems like a provocation or a challenge. I’m just picturing him storming out of the bathroom after reading a particularly humiliating series of tweets, barking at anyone in earshot to bring him the nuke football, muttering “chicken out, huh?? I’ll show them chickening out…”
I agree with you, which is mortifying, because it means I accept the premise that our president could be goaded into genocide on account of mean tweets.
It’s an idea that, in a normal world, would sound completely absurd. Utter nonsense.
Unfortunately we live in this fucking fun house mirror of a distorted reality in which that is an all too plausible outcome. I hate it here.
TACO
originated fromwas once used by Chuck Schumer to criticize Trump for not being tough enough on Iran. So....mission accomplished, Chuck?Nah, Robert Armstrong coined it a month before that to describe the trade policy, and more generally the pattern of making a problem, backing off after consequences, then claiming victory and the initial idiocy as strategy. It had a quick adoption.
Oh wow, nice catch. TIL.
…of course it did. Keep it classy, U.S. politics.
I'm trying to decide if its just insider trading to the most extreme degree, someone swapped out the football for an old Speak and Spell or if Tump actually believes that the Iranians have agreed because they "have to" in his mind.
Regardless its an objectively a good outcome, but on the level of an arsonist deciding to spare a hospital after burning down the city.
Energy costs are up. Agri-chem is heading for a cliff. And even if Trump is removed today, everyone knows the US is at least 4 years away from another Trump. And this is not even thinking about the hell US policy is putting regular people through, the world over.
Idk what his mental capacity is or how much of this is bullshit brinksmanship tbh. I just hate all of it.
When people are like "why aren't you pissed" it's because I can spend all damn day pissed and react with what feels like an appropriate level of outrage, probably giving myself an aneurysm... BUT I HAVE TO FINISH THIS FUCKING SPREADSHEET.
Like idk. Apparently I have to put gas in my car and buy groceries during this the most precedented of unprecedented times. I don't have the stress hormones left to react with anything appropriate.
Agreed.
If I gave the proportional amount of anger to all of this, I would have spent the last decade completely pissed off, all of the time. And for what?
It’s simply not sustainable. At some point I have to throw up my hands, acknowledge that I’m powerless over what he’s doing but have some say over what I do, and prioritize the latter.
I’ve spent the last decade doing that instead, and even that has been fucking exhausting.
Yeah there's no way for me to not be angry at anything, and if you ask me, yeah I'm pissed at it all. But in the meantime my cat's insulin costs 120 dollars a vial - and theoretically expires after 60 days but we ignore that - so like fuck me I'm going to work and going to help my students.
I’m absolutely certain a fortune was just made by Trump’s inner circle.
https://www.aljazeera.com/news/liveblog/2026/4/7/iran-war-live-trump-warns-of-devastating-attacks-as-deal-deadline-nears
I wonder who that was. I assume the big money was in shorting oil futures in the past couple days though.
I think it has a lot more to do with the fact that the Bush is still sitting in the middle of the Atlantic and the Ford in dock due to a fire for what is likely the rest of this campaign.
Given it takes about a week for a carrier to cross the atlantic and Bush left, I think roughly a week ago, I would not be shocked if there was some Navy officer getting screamed at for not wearing out a supercarrier by going top speed to make a twitter deadline and instead following sane protocol.
I wish the media would stop reporting on his bullshit. It'd be nice as a whole, but since he is unfortunately the president, I get that's not realistic. But at least stop reporting on his Truth Social posts. In some ways, with the media reporting his digital vomit, it's just ups the ante. Will he TACO? Maybe, probably. But if everyone is watching and waiting, it just makes the situation potentially worse.
Or Idk, maybe he's the type that if he's ignored, he'll just get even more crazy for attention. Idk. Either way, it's so fucking tiring.
I feel like the president of America proclaiming his plan for genocide in unambiguous terms is newsworthy no matter what channel he announces it on.
I kind of wish they'd say "US President plans to commit genocide" instead of giving his word vomit the headline. But I agree, even if I wish I could escape it, I don't think it's better to not pay attention.
I think it’s kind of important that the world sees exactly what he said in this case. There’s no room for ambiguity, or claiming the media is exaggerating. Maybe both?
US President Donald Trump plans genocide: says a 'whole civilization will die tonight’.
Yeah like the other poster I at least want them to contextualize it - the full statement can be in the article but the headline should make it clear what the words he says mean.
I agree with this. And I think it's a lot clearer to people who just read the headlines. "A whole civilization will die tonight," sounds very bombastic. Typical Trump shlock. But "Trump plans to commit genocide," I think would get a lot more heads turning and actually might be taken more seriously. Because now it sounds like plain, "boring," official government policy, as opposed to just Trump's typical word vomit.
Hey, as far as headlines go, this is pretty good. Same with NYT's "Trump Calls to Wipe Out a 'Whole Civilization' as Iranians Reject Threats."
Perfect? No. But it's a step above the usual 'President vows to retaliate with force against Iranian aggression in Strait of Hormuz.'
I will continue to demand better
For sure.
I think the important thing that's lacking from the news coverage for me, are the follow-up articles that need to come as quickly as possible with equally large headlines putting his crazy remarks on all sorts of things into context in unambiguous terms:
This is impossible, that is a lie, he never did what he claimed here, and on and on.
Then the politicians and courts who aren't stopping him need to be confronted with that.
Americans tune out at our own peril. What he says, what his following picks up affects our lives.
Solutions, sensible steps to regulate away Trump's room for crazy behavior, all the other issues that aren't getting the attention they deserve now, due to Trump's crazy antics.
Political reporting is very important right now, US politics is relevant to the whole world. We don't have the luxury not to care.
These last few days haven't been just Trump being crazy as normal. To me it seems wilder. Is he becoming more desperate? Cornered by what he's done?
I'm paying attention to flighttracker as today's supposed deadline approaches at least...
CNN surprisingly had an article detailing the aspects of how the actions detailed in the threats would amount to war crimes and breaking international laws. Meanwhile from what I've seen from NBC news, they have a whole article detailing everything Trump says, and one time I saw no mention of it being a war crime, a different article I saw just one single line that said something like "may be a war crime" and then they moved onto other things.
It's an important question about what are the official channels now for a government leader.
In his first term, Trump would often tweet something as if it was a proclamation that would cause something to happen. It would be reported on, but then not happen. Because a tweet is like an old man yelling at a cloud, it isn't a formal order from the president to people that work under him.
He continues to do this in his second term but he has less competent buffoons in his cabinet now and replaced a bunch of military leaders so maybe they do take actions based on tweets.
I feel like it's related to a game that he and other republicans have been playing for decades. They will go on fox news and make claims, but then go to court and not make those claims because in court that would be lying under oath. So I think these tweets are a way for him to send messages to the fox news crowd without setting official policy. Also he gets to say things as trial balloons to see what he can get away with. Also there is a conservative propaganda machine that can repackage these words (often with opposite meanings over a few days) to influence the millions of dumbasses who ever voted for him.
But like I said, there's a lot more incompetent buffoons running around in the White House now who maybe will act based on tweets.
As an aside, I think that one of the reasons Nixon was threatened with impeachment is that lying to the American public was considered an impeachable offense. I guess we've move on from those primitive times.
(BTW I know that he isn't using twitter but truth social posts are just tweets right).
moreover, the channel is how he has actually followed through on other announcements before.
I don’t know why people think he’s going to not do this. Blowing people up with the military is exactly what he wants to do and any perceived hesitation before has been mostly waiting for all the right parts to fall into place.
He has been planning to escalate this since before it started.
I do think he is probably making a killing on the markets by manipulating oil futures, and there’s huge potential to cash in again by TACOing with how much this tweet has spiked prices, but I also think that at some point he does intend to kill a whole bunch of Iranians. Just once he has made enough profit. Maybe that will be today? Hard to say.
He cashes in when there's no real option. Most of the cash ins have been on deadlines that couldn't have been met anyways because military assets weren't where they needed to be or conditions weren't right for the operations..
Blowing people up is different than a civilization dying. The Iranian civilization is one of the oldest and most resilient in the world, with over 7000 years of continuous history.
In order for it to "die", it would require nothing short of total nuclear anihliation. I think that's what people are thinking (hoping?) he's not going to do. It's almost a given that he'll continue to strike Iran with conventional weapons.
As much as you can trust trump he's given every indication that the plan is to hit every form of infrastructure (bridges, power, desalination, etc).
There's been no indication that he's going to nuke the country, and while sadly I don't think you can ever totally rule that out with how nuts he is, I also think it's overreacting based on what we know.
I agree with you, but I was responding to your comment about people thinking he was not going to do this.
The "this" people are thinking he's not going to do, is genocide.
His tweet very unambiguously states that he's going to commit genocide tonight, and that's what people are doubting is going to happen, not that he's not going to bomb some bridges and power plants.
Destroying bridges and power plants doesn't make a civilization die. Killing all of them does.
He is definitely talking about infrastructure though. This is what he means by bombing them into the Stone Age. I think it’s evident that “end of civilization” is shorthand for
no electricity, no running water, no transportation.
I don’t think this takes away from the genocidal aspect. Destroying that infrastructure will lead directly to the deaths of tens or even hundreds of thousands of people.
I….feel that’s a weird distinction to draw?
He clearly doesn’t think he’s committing genocide and I find it odd that hitting desalination plants in a population base that requires them wouldn’t be seen as close enough to everyone else?
Lest anyone think Trump alone is the issue, or that “he didn’t really mean it” or that “it was just a negotiation tactic,” here’s what our very own Senate Republicans had to say about Trump’s genocidal threat:
Direct link
Mirror
EDIT: I should mention that I found this because I specifically searched for Republican officials’ responses to Trump, thinking, naively, that they would have some pushback for something so egregiously over the line.
Joke’s on me. All I got was this Axios article (mirror) featuring a measly two Republicans and one Independent condemning his statement, followed by the statement from the Senate Republicans that I linked showing strong support.
Shame on me for believing there’d be a line too far for them. Clearly there isn’t.
Can't help but imagine an actual effective opposition party would be blasting a message on all channels imaginable, urging members of the military to refuse orders.
Well here's something
119TH CONGRESS 2D SESSION H. RES. 1155 Impeaching Donald J. Trump, President of the United States, for high crimes and misdemeanors.
13 Articles of Impeachment:
Article I: War Power-Murder-Piracy
Article II: Militarization of Domestic Law Enforcement
Article III: Serial Unconstitutional Detentions and Deportations
Article IV: Retaliation Against Constitutionally Protected Speech or Association
Article V: Abuse of the Pardon Power - Sabotaging the Rule of Law
Article VI: Illegally Crippling or Defunding Programs to Protect Consumers, the Needy, Workers, and the Environment
Article VII: Usurpation of the Congressional Power of the Purse
Article VIII: Contempt of Congress - Secret Government
Article IX: Perverting Law Enforcement to Persecute Political Opponents and Benefit Friends
Article X: Suspending or Dispensing with Laws
Article XI: Flouting Section 1 of the Fourteenth Amendment
Article XII: Specious National Emergency - Foreign Terrorist Organization Declarations
Article XIII: Domestic and Foreign Emoluments Clauses
A handful of senators and reps did release a video last year saying exactly that, and PACs put up billboards near bases, which led to the orange idiot screaming about it being treason.
The opposition party has no pull in Washington, news media won't amplify dissent, PAC donations are down and social media is owned by Zuckerberg, Ellison and Musk.
Is that second paragraph supposed to be a list of reasons they can't do it again? Because they definitely could do it again, and now would be a great time for it.
Instead: CRICKETS.
I haven't heard about a single protester in front of the Whitehouse today after the President openly threatened genocide against another nation. Talk about a defeated and broken people. A very sad moment in history for the American people.
I'm not sure people could even be mobilized if he announced genocide against the entire California state. It's been many decades of combination of keeping the population uninformed, illiterate, wage insecure and housing insecure.
What is it going to take for Americans to finally say enough is enough? How can there not be 1 million people in protest in front of the Whitehouse today? Where are the national strikes? Why are the American people just sitting by and letting this happen, are the American people already defeated? I don't want to hear about your lame 'No Kings' protests, you have an insane, fascist, mentally unstable President and the action is to shrug and hold up some signs to get social media likes? What the hell is going on?
If I drove 15 hours to get to DC today and stood outside, I don't believe anything would change. Meanwhile my partner would likely end up hospitalized and, I'd risk my job and my house and my family.
And maybe I should. But I wouldn't get there until tomorrow and thus wouldn't make the deadline.
What would standing outside there do but get people arrested and shot? I am sure there are protestors whether or not the news covers them. It wouldn't be any different than the protests you deride though. I mean we could storm the capital I guess. Didn't go well last time. We don't have a cultural tradition of national strikes. Our labor movement was undermined and co-opted and has not recovered yet, if it can.
I am doing shit but I don't talk about that shit on the internet because I'm not an idiot. So idk, I don't want to be the world's cop, the world's military enforcer and I am not going to be the world's savior. Just trying to survive.
I hear you, I don't know what I would do either if it was my country. What can one do on an individual level? Not much to be honest. We all have our own personal problems and issues to deal with on a day to day basis, people are over-worked, over-stressed and tired. I'm more disappointed that the Democrats appear to be complicit in all this instead of trying to raise and organize all hell.
They're trying to raise hell - they're just not getting much coverage and can't bring Congress back into session alone afaik. They've released statements, filed orders of impeachment, demanded a vote on the war, demanded the cabinet oust him.
Bipartisan Calls To Remove Trump From Office Grow As He Threatens Iranian ‘Genocide’
There's a point at which if you're screaming all the time you get derided as shrill, "TDS" traitors and ignored as well as harassed with legitimate death threats should the president target you. The coverage of the response is just starting to ramp up it seems. My governor called for the president's removal - did anyone see that news story? Probably not. I didn't until I went looking.
Maybe we're just being lied to. I'm not happy with the Dems but I blame the party keeping him in power over the one without control of a single branch of the government.
A large portion of the population doesn't live anywhere near the White House. More than 10% live in California alone, and that puts us at ~3000miles/5000km away. It's not realistic.
But yeah, we pretty much are defeated.
Short of an actual armed civil uprising, there's nothing we can do. We have no mechanism to stop any of this other than plead with our elected officials to do something. And a majority of our elected officials endorse Donald Trump.
I live in DC. There are protests here all the time, and most of them don't make the news. Like others have said, a huge majority of the country doesn't live anywhere remotely near DC.
Surely civilians can win against a military with a budget of $850B this year. That's entirely reasonable.
To be very clear, I wasn't suggesting this was an actual course of action. I thought that was obvious.
Oh no I got that, I'm just pointing it out in clear terms because I've seen it a lot on the internet. Like yes, we're extremely frustrated and disappointed in our government as well, but functionally this isn't something that US civilians can do.
Don't forget the paramilitary. ICE has already been shooting people for funsies...and has already taken over TSA responsibilities since the shutdown.
Plus there's the usual division that the people with the armed uprising fetish are the ones who put Trump in office.
National and military intelligence another 110B, DHS (ICE, CBP, secret service, etc.) and DOJ (FBI, DEA, ATF, US Marshalls) 150B, state and local police 180B. The list goes on and on. We have a lot of armed federal and state officials who can be directed by the president or who would forcibly protect him.
The goal if it escalated at that point wouldn't be to win. It'd be to send a message. having one of the largest civil bloodshed since the Civil War would show how close to home this stuff will get.
Sending a message to whom?
The rest of the world knows, I think, how fucked up we are. The government willing to kill its own people seems unlikely to back down without pressure from somewhere. Most civil disobedience relies on the harm coming to them changing that balance. The deaths of Goode and Pretti mattered in public sentiment, but probably wouldn't have if they'd been the "terrorists" they were initially painted as. People would have turned against them just as fast. And the people dead are probably unable to receive a message.
Idk maybe I'm wrong. But I'm not seeing any message it sends is anything other than a waste of lives.
Ideally the people in the US who's still at best thinking "this will all work out" and at worst "this is great, America is Great Again!". Maybe even to a congress just hoping things tide over as they collect their paychecks and stocks.
The context for such an uprising matters a lot. If Trump nuked iran and the uprising came after that, or if any proper video evidence from the Epstein files came out. Those would be more understandable than your average Trump filled stupidity day.
Ofc course, you can argue such events would have Congress act within their own channels and not require such a rebellion. Which is valid.
I just don't see it as likely to change those minds, personally. I think they'll be viewed as the villains not the martyrs.
If that's true, we'd truly have our own "Homlander" moment. A government realizing it can kill its citizens without pushback never ends well.
I don't watch the show you're referencing. I think this is a false dichotomy however. By many metrics governments kill their own citizens directly or indirectly all the time. By some metrics there are standards for when it's acceptable and consequences for when it's not. And some would say governments already do this, not just the US by any means. (Are all governments inherently tyranny and is enforcement of laws just a threat of violence by the dominant socioeconomic ethnic group in a given nation? Well I'm not an anarchist but maybe. Maybe that's fine. )
Armed rebellion is not the only way that governments could kill their own people but its one of the reasons many people would find absolutely acceptable. For example, I think that one person shot for trying to enter Congress before it was evacuated on Jan 6 2020 was killed by the government rather reasonably given the situation. This is why many movements use civil disobedience and not armed rebellion. But in the court of public opinion, "armed traitors" sell worse than "unarmed protestors" and we exist in a space where some people cheer violence done to the latter already.
I don't believe the former would "send a message" in contrast.
Sure, but direct kills on americans by authorities is rare. There's always some deflection or behind the scenes or something resembling plausible deniability or "reasonable" cause (see: most police brutalities before this year). It's not uncommon outside of the US, but this is a society that can still note an event from 50 years ago as one of the more "recent" examples.
Justified or not, people draw a very different line between, say, Trayvon Martin and Alex Pretti. Perhaps for racist reasons. But that difference is there that's what I'm trying to highlight.
I may have said it to someone different, but context matters in how it goes about.
BTW, the reference is when a "Superhero" vaporizes a citizen in the middle of a very public rally, and then everyone cheers him on. Be it in admiration or fear. Even the Superhero for that awkward 30 seconds realized that should have been a career ending move.
I know context matters (not sure why you're making it huge) I just disagree that armed rebels or domestic terrorists would send a clearer stronger message than Breonna Taylor (whose boyfriend fired a weapon) or Philando Castile (who was carrying but did not draw just like Pretti.) Trayvon Martin was a child killed by someone who was not a government official, neither were armed. It's absolutely racist reasons. They tried to damn Pretti for being armed and even if I would advise against carrying a weapon to a protest, it was legal.
What I don't understand is why you think the people who are in favor of all of this would somehow change their minds in the face of armed revolutionaries being killed if they don't care about VA nurses. This isn't new in 2026, there are Americans shot and killed in 2025 by ICE too (and earlier etc). I don't think "direct" government kills on Americans are as rare as you think. 1,314 last year alone.
We're quite good as a society at dismissing the deaths of people we think somehow deserved it, the standard of which is an ever shifting goalpost. And which will nearly always include someone who can be successfully labeled a domestic terrorist.
What exactly do you expect us to do above and beyond protests here? Are Americans who don't approve of this obligated to commit suicide by cop en masse?
The "lame 'No Kings' protests" protest last week had 8 million gathered around the nation. We've definitely had protests already.
The thing is that 1 million people here in the US today doesn't go as far as say, 1 million in Germany, with a quarter of the population and a small percentage of land mass. Those "lame protests" are how you build up to a national strike (we all don't just collectively wake up and say "yeah, let's all not go to work today". Especially in a market with weak union proections and record layoffs).
A mad president and complicit Congress is starting a useless war to protect the gang of pedophiles. Midterms come up in 6-7 months of so and the current trajectory may be that becoming the fastest method of getting said mad president under control. Ideally the people would rise up, but America's sent the better part of 50 years breaking down and dividing its people.
Despite all this and a falling approval rating, the GOP approval rating is, at worst, in the low 80's. that's how divided we are. The media is also complicit and the filter bubble for the GOP fanbase is pretty much modern day Russia state news in terms of propaganda. resolving that will take years, if not decades.
Also, all those people at the lame protests will be much more politically engaged and ready to vote. It's a good organizing practice. It's not magic. But nothing is.
Articles of Impeachment have been raised
https://www.congress.gov/119/bills/hres1155/BILLS-119hres1155ih.pdf
not to be confused with the one from last June ?
https://www.congress.gov/bill/119th-congress/house-resolution/537/text
Correct, here is the not-PDF link.
https://www.congress.gov/bill/119th-congress/house-resolution/1155/text
The blood ogre king has officially gone off the rails, far more than we had ever thought possible. We need the twenty-fifth, at a minimum, as soon as possible.
I don't think the 25th would help the world here at all. From simple.wikipedia:
So, not only would the majority here not move against Trump, we would only get JD Vance instead, AND Trump can just send a letter and come back. There are no checks and no balances against an actual tyrant with supporters.
(Not in any way condoning JD Vance or any politician for that matter)
Is there perhaps a strategy from Vance's POV where he waits for the non-diehard conservative base to build up enough anti-Trump momentum, and then he moves in with the 25th? By removing DJT from power and "taking measures" to back off on the Iran stuff, he would then be going into reelection with a bit of momentum.
As with any tyrant, I'm sure there's constantly schemes to replace Dear Leader. But as with all tyrants, those waiting in the wings are constantly gauging their own popularity, as well as trying to sniff out disloyalty among the others. We saw MTG pull away but didn't attract critical MAGA following -- JD is unlikely to be anywhere near popular enough to make his move / for others to 25th DTJ in support of JD. These are cults, they're not looking for good, sustainable ideas like backing off Iran or governing with sanity. In fact, their entire focus right now is on making sure there is NO midterms, let alone re-election. They're past trying to put together a popular democratic platform.
In fact, my guess on why DTJ made this weeks' series of bait threats (aside from the usual dementia) is to prompt Iran to do a devastating attack on American soil or use their nukes somehow, so his admin can justify full scale mobilization and suspend all elections. So, again, his people aren't going to 25th him because they NEED DTJ to survive past the midterms or make them impossible first. If they get no election and full war, they can then off him any which way and JD will automatically be president anyway.
If he was greediest and thought it was possible, he'd wait until after the midterms so that 2025-2028 wouldn't count against him and he could be re-elected twice.
But you're still in the issue of Congress having to agree with it, because Trump would obviously say he's fit to lead, and then you're back at square one. We don't have a mechanism for immediate removal a president if enough of Congress wants them to stay in.
If you knew that you could simply overwhelm an all you can eat buffet and rob them of food without paying, why would you care about their 2 hour seat limit? Greed here isn't going past 2 hours, it's making the entire restaurant yours forever and having the enslaved staff pay its costs.
I've never wanted a military coup more in my life. Whatever it takes to get rid of this fuck.
I'd say it's more fire to frying pan. It could devolve into an outright housefire instead, but I'd bet such an uprising would end up in a few dozen court marshals and then a huge power vacuum JD Vance would struggle to solve.
In comparison to the looming genocide that can escalate to WW3, it would feel like a mild burn.
A military coup - in America, especially - means the end of everything. America isn't Egypt, where there's sort of a tradition of the military stepping in to safeguard the state. Don't think arab spring, think Russia in 1992, likely complete with losing nuclear weapons. Military coup and civil war in America brings us much closer to WW3 than the Iran war does.
Coups - especially first-time coups - don't typically mean the guy at the top changes over and everything's fine. They mean shooting in the streets, checkpoints of armed civilians, government collapse. Social security payments all stop. Medicare all stops. Millions die from losing all government support. Everyone else in America goes bankrupt as markets collapse.
I'm not criticising you specifically, I've been seeing this a lot.
Depends on if you think Russia or China would take advantage of the chaos and perform their own attack. It would certainly cause a global depression, but I think opponents would just sit back and watch the US tear each other apart than escalate it further. They get dibs on the remains anyway.
I'm not even sure if allies would do anything. Maybe provide asylum to those fleeing, but there's no winning helping either side of a civil war here.
That's fine. I don't really think we're at that point as of now, nor do I desire it. I just think such a coup wouldn't be as explosive as people imagine unless there was a city sized coalition forming around.
I envisioned a "coup" more like the events of Lincoln or Kennedy. one or a small group of individual who "go rouge". Hit the target and let the legal channels handle the rest. Not quite an event on the scale of Texas seceding from the union. At the scale of the US, it's very hard to pull off that level of a coup even if an entire state's worth of a militia took over D.C.
Christ, this goes way beyond asshole. What the fuck.
Trump has chaotically pivoted between threats of obliteration and declarations of peace five times in 31 days . All the while the global economy has absorbed its largest energy supply shock since the 70s. There is a really interesting infographic from Reddit that showcases the insanity...
Trump's Negotiation Stance on the Iran War in 31 Days
The headlines flood the zone to distract from everything else, someone got very rich by placing insider best, and it has simply resulted in Iran digging in deeper.
But it is also classic Trump. Trump typically
There is one thing he forgot however. "Protect the downside, upside takes care of itself."
Or maybe he just doesn't care, because he feels like he is playing with other peoples money.
The Iran situation only needs to blow up once, and the result could be very bad.
Someone please shut this guy down.
Update:
Iran cuts all diplomatic channels with US ahead of Trump’s Strait of Hormuz deadline
FP News Desk
April 7, 2026, 20:15:35 IST
It doesn't matter if he TACOs out now.
There is also a response of sorts on the request from Pakistan to extend the deadline which I hope at least seems like a way out, and Trump has done similar things before. At least unusual to say there will be a response later if that response is a firm “no”.
Did Trump Just Threaten to Use Nuclear Weapons in Iran?
If such an order comes to pass, the military can and must refuse.