US Attacks Iran 2026

[JimFoxvog]

Trump explained the reason for the attack clearly.

[Szdfan]

Well…it’s started. The US and Israel attacked Iran this morning (02/28/26).

I am against the attack. No one asked me before they launched. Not sure why.

I am not surprised. This needs to be cleared out before the midterms. I think this is one reason it is happening now.

Considering that Khamenei is reported killed by one of the Israeli attacks, I think the idea that this can be “cleaned up” by the midterms is highly optimistic.

[Valerie]

Trump explained the reason for the attack clearly.
trump-iran.jpg

Apparently you have not been listening to the many talks from President Trump about this lately but depending on Facebook posts

[mike]

So this is how they fight wars now? Take out the enemy head of state and call it a day. All fun and games until a Russian or Chinese sub sneaks through to the east coast and takes out the US President in the White House with a missile or two.

[JohnL]

Trump explained the reason for the attack clearly.
trump-iran.jpg

Those screen shots are from 2012 & 2013.

The latest negotiations tried before this latest conflict included an offer from the White House to give Iran free commercial grade uranium/plutonium so their power generating plants could have fuel for their cities and citizens. In exchange Iran had to give up trying to enrich nuclear fuels to create nuclear bombs. Iran refused. So the Iranian claim they needed the nuclear fuels to run the infrastructure was shown to be a lie. They want nuclear warheads.
Now according to Western defense analysts Iran had built up and operated one of largest ballistic missile forces in the Middle East. Its inventory includes a variety of short and medium-range ballistic missiles and they had a strike range of about 1,500 miles to 2,000 miles.
BTW Iran used their ballistic missiles to bomb their neighboring Muslim countries. Can you imagine the destruction if those missiles had nuclear warheads?

[Valerie]

So this is how they fight wars now? Take out the enemy head of state and call it a day. All fun and games until a Russian or Chinese sub sneaks through to the east coast and takes out the US President in the White House with a missile or two.

So far the only assassination attempts on our President (one ad recent as last week but fortunately he wasn’t home) are by some in his own country who the lefts rhetoric an hate speech has influenced unstable people.

Listening to so many tonight has been interesting.
Iranians have a chance now (approx 40 of the evil regime was taken out) so prayers are truly needed for the right leaders to run their country now- 47 years of evil oppression.

[ken_sylvania]

So this is how they fight wars now? Take out the enemy head of state and call it a day. All fun and games until a Russian or Chinese sub sneaks through to the east coast and takes out the US President in the White House with a missile or two.

I guess I have often struggled to understand why it's considered manly and ethical to bomb and kill and maim thousands of soldiers (along with civilians as "collateral damage") but considered unsportsmanlike to directly target the top military brass and the commander in chief. If they gotta have war, why not let the aggrieved parties fight man-to-man instead of sacrificing the lives of the thousands of soldiers who have no real argument with the enemy other than that they happen to be under the wrong leader.

[Ernie]

So this is how they fight wars now? Take out the enemy head of state and call it a day. All fun and games until a Russian or Chinese sub sneaks through to the east coast and takes out the US President in the White House with a missile or two.

I guess I have often struggled to understand why it's considered manly and ethical to bomb and kill and maim thousands of soldiers (along with civilians as "collateral damage") but considered unsportsmanlike to directly target the top military brass and the commander in chief. If they gotta have war, why not let the aggrieved parties fight man-to-man instead of sacrificing the lives of the thousands of soldiers who have no real argument with the enemy other than that they happen to be under the wrong leader.

"Older men declare war. But it is youth that must fight and die." U.S. President Herbert Hoover

In the past there have been leaders who led their armies from the front. Alexander the Great, Julius Ceasar, Genghis Kahn, George Washington, George Patton. I hate war and I don't see any point in it. But I admire men who don't hide and put others at risk.

It is wrong for Hamas military people to hide in civilian areas. But somehow it is ok for leaders of modern countries to sit in comfortable rooms "watching a TV show" while innocents around the world get killed in collateral damage, as a result of these leader's choices. I guess they figure it is survival of the fittest?

[Valerie]

So this is how they fight wars now? Take out the enemy head of state and call it a day. All fun and games until a Russian or Chinese sub sneaks through to the east coast and takes out the US President in the White House with a missile or two.

I guess I have often struggled to understand why it's considered manly and ethical to bomb and kill and maim thousands of soldiers (along with civilians as "collateral damage") but considered unsportsmanlike to directly target the top military brass and the commander in chief. If they gotta have war, why not let the aggrieved parties fight man-to-man instead of sacrificing the lives of the thousands of soldiers who have no real argument with the enemy other than that they happen to be under the wrong leader.

Trust me, the Iranian people lived under a very evil regime if you’ve ever read testimonies. No one here would want to live under that, the Iranian people have cried out for this which is why all over there are celebrations for Iranian people. In various cities in America and countries.

[Valerie]

So this is how they fight wars now? Take out the enemy head of state and call it a day. All fun and games until a Russian or Chinese sub sneaks through to the east coast and takes out the US President in the White House with a missile or two.

I guess I have often struggled to understand why it's considered manly and ethical to bomb and kill and maim thousands of soldiers (along with civilians as "collateral damage") but considered unsportsmanlike to directly target the top military brass and the commander in chief. If they gotta have war, why not let the aggrieved parties fight man-to-man instead of sacrificing the lives of the thousands of soldiers who have no real argument with the enemy other than that they happen to be under the wrong leader.

"Older men declare war. But it is youth that must fight and die." U.S. President Herbert Hoover

In the past there have been leaders who led their armies from the front. Alexander the Great, Julius Ceasar, Genghis Kahn, George Washington, George Patton. I hate war and I don't see any point in it. But I admire men who don't hide and put others at risk.

It is wrong for Hamas military people to hide in civilian areas. But somehow it is ok for leaders of modern countries to sit in comfortable rooms "watching a TV show" while innocents around the world get killed in collateral damage, as a result of these leader's choices. I guess they figure it is survival of the fittest?

We obviously understand the big picture.
For the record our military is volunteers who see their part as “servants” for others benefit, willing to lay down their own lives. Sound familiar?