He's bombed the crap out of the Regime, especially at the top.
That's a win for starters.

Bobby. wrote on Mar 25^th, 2026 at 10:28pm:


We told you that in 2024. You responded by saying he was going to stop WWIII.

You're now saying the exact opposite, so I'm curious.

When are you going to finally say it?

Jasin wrote on Mar 26^th, 2026 at 12:35am:



There are 5 items:

https://www.dawn.com/news/1985253

A complete halt to “aggression and assassinations” by the enemy

The establishment of concrete mechanisms to ensure that the war is not reimposed on the Islamic Republic

Guaranteed and clearly defined payment of war damages and reparations

The conclusion of the war across all fronts and for all resistance groups involved throughout the region

International recognition and guarantees regarding Iran’s sovereign right to exercise authority over the Strait of Hormuz

Big Donger wrote on Mar 26^th, 2026 at 9:04am:



As if Trump is gunna pay reparations.   

Bobby. wrote on Mar 26^th, 2026 at 8:29am:


To agree to these conditions and then nuke the mullahs would be fair because it isn't on conditional list 

Jasin wrote on Mar 26^th, 2026 at 10:51am:


So let's get this straight.

You're outraged that Barack Obama unfroze Iran's own money as part of a deal explicitly designed to halt their nuclear program.

You've spent years insisting that any money reaching Iran is intolerable because it "funds terrorism", a supposedly absolute principle.

Fine. Let's apply it consistently.

What, then, do you call it when Donald Trump eases sanctions on Iranian oil?

We're talking about roughly 140 million barrels, sitting there waiting to be sold, with a headline value pushing $14 billion. Even if you stretch credibility to its limits and assume a 30–40% haircut through sanctions leakage, logistics, and middlemen, you're still staring at $8–9 billion flowing back to Tehran, with Trump's name on it.

Not frozen assets. Not legacy funds. Fresh revenue.

So which is it?

Either money going to Iran is an unforgivable evil that "funds terrorism", in which case you now have to explain why facilitating billions in oil revenue is somehow different, or your earlier outrage was never about principle in the first place.

You don't get to scream about Obama "giving Iran money" when he returned what was already theirs, then fall strangely silent when Trump's actions help generate billions in new income.

Make it make sense.

Jasin wrote on Mar 26^th, 2026 at 10:51am:


And if Donald Trump is supposedly trying to "put an end to it", by what metric are you judging that success?

Because right now, Iran is actively retaliating across the region in response to US actions and strikes on its allies. Escalation is not containment. Expansion is not resolution. So is this what "ending it" looks like to you, a widening conflict with more actors, more fronts, and no defined endpoint?

Or are we supposed to pretend this is all part of some grand strategy that magically resolves itself later?

Let's be blunt. If it's no longer about regime change, no longer about nuclear containment, and no longer about asserting regional dominance, then what exactly is the objective?

What does "victory" actually mean here?

Because "putting an end to it" isn't a strategy, it's a slogan. It's the kind of vague, unfalsifiable language you use when you either don't have a clear objective, or you know the real objective won't survive scrutiny.

So spell it out.

What is the measurable end state? What conditions need to exist for you to say, "this is over"?

Until you can answer that, all you're defending isn't a plan, it's an improvisation with a body count that is funding Iranian terrorism by your own logic.