this post was submitted on 23 Mar 2026

328 points (98.2% liked)

Political Memes

11415 readers

1832 users here now

Welcome to politcal memes!

These are our rules:

1) Be civil

Jokes are okay, but don’t intentionally harass or disturb any member of our community. Sexism, racism and bigotry are not allowed. Good faith argumentation only. No posts discouraging people to vote or shaming people for voting.

2) No misinformation

Don’t post any intentional misinformation. When asked by mods, provide sources for any claims you make.

3) Posts should be memes

Random pictures do not qualify as memes. Relevance to politics is required.

4) No bots, spam or self-promotion

Follow instance rules, ask for your bot to be allowed on this community.

5) No AI generated content.

Content posted must not be created by AI with the intent to mimic the style of existing images

founded 2 years ago

MODERATORS

Rooki@lemmy.world

automodbeta@lemmy.world

Tenthrow@lemmy.world

JonsJava@lemmy.world

Lasherz12@lemmy.world

FauxPseudo@lemmy.world

328

Trump's Kobayashi Maru (media.piefed.social)

submitted 1 day ago by nymnympseudonym@piefed.social to c/politicalmemes@lemmy.world

53 comments fedilink hide all child comments

Iran may have found the move Trump can never play

Original article:
https://www.nytimes.com/live/2026/03/22/world/iran-war-oil-trump

top 50 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old

[–] RememberTheApollo_@lemmy.world 7 points 12 hours ago

Trump can’t back down. He has no other method of operation than application of further force to make his opponent yield.

You will do what I want, you’re making me do this. This is your fault I have to hurt you more. Anything you do in retaliation is your fault and not a justifiable reaction to what I’m doing to you and I will hurt you harder for everything you do to defend yourself.

He’s an abuser.

If he were to stop, that would mean losing face and the possibility be were wrong.

No narcissist can do that.

[–] ChristerMLB@piefed.social 3 points 12 hours ago

Yeah, going into a negotiation with a very public message of KISS THE BOOT OR SUFFER THE CONSEQUENCES will generally have people going pretty far to keep it from looking like you're getting your way. It's a matter of dignity, and a lot of people take that quite seriously.

[–] Akh@lemmy.world 56 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Imagine all it takes is the US and Israel to legit say say sorry to Iran and show Iran respect in the future to restore energy security and know you are fucked because of pride

[–] ajoebyanyothername@lemmy.world 13 points 22 hours ago

Given the people involved, 'all' is doing a lot of heavy lifting in that sentence.

[–] Wilco@lemmy.zip 17 points 1 day ago (2 children)

They did just defeat Trump ... he has no respect for anything.

[–] Lushed_Lungfish@lemmy.ca 1 points 11 hours ago (1 children)

He respects Vladimir Putin. Or at least his cock.

[–] Wilco@lemmy.zip 1 points 6 hours ago

That's envy. He dreams of being like Putin ... of course MAGA basically made him that way.

[–] D_C@sh.itjust.works 5 points 22 hours ago (1 children)

LIES! FALSE!
What about the respect for the hard work child traffickers put in? What about the redirect for other dictators? What about the respect for other child rapists?

[–] Wilco@lemmy.zip 3 points 21 hours ago

That is envy and sense of entitlement to "his share" ... its almost respect, but is still just the formless emotions of a soulless man baby.

[–] First_Thunder@lemmy.zip 3 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (23 children)

I mean, there were 2 ships hit with drones… there are reasons for the insurers to be afraid

Edit source; https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c80j4rln8zmo

[–] nymnympseudonym@piefed.social 36 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Yes, they fear the hot war Trump started without consulting any allies (except Bibi) nor any preparation

[–] I_Has_A_Hat@lemmy.world 1 points 12 hours ago

Yes, they fear Irans response to the hot war Trump started. Why is this such a difficult concept to grasp?

load more comments (22 replies)

[+] 8oow3291d@feddit.dk -17 points 22 hours ago* (last edited 22 hours ago) (1 children)

So he is saying that Iran is not responsible for *checks notes* Iran selectively and deliberately hitting ships of third party nations not involved in the war? That is not how moral responsibility works. How old is he, 5 years old?

[–] Eximius@lemmy.world 14 points 20 hours ago (1 children)

Strait of Hormuz is not international waters. They are fully allowed to close it, at least on their side of the strait. When people ignore laws, usually there is a penalty and enforcement. Closure here is enforced by missiles.

Whether Oman is a party in this war (given their harboring of US bases and military assets) is up to debate.

[–] 8oow3291d@feddit.dk 1 points 20 hours ago* (last edited 19 hours ago) (2 children)

They are fully allowed to close it

According to the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS), ships have a right to transit international straits like the Straight of Hormuz. Article 38 to be exact: https://www.un.org/depts/los/convention_agreements/texts/unclos/unclos_e.pdf

at least on their side of the strait.

And as you say, their side. But it is quite clear that Iran has closed the whole thing, also the part Iran has no right to.

Whether Oman is a party in this war (given their harboring of US bases and military assets) is up to debate.

Has Oman allowed attacks from the bases (I don't actually know)? If not, then Oman is not party to the war. But it seems pretty clear that Iran would not restrain itself in either case, right?

And in any case, this is civilian ships, which are not valid targets even in a war.

[–] RedRibbonArmy@sh.itjust.works 1 points 28 minutes ago

The US bombed a fucking school and killed over 100 kids. The US and Israel started the attacks on civilians.

[–] Eximius@lemmy.world 4 points 19 hours ago* (last edited 19 hours ago) (2 children)

I dont know. Generally it gets a bit muddy at such a stage. Are they party to the war? Did they expressly forbid USA from using military bases to resupply from/attack Iran? Did Oman cushly stay silent and complicit playing both sides? Are trade ships that are trading with the enemy, not expressly and officially guaranteed by Oman not valid targets in a strait majorly controlled by Iran (even the Oman territorial waters are a bit silly once you take into account the geography)? (Not talking about people, but about infrastructure and supply chain)

If anything, Iran, in its desperation, is fighting well against the superest most bigliest ultra fascist state in the making.

[–] nymnympseudonym@piefed.social 1 points 15 hours ago

To be clear: this war is Islamofascists vs Judeochristian fascists

[–] 8oow3291d@feddit.dk 0 points 18 hours ago* (last edited 18 hours ago) (3 children)

Generally it gets a bit muddy at such a stage.

I think international law is actually pretty clear, in general. You don't get to shoot at every ship that moves.

Are trade ships that are trading with the enemy, not expressly and officially guaranteed by Oman not valid targets

Iran is shooting all the ships. It is pretty clear that "legality" is not a concern Iran has.

If anything, Iran, in its desperation, is fighting well against the superest most bigliest ultra fascist state in the making.

This seems to be the root. You see that Trump/USA is evil here, which it is. And then somehow conclude that Iran must be good, if Iran is fighting against Trump.

Iran is evil too. Fucking evil. Killing innocent civilians deliberately and laughing at it evil.

There is a trend of ignoring how evil some of the Muslim groupings in the Middle East are. That has got to stop. It almost seem like "white man's burden" - as if people think Muslims don't have agency to know right from wrong.

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

What does international law say about assassinating heads of state

What does international law say about bombing industrial infrastructure

What does international law say about bombing hospitals and schools

[–] 8oow3291d@feddit.dk -1 points 13 hours ago (2 children)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whataboutism

[–] AppleTea@lemmy.zip 2 points 11 hours ago (1 children)

ITS NOT WHATABOUTISM TO TALK ABOUT THE MILITARY ACTIONS OF BOTH SIDES OF A WAR; SHUT THE FUCK UP THIS ISNT FORMALIZED DEBATE; AND EVEN IF IT WERE, YOU ARENT USING THE LOGICAL FALLACIES CORRECTLY ANYWAY

[–] 8oow3291d@feddit.dk -1 points 11 hours ago (1 children)

Yes I am using the fallacies correctly.

[–] AppleTea@lemmy.zip 3 points 11 hours ago

fallacy fallacy

[–] Wakmrow@lemmy.world 1 points 12 hours ago* (last edited 9 hours ago) (1 children)

International laws for thee but not for me is not whataboutism

Pathetic response

[–] 8oow3291d@feddit.dk 1 points 11 hours ago (1 children)

Why do you think I believe the US's actions are correct?

[–] Wakmrow@lemmy.world 3 points 11 hours ago

Why are you citing international law as if it matters? You're only applying it to Iranian actions.

[–] 0x0@infosec.pub 1 points 13 hours ago

I was about to post an actual reply to this shitpost, but the effort just isnt worth it.

As in the russian special military operation, the invading party is free to just take their ball and go home, but wont because "pride". Womp womp

[–] Eximius@lemmy.world 2 points 18 hours ago (1 children)

I guess you're right about the international law. But then again, it's been out the window for a while.

I didn't write any conclusions about Iran regime being non evil. But looking at history, you'd be a fool not to see its instability rooted in US/Israel/UK domination goals.

The excerpts from UN assemblies I saw, Iran was quite repetitive, but spoke much more eloquently than the US. Make of that what you will, in the age of ai slop.

[–] 8oow3291d@feddit.dk -1 points 18 hours ago (1 children)

you’d be a fool not to see its instability rooted in US/Israel/UK domination goals.

Yes the US has fucked up bigly in Iraq and Iran. There is a pattern - fuck Republicans.

But in many cases, the US has also created stability. The 1991 Gulf War was fundamentally a stability exercise - Iraq started that war by invading Kuwait. Likely Saddam would gladly have invaded Saudi Arabia, if the US had not enforced the status quo in the region.

The US was the world's policeman. Sometimes they did some shit, but sometimes they kept the peace. Over all, I think people were glad they were there. But keeping the peace involves force or the threat of force sometimes, and it seems to me that some people only see the violence or threat of violence, and not the peace created. As in the 1991 Gulf War, for example.

Iran was quite repetitive, but spoke much more eloquently than the US.

Iran's political leadership has shown far more competence than Trump's administration, no question. Trump apparently started this war without knowing that Iran would close the straight of Hormuz, which random people on the street would have known would happen. Trump's administration is literally idiots - not just people I disagree with.

[–] AppleTea@lemmy.zip 1 points 7 hours ago

The US was the world’s policeman

You know when people said that, it was derisive right? The US wasn't elected to the role by some body at the UN. Americans decided themeselves it was their role, as history's great exception, to decide matters across the globe.

Also, hilarious to say the Gulf War was the good and just war and the Iraq war was a big fuck up, considering they were both the product of the same political dynasty. As if one did not inextricably lead to the other.

load more comments