Iranians describe scenes of catastrophe after Tehran's oil depots bombed

2026-03-097:32108210www.theguardian.com

Residents report terror of smoke-filled city, from potentially toxic rain, air and water to food scarcity and difficulty of escape

Thick black smoke was still rising in the sky, soot covered the streets and cars, balconies filled with black gunk, and the toxic air had filled the lungs as Tehran woke up after a night of airstrikes on the city’s oil depots on Sunday.

In messages and voice notes sent to the Guardian, people described the situation in their homes and on the streets, some calling it “apocalyptic”. With the sun blotted out, disoriented people in Iran’s capital had to turn on their lights to see through the gloom.

Four oil depots and a petroleum logistics site in and around Tehran were hit. Local authorities said six people were killed and 20 wounded at one of the sites.

Videos shared by citizen journalists showed massive flames over the Tehran sky overnight and smoke still billowing over the oil storage facilities. As rain poured down on the city of 10 million people on Sunday morning, authorities warned of toxic acid rain and many residents woke up with pain in their throat and eyes burning.

Three silhouetted people watch a dark smoke plume rise from a fire on the horizon of Tehran
A fire after an airstrike on an oil storage facility in Tehran. Photograph: Arileza Sotakbar/AP

Speaking to the Guardian via voice notes, Negin – not her real name – an activist and former political prisoner based in the central-east side of the city, said the situation was “apocalyptic”.

She said: “The situation is so frightening it’s hard to describe. Smoke has covered the entire city. I have severe shortness of breath and burning in my eyes and throat, and many others feel the same. But people still have to go outside because they have no choice. Many places reopened today, but closed again because it’s impossible to stay outdoors.”

Iran’s environmental agency advised people in Tehran to stay indoors. The country’s Red Crescent said the toxic chemicals could lead to acid rain and hurt the skin and lungs, advising people to avoid turning on air conditioners or going outside immediately after rainfall. It also encouraged people to protect exposed food. Tehran’s governor recommended wearing masks outside. Dr Shahram Kordasti, a UK-based Iranian haemato-oncologist, warned the toxic gases and fine particulate matter could irritate the eyes and airways, worsen asthma, pulmonary conditions and heart disease, and increase the risk of some cancers.

Flames, sparks and billowing smoke surround the silhouette of the Azadi tower.
Strikes near the Azadi tower close to Tehran’s Mehrabad International airport on Saturday night. Photograph: Atta Kenare/AFP/Getty Images

Negin, who went out to buy a mask and an inhaler, said: “Even masks are becoming difficult to find. This is a huge mistake. I ask those who have the ability, especially foreign media, to reflect on this situation. What are people supposed to do under these conditions? This is truly a crime against humanity.”

Speaking about the effects on people of the US-Israeli strikes continuing around her she said, “This is no longer just a human rights violation. It is truly anti-human behaviour. If someone has a problem with the Islamic Republic government, that is one thing – but not with us, the people. You cannot attack water systems or refineries. Most of Tehran’s water comes from dams. If those become polluted, what happens then? The government has basically left people on their own.”

She said: “Prices are skyrocketing. I bought an inhaler for 850,000 tomans [£4.50]. Where are people supposed to get this money? Many people in Tehran are daily workers who haven’t had work for a long time. Food is becoming extremely expensive, and many things are becoming scarce.”

For Negin, who decided to stay in the city, there was a feeling of helplessness. “The pressure inside the country is becoming enormous. There are shortages of basic goods. There was no gasoline anywhere. Today in many places they are giving people only five litres of fuel. The situation is extremely painful.”

Two women in veils and firefighting uniform stand in front of a sky filled with black smoke
Firefighters at the Shahran oil depot in Tehran after it was struck. Photograph: Anadolu/Getty Images

In other messages relayed via relatives abroad, two Tehranis said everyone was advised to stay indoors and given instructions on domestic media on how to deal with the toxic air and keep safe.

Mehdi – speaking under an alias – is a 42-year-old restaurant owner who lives in the west of the city. He said the fear of inhaling the toxic gas and touching anything is similar to how it felt during Covid. “We are so scared to even clean the windows and balconies. There’s soot everywhere and we don’t even want to touch it with gloves. My eyes are burning and I look outside and see people without masks are going on with their daily lives. I am not so brave. There’s this smell in the air I can’t explain.”

Mehdi said he also planned to leave the city and that it would be hazardous to serve people food in his restaurant until he knew the water was safe. “Trust me, we are on our own. This regime doesn’t care about us so why would I make a plea to a foreign power to care for us? And tell those saying we asked for this. No! We didn’t ask for the death of our people who were getting killed by the regime anyway. And if you haven’t cared when they gunned us down, zip your mouth now. We [Tehranis] are here to help each other even if this government doesn’t.”

Firefighters beside a charred fuel tanker against a charred telegraph pole and smoke-filled sky
A destroyed fuel tanker at the Shahran depot. Photograph: Majid Asgaripour/Reuters

As Israel targeted the oil storage facilities on Saturday evening, Mehnaz, 39, who did not want her real name published, tried to flee the south of the capital, she said in messages. Believing the strikes would get worse early the next morning, she and her husband packed up essentials and got in the car. After driving just a few minutes, she saw bright flames in the sky towards the Shahr-e Rey oil depot.

Thinking it was just another explosion, she drove ahead, not realising the oil depot had been hit. The internet shutdown imposed by the regime meant she had no information on what was hit and where. “I thought leaving now was safe because they will hit early [on Sunday] morning, but I had to come back,” she said.

At about midnight on Saturday, she wrote: “Tehran is burning. And smoke has filled the streets. It’s impossible to drive out of the city right now and even with the windows closed, heavy smoke is making its way inside … [I am] clueless whether to stay in or brave the flames and drive out while it’s still on fire. I don’t even have a mask.”

Cars on a motorway drive towards a thick smoky skyline past a war memorial statue and a billboard depicting the late Ayatollah Ali Khamenei
Cars in Tehran pass a war memorial statue and a billboard depicting the late Ayatollah Ali Khamenei. Photograph: AFP/Getty Images

But on Sunday, Mehnaz decided staying put in the city was no longer feasible. She fled at about 11.30am and drove towards her parents’ home outside the province.

“There was a long queue for gas and they were rationing and putting a limit on how much we [could] fill in,” she said. “The Rey depot, you won’t believe, was still on fire and it’s insane because in the night it looked like day and in the day, it was so dark, it looked like a new moon night. So, so dark, just like our futures.”

She said: “While I was leaving I noticed there wasn’t a single bird in the sky and you know what they say? When the birds abandon you, you are truly on your own. We have so many cats in the city. If these attacks continue, whoever rules here next, they will rule over a democracy of cats. But then even cats have only nine lives.”

Additional reporting by Angelique Chrisafis, Associated Press and AFP


Read the original article

Comments

  • By keiferski 2026-03-099:0215 reply

    This whole situation made me realize that the mechanism for holding presidents accountable for campaign promises really doesn’t exist. None of this is what people voted for, and is almost directly the opposite. That isn’t a new thing, of course, but this seems like a pretty huge turnaround from what the campaign was about.

    This seems like a fundamental problem with the system to me. If you can’t count on the candidate to at least attempt sticking to campaign promises, then the entire process is irrational.

    Presumably the mechanism is supposed to be Congress and impeachment, but that doesn’t work if the president is directly influencing their election campaigns.

    I do wonder if / how something could be implemented that addresses this, beyond just losing at the next election.

    • By ikr678 2026-03-099:062 reply

      This used to be the job of the third estate, but traditional media has all been captured and the algorithms have done the rest, drowning us in a sea of content.

      • By ethbr1 2026-03-0915:021 reply

        > but traditional media has all been captured and the algorithms have done the rest

        We should be explicit about what happened:

        Google and Facebook skimmed off most of advertising revenue that previously supported journalism.

        Then neither originated new news in quantity or quality to replace what they ate. Revenues (from ads) without costs (of paying journalists) = their profits.

        Now, we have orders of magnitude less professional journalism.

        When you boil it down, their business models are less about being clever and more about redirecting a huge, previously-social-good flow of money through their toll gates and taxing it.

        • By yubblegum 2026-03-0916:151 reply

          Sorry, have to call b.s. on lack of funds. Our media are owned by a very few, a handful, of corporations. And this happened before Google even existed. It happened in the 90s.

          > business model

          I don't know, is this willful ignorance? Press is political ...

          • By ethbr1 2026-03-1010:52

            A prior ill doesn't excuse a subsequent one.

            That Sinclair, Nexstar, CC/iHeartMedia were allowed to consolidate in the 90s is bad.

            That Google et al. decimated newspaper revenue from the mid-00s onwards without replacing their newsrooms is worse.*

            I wouldn't have as big a gripe if Google or Facebook had started their own news bureaus and funded them with their profits. It still would have been a rounding error on their balance sheet.

            But instead they destroyed a social good, took their bonuses, and called it a day.

            * See 2007, the year Google was allowed to buy DoubleClick https://www.pewresearch.org/journalism/fact-sheet/newspapers...

      • By davkan 2026-03-0912:15

        The media is the fourth estate. In the modern US the first three are often interpreted as the branches of government. Historically estates were often some combination of the nobility, the clergy, and the commoners.

    • By deeg 2026-03-0914:111 reply

      I think people did vote for this and the proof is that Republicans are still supporting trump almost unequivocally. The senate just voted to not curtail his actions in Iran and only one GOP senator opposed.

      • By Schmerika 2026-03-100:291 reply

        > the proof is that Republicans are still supporting trump almost unequivocally

        That doesn't prove what people voted for. It proves the quality - or lack thereof - of the voting population, the political class, and the media.

        Few want to hear that. Fewer still understand it.

        • By nickthegreek 2026-03-100:50

          Those people aren’t in the streets shouting that this isn’t what they voted for. Stands to reason that many are just fine with how everything is playing out.

    • By sshine 2026-03-0910:23

      There's an election in my country, and every campaign is full of lies:

      Every bold change, whether it's more or less taxes, will not realize.

      It is just meant for people to vote on, not for the government to realize.

      I do think that in multi-party systems, parties have more to lose long-term.

      One crazy president won't fundamentally change your color.

    • By John23832 2026-03-099:16

      That mechanism used to be shame.

    • By kdheiwns 2026-03-099:142 reply

      A lot of people voted on a platform of pissing off a lot of people. A lot of people are pissed. Polls on the day of the invasion indicated a lack of support; since then a lot of people have shown that they're pissed, and now that voter base is supporting the admin and these actions because they see people getting pissed.

      It sounds petty and dumb. Unfortunately, that's what's happening. 44% support the invasion. [1] That's identical to the constant 40-45% support the admin has had since day one. There has been no change in support and there never will be. There's absolutely no convincing them, leaving us with the only option of figuring out how we're supposed to deal with a country where nearly half the population has a mindset no different from willing kamikaze pilots.

      [1] https://www.pbs.org/newshour/amp/politics/majority-of-americ...

      • By insane_dreamer 2026-03-0915:061 reply

        Not to mention that a good proportion of those 44% are Christians who dgaf about Iranians; in fact they're probably "heathen" being visited by "God's judgements".

        • By _DeadFred_ 2026-03-0915:283 reply

          The religious bigotry on this site is out of control. Christians are labeled/talked about as a block. But Muslims are treated differently, and when it's Muslim thought that is interpreted as bad, we refer to Islamists not Muslims to avoid blanket labeling.

          You should edit your post because it represents Christians in a way that is not true the majority are not aligned with a weird minority subset nor the views you are assigning them.

          • By throwaway-11-1 2026-03-0916:461 reply

            Christians are clearly a powerful voting bloc in the US and support reactionary politics by a vast margin. Many of them see these wars as fulfilling end time prophecy and you know it. Muslim opinions in the US aren't anywhere near as influential in national elections and do actually shift on material conditions (see Gaza & Harris in the Midwest). Like get real, you will never see a christian at an anti-war protest.

            source - grew up in a baptist church, grandfather was a pastor

            • By _DeadFred_ 2026-03-0916:571 reply

              This right here is the bigotry/double standard I'm talking about that is accepted here. 'Muslims are a death cult and you know it' is not acceptable speech, but you proudly just made the same claim, only towards Christians.

              The majority of Christians are not in an end times death cult, and the size of a religious voting block in the USA doesn't change that fact. Again, we use language to separate moderate Muslims from minority extremist views normally referred to as Islamist here, but Christians are an end times death cult who don't protest war (pretty sure the Pope is on record as being anti-war).

              I talked about how we refer to different religions with a bigoted double standard here, not Muslim/Christian voting influence. You followed with the very bigoted:

              "Like get real, you will never see a Christian at an anti-war protest."

              HN has a bigotry/stereotyping/double standard problem towards Christians. Bigotry against a religion as a political weapon/lashout is wrong.

              • By nullocator 2026-03-0917:231 reply

                I think you are misunderstanding the situation "The majority of Christians are not in an end times death cult" sure maybe, but the majority of people in the "end times death cult" would loudly and proudly proclaim they are christians and represent christians. It is a failing of "real christians" to not reject and excise this.

                • By _DeadFred_ 2026-03-0918:351 reply

                  'If <religion x> isn't awful then why aren't more of <religion x> followers in my timeline calling out <someone else>'s actions? Those people of that religion are complicit because they don't vocally enough denounce <someone else/trait I assigned them> in the way I require therefor they and <religion x> too are responsible for <random thing/person/trait I assigned>'

                  isn't really the 'I'm not bigoted on this' reply you might think it is. It's more just the bog standard 'this is why I am bigoted against X group' justification of bigotry.

                  • By nullocator 2026-03-0920:541 reply

                    Would it surprise you to learn I am a christian, have been my entire life? Maybe not the kind of "christian" you are/are think of though...which I guess was my point entirely. I'm more of a "respect and love thy neighbor kind of guy", than a "we should love our new christ Donald Trump, and go to war on everyone else" kind

                    • By _DeadFred_ 2026-03-0922:411 reply

                      OK. I'm not really christian (but grew up catholic) but know a lot and they are all like you. All hate Trump. All seem to hate war (but they do do fundraisers for Ukraine so I don't know if that is supporting war, it's not to me). And all work hard supporting our poor rural community. There's trump christians here too, but they don't define the religion or mean you can make blanket christian belief claims.

                      Condemning a religious group based on a few is bigotry. We criticize it when it happens to Muslims, but seem to support it for Christians. Demanding a group denounce other peoples actions or a trait you define to be 'inherent to them' is classic bigotry. Saying a religious group is your political enemy has never led to anything good in history. 'I think trump supporting evangelics who want to bring about armageden blah blah' could be a valid point but 'Christians are a doomsday death cult' isn't.

                      • By insane_dreamer 2026-03-101:371 reply

                        "80% of evangelicals voted for President-elect Donald Trump in 2024"[0]

                        [0] https://americancompass.org/how-the-decline-of-evangelicalis...

                        • By _DeadFred_ 2026-03-1015:141 reply

                          Fuck it you guys are right, let's endorse bigotry against religions/groups. That should work out great.

                          Evangelicals aren't all Christians and 80% isn't all. But fuck it, assigning traits we don't like to all members of a community? That is 100% cool for Hacker News discussions. Trash take from all of you. But I'm glad you went hard so it can't be denied.

                          Hacker News has a blatant bigotry problem against Christians.

          • By insane_dreamer 2026-03-0919:55

            > good proportion of those 44% are Christians

            I was referring to the "44%" which the previous post was making a case for represent MAGA people who support Trump no matter what he does -- not Christians in general.

            MAGA has a very strong Evangelical block who are rabid "Christians" (though frankly they more closely resemble the Catholic Inquisition and have very little to do with the teachings of Jesus Christ)

          • By butterbomb 2026-03-0915:28

            [dead]

      • By lukan 2026-03-099:201 reply

        The source seems bad, for some reasons they added the 10% of "unsure" to "supports".

        "the new survey found 56% of Americans oppose U.S. military action in Iran, while 44% support it."

        But later:

        "A majority -- 54% -- of Americans disapprove of how Trump is handling Iran. Another 36% approve and 10% are unsure"

        36% support it.

        • By kdheiwns 2026-03-099:211 reply

          They're different questions. One is whether they support the way Trump is doing it. The other is whether they support a war overall.

          Their reason for supporting a war but not the way Trump is doing it could range from it being too extreme to not being extreme enough. Some people unironically want nuclear weapons to be dropped and will settle for nothing less.

          • By lukan 2026-03-099:28

            I missed that, but then it is still not correct to say 44% support the invasion. In a very different framework (clear plan, cooperation with iranian opposition, working exile government, transition plan ..) I also can see myself supporting military action against the religious fanatics in power in Iran. But this invasion I do not support.

    • By fabian2k 2026-03-0913:041 reply

      Trump was mostly a known quantity when elected a second time. And on foreign policy it was clear that he would be at least erratic and unpredictable. This is not an unexpected result of voting for Trump.

      People voted for a vindictive and petty criminal that doesn't care about rules or laws. This is the result of that.

      • By JKCalhoun 2026-03-0913:25

        I, agree. It's impossible for me to afford any cover for someone who says they thought they were voting for a guy who would not start any wars.

        I can't think of a time in my life when the choice was any more clear.

    • By vkou 2026-03-0922:42

      That mechanism exists, it's called congress, the problem is that half the country is dancing in the streets over this.

      Or at least, it's going to vote the fuckers doing this in again in November.

    • By thisisit 2026-03-0915:131 reply

      Trump has always been incoherent.

      On one hand he had "No new wars", he also was pretty clear on his disdain for Middle Eastern countries - the ones not giving him millions in bribes.

      People knew that he was incoherent and inconsistent. He proved that during his first Presidency. So, I don't think it is a case of "not what people voted for". People are getting exactly what they voted for - chaos and incoherence.

      As you said, Congress doesn't want to do anything due to elections. And courts have declared that President actions are always justified.

      Choices beyond losing election requires either of these branches to act. Without that, wait for the next election.

      • By ryandrake 2026-03-0916:18

        > And courts have declared that President actions are always justified.

        To be more specific, the SCOTUS has only declared one particular President's actions as always justified. I would be willing to bet any amount of money that they suddenly reverse this opinion as soon as someone from the other team becomes president.

    • By Server6 2026-03-0916:24

      Unfortunately this is exactly what people voted for. Did you not listen to Trump during the campaign? He promised chaos, revenge, racism, and incoherent nonsense. We're getting exactly that 10x.

    • By motiw 2026-03-0915:58

      Maybe the solution is a referendum that would allow forcing elections at any moment

    • By Neil44 2026-03-099:062 reply

      Pretty big assumption you're making, that you know what people voted for.

      • By entropyneur 2026-03-099:141 reply

        It may indeed be the case that the candidate promised one thing and the voters acting irrationally (or correctly assuming he's a liar) voted with an expectation of him doing the exact opposite. The GP, however didn't say anything about voting. He was talking specifically about the mismatch between campaign promises and actions taken once in office.

      • By keiferski 2026-03-099:094 reply

        I’d be glad to see evidence that people voted for interventions in the Middle East, if you have any.

        My impression is that a key part of Trump’s campaign was ending excessive foreign wars. There are lots of clips going around with him saying this.

        • By kakacik 2026-03-099:14

          Well yeah but he is a pathological liar, fraudster and a criminal. This was well known during 2nd election campaign.

          Expecting to hold any promises just because they were said and got him where he wanted is a bit naive, don't you think? Or does the idea of 'but now he will act completely differently to his entire prior life!' makes any sense to you?

        • By tgma 2026-03-0911:05

          Trump also has said "I will bomb the shit out of them -- I don't care" on the campaign trail.

          I think a relatively accurate model of the people's opinion towards intervention might be quite simple: it is good if we win relatively swiftly and bad if we lose and/or don't gain anything, and the opinion at the time is shaped (and over time altered) based on their estimate of the outcome, but no politician says it that way so it is always cast as black and white pro-war/anti-war.

          In the current case, I think many Americans, even Democrats, recognize the regime in Iran as a threat that needs to be dealt with somehow (a deal or an intervention). Their worry is the cost and ramifications, not some ulterior principle. If Trump brings home a win and some oil to boot soon-ish, you're going to see positive sentiments more clearly. If this drags on, the backlash will be there, and will be phrased as "MAGA never wanted the war" and along your lines of isolationist promises not kept.

        • By applfanboysbgon 2026-03-099:162 reply

          Trump's approval rating among his base is still overwhelmingly high. They know what they were voting for, and they still support him. They know that Trump lies like he breathes, and they are perfectly fine with that. Trump supporters themselves are largely liars. They do not openly state the positions they actually hold. That Trump says X and does Y is fine because his supporters say X and believe Y. Words are a game to them, a means to accomplish a goal rather than something to communicate honestly with.

          The most important thing to understand about Trump and conservatism in general, by far, is that there is one central principle that underpines the entire ideology: hierarchy. Going back to the time of kings and nobility and clergy, through to the present day.

          "Conservatism consists of exactly one proposition, to wit: There must be in-groups whom the law protects but does not bind, alongside out-groups whom the law binds but does not protect."

          One set of laws for the people higher in the hierarchy, and one set of laws for the people lower in the hierarchy. Things that are okay for them to do are not okay for you to do. Wars started by Democrats are bad. Wars started by Republicans are good. They know this is not convincing rhetoric to anyone who is not part of the in-group, so they lie about their reasons and play games with words. This, however, is what they truly believe.

          It is why every action they take appears hypocritical to their opponents, but in actuality, it is perfectly consistent with their values - it is good when they do it, because everything is good when they do it, and it is bad when somebody else does it, because everything is bad when somebody else does it. It is why "the only moral abortion is my abortion". It is why the exact same policies executed by different presidents will have the same approval rating by democrats, but a completely inverse approval rating by republicans (eg 40% of Democrats approve of either Obama or Trump striking Syria, while 20% of Republicans approve if Obama does it and 80% approve if Trump does it). It is the single consistent trend through all of their policies. They know exactly what they were voting for, and that is for the man who represents their hierarchy. The games he plays with words are part of the platform.

          Edit: I have rewrote the message quite a bit, apologies if anything doesn't make sense.

          • By keiferski 2026-03-099:24

            This is too simplified of an answer.

            It may be the case that his base is still just following him and supportive of whatever he does.

            But the number of people who voted for him vastly exceeds his “base”, and the entire MAGA movement is basically predicated on a form of isolationism, or at least not pro-intervention. Part of the reason it became popular was as a reaction against the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

            So I don’t think it’s as simple and one dimensional as you paint here. Which is exactly why I think it’s a systemic problem: many people probably voted for him because of the campaign promises of being against foreign wars.

          • By Al-Khwarizmi 2026-03-0910:011 reply

            But will they still support him if gas prices and general inflation spike hard, as is nearly a given if Trump doesn't back out from the war?

            My impression is that most of his voters are selfish and couldn't care less for other people's woes (migrants, sexual abuse victims, Iranians or whatever), but will care if his antics hit their own pockets. I'm not American so I may well be wrong, though.

            • By applfanboysbgon 2026-03-0910:122 reply

              Yes, they will still support him. Republicans dying of COVID would still deny its existence on their deathbed, so you can be sure there is no consequence that is too far for them. Farmers bankrupted and people who lost jobs because of Trump's policies continue to support him. Inflation is bad when Democrats do it, but it is fine if Republicans do it, as with all things, because that is how their hierarchy works.

              Their support is not the result of a rational calculation of self-interest, and never was. If it was, a base of rural and poor people would never be supporting a coastal city New York elite born with a silver spoon in his mouth as "one of them". But they do, because he is one of them in the way that matters to them. They are fighting for something larger than themselves, and are completely committed to a cultural war for social hierarchy.

              > if gas prices and general inflation spike hard, as is nearly a given if Trump doesn't back out from the war?

              As an aside, I don't think there is any backing out of this war. If somebody launched a missile at your country and killed hundreds of schoolgirls, and destroyed ships on diplomatic missions while leaving the survivors to drown, while also assassinating your country's leader (but not out of any intention of liberation), would you just let things go because they stopped bombing? Of course you wouldn't. Your country would continue to retaliate. And it is trivial to punish America. Even if America unilaterally decided to "declare peace" and withdraw from attacking Iran, Iran has every reason to continue locking down the gulf and making Americans pay the price. Unlike with tariffs, there is no backing down from these price increases even if Trump gets cold feet. But, even so, there is no reason to believe it will move the needle on his base. There is already talk of "short term pain for long term gain" among those who realise this.

              • By JKCalhoun 2026-03-0913:332 reply

                As much as I tried to discount sweeping accusations made against voters, increasingly I am beginning to think that a lot of those who support this administration really want to see a "whiter" and more Christian U.S. It's getting harder for me to deny.

                If there are single-issue voters supporting this admin, I suspect for many that issue is not "stay out of foreign wars" but something closer to going back to some mythical time in the U.S. that looked more like Currier and Ives.

                • By ryandrake 2026-03-0916:251 reply

                  > It's getting harder for me to deny.

                  Congrats on letting it finally sink in, but I honestly don't understand how this fact wasn't clearly evident from even his first term. His base absolutely eats up any rhetoric around making the country 1. more white and 2. more christian. You don't even really have to be listening for subtle dogwhistles anymore. They're saying these things openly now.

                  • By JKCalhoun 2026-03-100:35

                    I suppose there is a part of me that tries to give everyone the benefit of the doubt.

                • By insane_dreamer 2026-03-0915:09

                  Also, war with Iran is a "just war of visiting God's wrath on the evil heathen". Fits right in.

              • By Al-Khwarizmi 2026-03-0912:35

                > As an aside, I don't think there is any backing out of this war. If somebody launched a missile at your country and killed hundreds of schoolgirls, and destroyed ships on diplomatic missions while leaving the survivors to drown, while also assassinating your country's leader (but not out of any intention of liberation), would you just let things go because they stopped bombing? Of course you wouldn't. Your country would continue to retaliate. And it is trivial to punish America. Even if America unilaterally decided to "declare peace" and withdraw from attacking Iran, Iran has every reason to continue locking down the gulf and making Americans pay the price. Unlike with tariffs, there is no backing down from these price increases even if Trump gets cold feet. But, even so, there is no reason to believe it will move the needle on his base. There is already talk of "short term pain for long term gain" among those who realise this.

                Yeah, that's a good point. And the fact that the new leader's closest family members were killed in the attack won't help. But I suppose the Iranian regime might want some stability, and the Gulf countries are very interested in the end of the war because for them it's pretty much an existencial treat. So maybe there's a scenario where Trump gets to declare a GREAT VICTORY because he supposedly destroyed Iran's nuclear capability or whatever, Iran gets money from the Gulf countries and the regime gets stability, and the Gulf countries get... well, avoiding ruin.

        • By gehwartzen 2026-03-0911:51

          Trump is a known liar. He had been for his entire adult life. It looks like the people got exactly what they voted for.

    • By nullocator 2026-03-0917:17

      > None of this is what people voted for, and is almost directly the opposite. That isn’t a new thing, of course, but this seems like a pretty huge turnaround from what the campaign was about.

      Citation needed. I think there is demonstrable evidence that this is exactly what people voted for and they will continue voting and behaving exactly as they have been for the foreseeable future.

      Around ~30-40% of the U.S. population is basically subject to the whims of of the other 60-70% who are either A. Cult members B. Completely apathetic or C. Stupid/Insane and openly hostile to any techniques that could be used to bring them around.

      It's seemingly impossible to get off this progression, and no the apathetic people being shocked into making an opposition based choice every ~4 years before they go back to fucking off is not going to pull us out.

    • By thunky 2026-03-0912:331 reply

      > If you can’t count on the candidate to at least attempt sticking to campaign promises, then the entire process is irrational.

      And then people wonder why the voter participation rate is so low.

      • By nebula8804 2026-03-0916:02

        Correct me if im wrong but didn't Trump bring out a large swath of non-voters during his runs?

    • By spankalee 2026-03-099:074 reply

      The US needs a parliamentary system. Trump would have been dumped already. Instead we have to wait 3 more years to end this insanity.

      • By jjgreen 2026-03-099:29

      • By stef25 2026-03-099:123 reply

        > Instead we have to wait 3 more years to end this insanity.

        Pray that you'll see the end of it in 3 years. It would be surprise if that ship can be turned around.

        • By whycombigator 2026-03-099:47

          Pray? Is this the new federalized form of voting for November and onward?

        • By kakacik 2026-03-099:17

          My gut feeling is that next person after him (if he actually gives up office which is in land of wishful thinking at this point) may be worse, and even visibly worse and US folks will still vote for him/her.

          I sure hope my gut is wildly incorrect this time, for me, you, and mankind overall.

        • By aa-jv 2026-03-0913:17

          >Pray

          This kills the democracy.

      • By mike_hearn 2026-03-0910:261 reply

        In Parliamentary systems, governments still regularly do things that violate or weren't in their manifestos.

        • By spankalee 2026-03-0915:46

          Of course, but at least there's a realistic, actually used, mechanism for replacing an administration. Impeachment in the US is a complete non-factor, so you can only wait for four years, no matter how bad things get.

    • By SadErn 2026-03-099:121 reply

      You're watching the wrong game.

      This isn't politics. This is American imperialism. The constant wars happen regardless of who is elected or what they believe in. Even Obama had his Libya

      The first thing you must understand, is this is the US protecting the Petro-dollar. China and Iran were trading goods for oil, and bypassing our currency. Nukes are a factor as well.

      The rest is laid out plainly here: https://datarepublican.substack.com/p/data-analysis-of-the-s...

      • By nebula8804 2026-03-0923:19

        This person is FAR from an unbiased source and has made regular mistakes that have hurt countless people due to her biases over the last year.

  • By Incipient 2026-03-098:515 reply

    Personally I do have serious concerns about the direction 'the west' is going with the current issues of immigration, violence, and general migration to a lower trust environment...however trying to burn a capital to the ground definitely seems like the wrong approach making it any better.

    • By yetihehe 2026-03-098:54

      I think in reality they don't want to make it better...

    • By thrance 2026-03-0919:45

      Politely, you should reconsider your views on immigration. Immigrants (even illegal ones) are on average less violent than native citizens, and net positives to the economy. Their constant scapegoating in the public discourse was always going to lead to this senseless violence the World is currently experiencing. Playing into this populist view of the issue reinforces this vicious cycle.

    • By spiderfarmer 2026-03-098:551 reply

      Did you, after all you've seen, think the people currently in power in the USA are capable of making reasonable decisions?

      Vote these people out please.

      • By camillomiller 2026-03-098:561 reply

        I fear that with this people in power we are past that already. We'll see soon, I suppose. Trump and his goons will not leave power through elections.

        • By amazingman 2026-03-0915:49

          Which has been obvious since 2015. 11 years later and many of us still can't even convince our own family members that Trump and Trumpism are appreciably different than "the left".

    • By throwaway-11-1 2026-03-0918:33

      I trust my cool as hell Pakistani immigrant neighbors 10000x more than Bill gates, or Mark Zuckerberg or any other 'native born' pedophile associated oligarch. Sorry if thats woke :(

    • By golemiprague 2026-03-099:00

      [dead]

  • By throwaway132448 2026-03-099:162 reply

    Why are threads on this topic (and its adjacents) always full of Americans blaming Israel for their own country’s actions? Is it a coping mechanism to not accept any moral accountability? Israel is minuscule in every way compared to the US.

    • By Gud 2026-03-0911:082 reply

      Israel wields a lot of power over the US.

      • By throwaway132448 2026-03-0911:382 reply

        They said, without any justification at all, merely reinforcing my own point.

        • By sheikhnbake 2026-03-0913:13

          People want to shift blame. The influence and money between the US and Israel is a revolving door. The US gives Israel tons of money in defense and security contracts, orgs like AIPAC redistribute some of those funds back to the US to keep the revolving door greased.

          I think it's incorrect to say Israel is pulling the strings when admins of both have been colluding almost since Israel's existence.

        • By nullocator 2026-03-0917:30

          People are saying this now because Benjamin Netanyahu has vocally and persistently been trying to get into a full scale war with Iran for 40 years. The Trump Administration is the first administration corrupt, gullible, dumb enough to agree and commit. All other U.S. Admins have primarily postured or done limited retaliation based engagements with Iran or engaged in soft power activities and got comprehensive deals.

      • By alkyon 2026-03-0915:16

        We don't know what happened with the bulk of Epstein's private island videos. Who knows, they may well have resurfaced in Tel Aviv or Moscow. Both countries have a lot to gain from this disastrous campaign.

    • By snvzz 2026-03-0923:45

      Because, factually, this is a story about Israel's bombing of Iranian oil depots.

HackerNews