Iranian state media has confirmed that Ayatollah Ali Khamenei was killed during the strikes the United States and Israel conducted on the country. NBC News' Gabe Gutierrez reports from the White House on what impact the leader's death could have on the country and region.
First two months of 2026: The US kidnaps one country’s leader, murders another, and kills hundreds of civilians in two failed regime change attempts.
Death to the burger empire.
You’d be surprised how long dead ideas live
The scary part is how they succeed in their objectives. I’m still not over Maduro’s kidnapping and how they pulled it off. It’s freakish.
No, they didn’t succeed. Their objectives were regime change, that didn’t happen. You could at the most say that Venezuela is now more cohoperative but they didn’t install a comprador.
US government spends more than a trillion dollar on war each year.
the military fully backed him thats why, not like donald planed it out, they did under his general order. that and kidnaping moduro hasn’t really changed the country much after hes gone.
The real battle happens before any shots are fired.
Weed turns you into a bot if you don’t take breaks #nothatingjustsaying
Kidnapping Maduro didn’t accomplish any of their stated objectives in Venezuela. It looks like the White House didn’t even confer with energy companies about the viability of expanding their oil production?! They flipped their script immediately afterwards and claimed they won. You’d have to be a doomer to believe it.
Although, it’s worth noting that this was largely a stunt. The US did not have the ability to actually invade Venezuela or to topple the government.
It was indeed a stunt, keep in mind that the US spend trillions to maintain an army capable of invading other countries, it’s just not convenient for them to do so.
It’s more than just inconvenience. The US does not have a good track record fighting prolonged conflicts. They can destroy a country and make millions of people suffer, but they rarely achieve long term objectives.
I would argue that their long term objectives are usually achieved, USA pretty much control the whole world.
the US absolutely doesn’t control the world, the war in Ukraine and recent attempt at a trade war with China is a great example of just how weak the empire really is. The US failed to subdue Russia and their attempt to cut Russia out of the global economy resulted in a separate economic system forming with increasing amount of trade happening outside western control. Now, global majority is allied with China against the empire, and hence why we see the US desperately lashing out.
The US has hit an inflection point where the cost of maintaining the empire outstrips the plunder. All the forever wars have drained critical resources, while financial capitalism moved essential production overseas. Now the US finds that it has little economic leverage, and its material base is eroded.
“The dying serpent always bites”. The roman empire went out like this too, overextending itself with a lot of imperialist wars, then devolving into internal strife and instability until it hollowed out and everyone left.
Indeed, it does seem to be a consistent pattern throughout the ages. I imagine a big part of it is that the ruling class becomes increasingly disconnected from material reality, and they start making decisions based on how they think the world works rather than how it actually is.
You’d argue and you’d lose that argument. If you think the Empire controls the world then you’re clearly not seeing or you don’t want to see how it’s collapsing. If they would have accomplished their objectives they wouldn’t have a single opposition force in the world, yet there are plenty. Maybe you think the world is white people only? Because they do have control over all of their colonies and they are all white Westerners.
These sorts of attacks is what the US military has been investing in capacity to complete for decades. This is why there has been an investment bleeding edge tech which costs insane amounts of money to develop.
No, insane costs are due to how the military industrial complex rules the country and inflates prices because it needs more profits. Costs do not necessarily mean more sophisticated or that have an actual improvement in the battlefield. In fact recent trends show the opposite, the cheaper the tech the better output it produces on the battlefield. It’s low cost vehicles, missiles and drones that are leading the battle, not 20 trillion F-35s.