Writes Trump, at Truth Social.
So that means we won the war?
August 25, 2026
"I have just been informed by the United States Navy that all mines have been removed and/or detonated from within the International Waters of the Strait of Hormuz."
"Iran has been notified that any ship or boat placing new mines will be immediately and systematically destroyed. Through Space Force, we are watching every square inch of the Strait, as we are, also, with Pickaxe Mountain and the already destroyed three other Nuclear sites. There is a Zero Tolerance policy on mine placement in full force and effect. Thank you for your attention to this matter! President DONALD J. TRUMP"
Writes Trump, at Truth Social.
Writes Trump, at Truth Social.
Posts
64 comments:
Of course we've won the war, but the media and lefties will never ever admit it. It will always be the case with them that Trump started an unnecessary war in the middle east and then mucked it up and lost it. Or chickened out from using nuclear weapons. TACO. They want it both ways always.
Trump could perform CPR on someone saving their lives, and the news would print "Trump breaks victims ribs"
Wait!
I thought we were losing the war!
After nearly a half century, yes.
I was under the impression we won the war several months ago. This is the longest two week war ever!
“So that means we won the war?” According to the Democrats and their media pimps if a single IRGC guy lives or a single Iranian drone or missile can fly, we are inTrump’s War.
I understand I have no knowledge or experience in the matter, but I have wondered at our apparent inability to keep the Strait open.
If we can now do so, I think the situation is acceptable in the near term. Short-circuit Iran's nuclear program and deny them the ability to inhibit traffic through the Strait. It's better than where we started, with Iran building a bomb. But only time will tell if we can really keep the Strait open.
More likely, it means Trump is lying again.
Althouse, "So that means we won the war?"
The Atlantic wrote that we lost. End of discussion.
All that's missing is the Mission Accomplished press event.
And getting all those extra ships and resources home. Until the deployment is over, the war hasn't been won.
Hormuz is more like a training exercise than a war at this point, or if you have TDS, "it's a quagmire". It's working like a boa constrictor: slow, steady, tightening. The IRGC is hoping to last until just before the midterms, when they will likely try to do something spectacular, maybe even do it here, although I think that would backfire.
"Of course we've won the war"
Is the Strait (or Straight as Achilles calls it) of Hormuz open? Have we achieved regime change? Has Iran promised to never process nuclear materials again?
If not what does "win" mean? Status quo ante is not winning.
It's just as stupid to say that Trump is always wrong as it is to say that Trump is always right.
"It's better than where we started, with Iran building a bomb. "
I thought we had destroyed Iran's ability to build a bomb well before this war started.
... and a lot of mullahs, the cockroaches are scurrying, the Hamasidals are aborted, and the Strait is open and inclusive.
IRGC is looking to Afghanistan and hoping for a Democratic sanctuary.
"So that means we won the war?"
I think that we're pretty close to that. My information is that traffic in the strait will be increasing from here.
Good news.
"I thought we had destroyed Iran's ability to build a bomb well before this war started."
Whatever.
They did lose in the first 2 weeks. Their leadership was killed, and most of their offensive and defensive abilities were neutralized. We attained air and sea superiority. Our people are safer in theater than on Chicago's streets. The enemy hasn't surrendered, but it's also not a war anymore. Most belligerents in history would have much preferred being in a "war" like this. The Russians wish they were in a "war" like this right now.
@tcrosse. Agreed.
He's defining what it means to win and then stating that he has done that.
I think the argument needs to be about whether he's right in his definition of what it means to win and, separately, whether he's really done those things.
I'm interested in seeing which way his opponents go. Do they reject the definition of winning or do they say he hasn't done those things?
Yes, they could do both, but I think it makes a difference. I like the narrow definition of winning. Just do those things and it is enough. But you must really do them.
"He's defining what it means to win and then stating that he has done that.
In the quoted material, he doesn't actually say "we won".
As to what I think; no, we haven't "won".
We aren't willing to kill all the people who we would need to kill to alter Iran's "Death to America" trajectory.
“Until the deployment is over, the war hasn't been won.”
What about WW2? Troops still stationed in Europe and certainly needed to be there after Germany was defeated and the war was over.
This conflict is about ending Iran's war and their affairs abroad. Coincidentally, this presents Iranians an opportunity to become Persians, again.
Trump has his sources. The usual cats here have theirs. My preference for this is Hung Cao, the Navy Secretary who is referenced in Trump’s Truth. He’s one of many direct sources I follow on X and unlike “news” publishers my direct sources are almost always correct on the facts.
I just come here to see the spin debated. Virtually fact-free from the Left of course.
I don't care what people call it. If you are ahead by 30 points with 1 minute left in the fourth quarter, it doesn't matter how many timeouts you have left, or if the opposing fans (Democrats) are still hoping for a miracle.
It's funny that people still think "killing people'' = winning wars. Winning wars = destroying the enemy's will to fight.
You can kill millions, leadership included, without impacting an enemy's will to fight. Vietnam and Afghanistan are real world examples. I've little doubt the Iranian regime - possibly their people - has a more bottomless stomach for suffering than people assume, and it's dumb underestimating they don't.
My first read was that the Navy had removed all mimes, which would have still been good news. There are two parts to controlling the Straits: 1) mines and 2) direct attacks via ship/land based missiles. Can someone confirm they no longer have the capability to launch a missile at a ship.
Perfect example:
**Mark said All that's missing is the Mission Accomplished press event**
See? All this time and the lying left can’t honestly reference that event in context. It had nothing to do with declaring an end to the war of course. So dragging it into this discussion, which ironically also is not discussing any announcement of the resolution of this war, is just as dishonest as the original sin when the media maliciously misreported the President’s heartfelt congratulations to the crew returning to port after performing a long mission.
“Mission Accomplished” is a stain on the DNC-Media not on GWB. Now Mark chooses to stain himself with it. Spin fight: lost.
I noticed that gas prices were down this morning, so something must be going our way.
"Can someone confirm they no longer have the capability to launch a missile at a ship."
No, but I'm sure some people will tweet very loudly that they can.
Another component of this is Iran's funding, with money and material, of their proxies in the region. I have the impression this is much reduced but, again, I have no special knowledge of the situation.
In my humble opinion, the war was a strike to remove Iranian capabilities. There is no need to get them to yell uncle, I believe they are too crazy to surrender. The landscape has changed, the proxies of Hamas and Hizbollah and Assad are reduced, Iran has no friends except China, Russia, and some Qatari and Pakistani hardliners. And the Arabs are serious about diversified transport outside of Iran’s sphere.
So if the Mullahs ask, are you better off today than you were before our administration? The answer is no. Is that a win? It seems to be, yes. Sorry for the Iranian people, but a society is often victimized by their government.
This is the likely result you get if boots on the ground are not a possibility. You are not going to pillage the dictator's palace, but you can effectively stop a real disaster, make significate changes to regional risks and balances of power. If the Japanese were just a little more crazy, we could have sat off the coast of Japan in 1945 and never gotten a surrender, but that wouldn't mean we lost the war. The objectives were accomplished.
Freder Frederson said...
"It's better than where we started, with Iran building a bomb. "
I thought we had destroyed Iran's ability to build a bomb well before this war started.
The ability always exists. The object is to destroy the desire to build it.
"The ability always exists. The object is to destroy the desire to build it."
If anything, this war, and Trump's bromance with Kim Jong Un, will increase the desire for Iran to get nuclear weapons.
Mote like this, please: Cheap 'Guardian' interceptors developed by Florida start-up could turn tables on Iranian drones
It's worse. This war will essentially serve as the inflection point for more than Iran. From Saudi Arabia's new nuclear ambitions to rumblings from S. Korea, the word is out - a nuke is regime security. Expect both ambiguous and unambiguous pursuit.
And if you thought Iran was hungry for a bomb before, if their regime survives this (I believe they will) they're practically guaranteed to have one now, possibly with full-fledged assistance from their allies.
I'm curious. What's to keep Iran from laying mines months or even years from now?
Nothing. We're half a world away. They have beachfront property. They may not even need mines.
"I'm curious. What's to keep Iran from laying mines months or even years from now?"
Isn't the answer 'the US Navy'? And yes, that means this is not a long term solution. Thus, the war is not over. But it's wrong to say 'the war' started on 28FEB26. This war has been ongoing for decades.
If our European "allies", who need Mid-East oil more than we do, and who are at greater risk of Iranian missiles than we are, weren't so feckless, they'd be sharing the burden.
If Trump now claims that he has won the Iran War, that will be at least the 31st time he has made that claim.
Whatever Iran says or commits to is moot. They are not credible in any circumstance, even if they cry uncle. That’s why they’re being put in an economic vice grip.
“ I'm curious. What's to keep Iran from laying mines months or even years from now?"
What will keep them from doing it is by bypassing Hormuz with new pipelines and ports. If we have a troll under the bridge, make new bridges and the troll just sits there alone.
The Germans surrendered in w1 and that did not mean doodley squat. The great game always requires maintenance and you are never done. Surrender or not there is no guarantee that Iran will not rise again. All you get is some breathing room. But that does not mean you stop engaging.
We won the war way over 60’days ago. Declaring it only gives the lying communist democrats talking points.
We’ve done even more. Making the strait irrelevant, middle eastern countries aligning with us, getting closer to Israel and abandoning opec. Kicking Britain out of the shipping insurance business. Getting ready to release a glut of oil.
Yes, we've won the war, and it's over over there.
When Field Marshal Fredo opines on military matters, I have to ask myself, “Why did I waste 30 seconds of my life reading that idiot’s posts?”
Pipelines are not easy to defend.
Was Iran ever really about Iran?
"Pipelines are not easy to defend."
Thus acknowledging that it's Iran against all of their neighbors.
Such a lovable bunch.
"When Field Marshal Fredo opines on military matters, I have to ask myself, “Why did I waste 30 seconds of my life reading that idiot’s posts?”"
What, you don't watch comedies?
There is a point with a rising threat where trying to stop it becomes as bad as letting it happen. Trump has pushed that point back many years if not decades. Now there is time for the risk to permanently evaporate at some point in the future, but even if not, the delay was worth it.
Not if the Washington Post can help it, we haven't. That's for them and the NYT to determine, and they don't care who wins.
OK then, they don't care as long as it isn't Donald Trump.
Wait, there’s a war? Define that for me.
Kinetic military action, at worst. More like an anti-piracy patrol at this stage.
I hope it’s true but Trump has no credibility.
Between Iran and Canada the administration is degenerating into a farce.
"Pipelines are not easy to defend."
Or cheap. Or a guarantee. Frederick The Great said, "he who defends everything defends nothing." Now they're going to have to defend everything, forever, against something as simple as a pissed off 18yo tribalist with a FPV drone.
The Middle East got even more Thunderdome. Does it even go in the opposite direction? Wheeeee.
Trump has no credibility among those who would not believe night was dark if he asserted it.
This is a self-inflicted problem for Trump. He didn't define the mission at the outset, and he's changed his messaging every week.
Iran is in a situation like the black knight in "Monty Python and The Holy Grail" legless and armless but undaunted.
@Tom T., fool me 47 times shame on you. Fool me 48 times shame on me. Ms. Natalie Harp needs to set limits on his phone privileges.
Post a Comment
Please use the comments forum to respond to the post. Don't fight with each other. Be substantive... or interesting... or funny. Comments should go up immediately... unless you're commenting on a post older than 4 days. Then you have to wait for us to moderate you through. It's also possible to get shunted into spam by the machine. We try to keep an eye on that and release the miscaught good stuff. We do delete some comments, but not for viewpoint... for bad faith. Also: No italics, even briefly. Use asterisks for emphasis. And don't play with the format by changing fonts or using boldface or all caps. Never include more than one extra line break between paragraphs.