I would think Gulf Coast oil refineries would be a better target. You’d further constrain the US gas supply, and bring the war to red states, both of which could erode support for the President and his war.
this post was submitted on 11 Mar 2026
19 points (88.0% liked)
politics
28849 readers
2867 users here now
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
That is what normally happens when you attack someone, they fight back.
Yeah. California, the blue state, attacked them. Do us all a favor and hit fucking Alabama. Or Florida ffs. Or at least hit Orange County, California.
I can’t imagine Trump would care too much what happens in a blue state unless it can turn them MAGA.
There is no possible way this would happen. None. You expect me to believe that an unknown ship would be able to get within a striking distance to americas shores, then a tony ass drone would fly undetected onto the WEST coast of Cali; all so they could blow up one medium sized building? Give me a fucking break.
False flag written all over it
remember that balloon(s) that had everyone shitting themselves?
Boy, do I have news for you about how weakly controlled shipping is. There are so many ships moving around with legit seeming purposes that actually do things they're not supposed to. And sometimes the people who crew and own the ship aren't even from the place the ship is registered!
It's not like they'd be loading satellite visible drones from an Iranian port on an Iranian flagged container ship post attack and then running full steam toward San Diego.
Im aware of that and how ships are often flagged from other nations etc etc etc.
I just dont think that one if the most heavily surveilled nations on earth could lead a ship full of drone the size of small cars, drop anchor, then launch an attack on the west coast. It doesn't make any sense at all. This is just more trump bs. More excuses for his terrorism
How is Iran going to get the drones over there?
They could be carried.
A swallow carrying a drone?
It directly says how in the post summary.
How did Iran get the "unidentified vessel" there?
Floating, probably.
Where was the vessel loaded with drones, and then floated from?
Do you think all of Iran's drones are exclusively inside Iran or at no point during this highly telegraphed military buildup could they have "unaffiliated" dockworkers load crates onto an "unaffiliated" ship? This isn't a particularly complex plan we're taking about here and international shipping is probably the least controlled transport system in the entire world.
I'm trying to understand Iran's plan here, as stated by the article.
- It takes at least a month to get from Iran to California, so any movement of the drones must have happened during the buildup or earlier. It feels like sleeper agent theory to me.
- Why would Iran risk getting fucked up by the Coast Guard by launching the drones by boat? The crew will all end up dead or captured by doing it that way, since there's no friendly ports around. Wouldn't it be better to send the drones out from some compound Iran bought on land, in the Californian desert somewhere?
- Even if Iran has a boat under their total control, they can use it better for supplies than military action. If we're going with Iran sleeper agent theory, it would be better to unload the drones onto some beach somewhere, and then have the Iranian agents move the stuff into their compound. Or, as you say, have some "unaffiliated" dockworkers hand the stuff off to the Iranian agents.
- If Iran builds the drones on-site or legally orders some drones in the US, then there's even less need for a boat.
So now your objection is the idea of launching from boat rather than how could they possibly get drones to within striking distance of the US?
And you think the idea of pre-deploying $35k drones for potential conflict against a president that has been antagonistic to them for almost a decade is infeasible? The county that is known for using proxy forces and smuggling weapons?
Do you have an answer for how they did it, then?
Oh, and make no mistake: My objection is launching from the boat, combined with getting the drones to the US undetected until launch.