US Military says 3 service members have been killed

3/1/2026 at 4:05:09 PM

One massive risk that I don’t hear anyone in the West talking about is the risk of giving Sunni populist rage over Gaza the spark it needs to overthrow US-aligned partners all over the Middle East. This could backfire really badly for Israel and the US if they suddenly lose all of their friends in high places in these countries. 98% of the non-elite Sunnis all over the world are enraged at Israel over Gaza. All of the surrounding countries (Egypt, Jordan, or Saudi Arabia) currently employ brutal authoritarian methods to suppress any pro-Palestinian sentiment beyond thoughts and prayers. If the regimes fall, all hell will break loose, and all of the hate will be directed towards Israel.

by znnajdla

3/1/2026 at 9:04:01 PM

You mean all those countries that have us troops and massive amounts of us support? That have systematically for decades dismantled any pan-arab or pan-islamic unity?

Come on. Israel might be the most high profile US partner. But they are far from the only one.

by halJordan

3/1/2026 at 4:29:37 PM

Why would Iran, a Shia majority country being attacked, enrage the Sunni countries?

by zht

3/1/2026 at 6:30:22 PM

As long as divide and rule is employed it won't.

by srean

3/1/2026 at 3:20:24 PM

The US is not a democracy. The majority did not want this war.

Though the majority will help bear the costs, and several family members will grieve dearly for the sacrifice of entertaining some brutal geopolitics that do not serve America first.

by mothballed

3/1/2026 at 3:31:18 PM

America is a democratic republic, not a direct democracy. The only restriction is the president can’t declare war, only congress can do that.

They are pretending these strikes are “preemptive” in response to a nuclear bomb being developed, just like the “emergency” that was declared to enact the tariffs.

It’s all illegal

by repeekad

3/1/2026 at 3:41:17 PM

When is the last war congress officially declared?

by cr125rider

3/1/2026 at 3:46:46 PM

WW2

by rjbwork

3/1/2026 at 3:33:13 PM

If it were a democratic republic, as you say, the representatives would have to vote on war. Representatives would also have to vote before 190,000 pages of CFRs are created by unelected bureaucrats and then enforced as if they were law (sometimes, by the exact same bureaucrats that write the rules they enforce as law [ATF for example]).

Most of what people think they know about this country is a facade. They are living on lies, confirmed to them through the legitimization of a SCOTUS that lies to your very eyes about what the constitution says, so that people don't rebel when a politician tells them peace is war and love is hate.

by mothballed

3/1/2026 at 9:07:16 PM

The majority absolutely voted for this war. You're attacking the democracy when you insist that the elected politicians following through on campaign planks are not representing the country. That's exactly how this works.

by halJordan

3/1/2026 at 10:47:58 PM

Wait, I'm confused, wasn't the campaign plank to end wars??

by keeda

3/1/2026 at 3:32:59 PM

> geopolitics that do not serve America first

IDK, "America first" is practically speaking, the financial interests of the current president and his ruling clique, nothing more. This does serve them by, among other things, distracting from the Epstein files and asserting lucrative control over petroleum-producing nations. These brave servicemen died for that.

by SideburnsOfDoom

3/1/2026 at 3:46:01 PM

I have been quite impressed by UK politics.

Entertain paedophiles ... land up in jail. Be rude and patronizing to women, there goes your prime-ministership. Keep it that way please.

Accountability feels so rare in recent US politics.

by srean

3/1/2026 at 3:55:38 PM

What UK Prime Minister lost their office because they were rude and patronising to women?

Starmer is still in office, Sunak lost because the Tories were unpopular and because he didn’t win an election to get the Prime Ministership, Johnson lost because during Covid people stayed at the office a little bit longer and had a birthday party, teresa May lost because she couldn’t deliver Brexit, Cameron lost because he gave people a vote on Brexit, Brown lost for the same reasons as Sunak, Blair lost because of the Iraq war.

by nailer

3/1/2026 at 4:01:42 PM

You left out Liz Truss, which is understandable really.

Liz Truss lost because she was barking mad, manifestly wildly out of her depth and her and her think tank buddies tanked the economy. She was rude and patronising to women (but only because she was rude and patronising to everyone).

by seanhunter

3/1/2026 at 4:11:47 PM

Now that you ask, the name eludes me. Am I misremembering ? was he an MP who lost office? I certainly remember a flurry of news reports.

by srean

3/1/2026 at 5:33:24 PM

PM Gordon Brown did call a female voter "bigoted" on a hot mic (1) - with some justification actually, as she did say some unpleasant anti-immigrant rhetoric. Mr Brown lost an election shortly after, but this incident was not in itself what brought him down.

1) https://www.standard.co.uk/hp/front/full-conversation-betwee...

by SideburnsOfDoom

3/1/2026 at 5:51:43 PM

Ah yes that was it. Thank you.

by srean

3/1/2026 at 3:46:25 PM

This war is completely on Trump since he didn't get Congress' approval or even justify it to the American public. I wonder if the "no new wars" voters will condemn him?

by hypeatei

3/1/2026 at 4:02:55 PM

>I wonder if the "no new wars" voters will condemn him?

They'll retcon it and fall in line behind Trump, just like with Venezuela. This is from both opinion polls and also interactions with actual MAGA people.

https://files.catbox.moe/h2wqwz.png

https://files.catbox.moe/64uhqw.png

by gruez

3/1/2026 at 4:14:00 PM

I understand the cynicism, but Trump is a lame duck president, and there are plenty of incentives for people outside and inside the government to continue to move against him, because even if he moves for a third term he's old and the leadership vacuum is inevitable. Also, anti-israel sentiment has been growing on the right, which is one reason people think Israel pushed so hard for this. People who have and continue to identify as Republican will for sure support him because most of those folks have always been neo-cons who liked Bush and preferred the old school Republican interventionism to what Trump offered. They held their nose for Trump thinking he wouldn't do things like this.

But the MAGA / "America First" crowd led by such folks as Tucker Carlson and Nick Fuentes absolutely have the incentive to move against Trump.

https://www.the-independent.com/news/world/americas/us-polit...

Iran strikes are ‘disgusting and evil’ says longtime Trump ally and MAGA stalwart Tucker Carlson.

by techblueberry

3/1/2026 at 4:18:05 PM

Isn't half the MAGA movement funded by Russia? Pretty sure I think I know why they'd be defending Iran ...

by spwa4

3/1/2026 at 3:52:04 PM

The Iranian regime funded Hamas that started the last major war and the regime was responsible for the mass slaughter 30 to 40,000 people a few weeks ago.

by nailer

3/1/2026 at 4:14:27 PM

Well that would implicate the state of Israel as well. It's Israel that set up Hamas in the 1970s to split the support of the largely secular PLO.

by srean

3/1/2026 at 4:37:13 PM

Israel did not set up Hamas, Israel prevented the PA, then the PLO, which was taken over and supported by the KGB from massacring Hamas in it's krib.

That's one very underappreciated part of the conflict there. That the KGB and Israel fought one another, obviously long ago. As part of that fight, they both helped/financed/protected/... lunatic Palestinian movements. The KGB is long dead and Israel started regretting many of it's actions against Russia decades ago, but the lunatic movements each created are still massacring one another.

Oh and the UN is still supporting and financing the PA, even against Hamas. Hmmm, I wonder if anyone at the top of the UN ever had any affiliation with Soviet Foreign policy ... (say, for example, the best-paid politician in the entire world, obviously a communist)

by spwa4

3/1/2026 at 4:42:23 PM

What I am claiming isn't even controversial. It's quite well known and accepted. So much so all the standard search engines will confirm it, and search engines typically reflect a consensus view of crawlable documents.

This is what I get when I pose the question

"Yes, Israeli officials have acknowledged providing covert financial support to Sheikh Ahmed Yassin’s Islamist networks in Gaza during the late 1970s and 1980s. This was done to bolster religious groups as a counterweight to the secular Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO), which was viewed as the primary adversary at the time"

by srean

3/1/2026 at 6:23:50 PM

This is a common talking point, but if we look at the underlying facts of what Israel did to "support" or "set up" Hamas, they... allowed Qatar to provide aid to Gaza to fund some infrastructure and civil servants' salaries. Would you have preferred that they block the aid and Gaza's governance collapse?

by dlubarov

3/1/2026 at 6:33:21 PM

I am talking about something that is from decades earlier. The Google search results I quoted summarises that quite well.

by srean

3/1/2026 at 8:11:37 PM

Doesn't change the other side of the equation either: it is also not controversial that the KGB and the Soviets are financially behind the PLO (now PA), that Yasser Arafat ("the wise Egyptian") was a Soviet agent.

by spwa4

3/1/2026 at 8:21:34 PM

First time hearing about it, so cannot comment without reading further.

KGB and CIA had their noses in the affairs of every country, more so in the mid east, so cannot be ruled out.

Historical interest aside, that was not the point I made on this thread.

The point was justifying war on Iran upon the reason that they funded Hamas. So did Israel, they pretty much helped birth it. KGB may or may not be funding PLA, but that doesn't change who set up Hamas in the first place.

If reminding Arafat's Egyptian origin is to caste a shade, many in the Israeli government have European (often Polish) origin and surnames that they changed to fit their political career. Netanyahu included. So that cuts bothway.

by srean

3/1/2026 at 10:06:46 PM

It's a lot more than just nosing around. Just Google it, and if you don't trust the sources, just switch to the images tab.

by spwa4

3/1/2026 at 4:06:16 PM

So what? It's an argument that maybe we should do something, for the American people's consideration, but it doesn't change the fact that this war has been started without Congressional approval by a president who IIRC explicitly campaigned on "no new wars" or something to that effect. As far as I can tell, he has stated no consistent or coherent justification for any of this.

If we are going to engage in brute force regime change on the other side of the world, regardless of how bad the current regime is (yes, they are evil), this is not how it should happen. And everyone should take a moment to remind themselves why the term "regime change" carries the connotations it does.

by caconym_

3/1/2026 at 3:56:04 PM

The campaign promises from Trump were "no new wars" and "America First" along with a bunch rhetoric saying that his political opponents were war mongers.

What do Hamas or Iran protestors have to do with America? I agree that it's bad but you have to admit that it goes against literally all the "peace" talk that MAGAs were pushing.

by hypeatei

3/1/2026 at 3:58:57 PM

Hamas killed 46 American citizens and kidnapped 12 American citizens during the war Iran sponsored, and Iran constantly threatens to hit America (and about everyone else) with nuclear weapons.

Do you think that everyone that proposal a republican government would identify as ‘MAGA’? I think you need to read more news sources.

by nailer

3/1/2026 at 4:11:52 PM

Since when do American deaths (in an attack that happened 2+ years ago mind you) mean you can unilaterally go to war with an entire country?

> and Iran constantly threatens to hit America (and about everyone else) with nuclear weapons

Okay, but he campaigned as the peace ticket so presumably he'd be able to figure that out without resorting to military action, no? Obama managed to work out a deal with them (that Trump then tore to pieces in 2018)

by hypeatei

3/1/2026 at 4:14:55 PM

[flagged]

by nailer

3/1/2026 at 4:22:22 PM

Your second question isn't coherent and I didn't see it as relevant regardless. I think Republicans are sycophantic MAGAs at this moment, does that answer it? You're not answering any of my questions, though and instead just word vomiting about a hostage release deal under Biden.

by hypeatei

3/1/2026 at 6:58:00 PM

Due to the rate limit, I made an edit reply above answering your questions.

by nailer

3/1/2026 at 3:54:02 PM

What does that mean in practical terms though? The absolute worst that can happen to trump is he is both impeached and successfully indicted. When the worst case is maybe by some extremely unlikely "luck" he loses his job and has to sulk back into his billions and golden towers, and on the other hand he can gamble with the lives of million of serviceman and the tax money Americans could otherwise spend on healthy food, healthcare, education and other things they need -- why not? He's not up for re-election anyways.

Trumps an unhealthy older man, with no prospect for re-election, and a big golden parachute even in the worst case scenario. The fact the war is all on him is seen as a plus because he gets all the credit for the history books and the mothers of the dead servicemen are just forgotten trash used to achieve his objective.

Trump is acting completely rationally. His MO is to push the envelope until he is stopped. It is mostly others who are irrationally acting in the service of Trump that are acting irrationally.

by mothballed

3/1/2026 at 3:46:51 PM

Wow, browsing the comments with showdead=1 gives me the highest ratio of flagged vs normal comments ever. Surprised the whole thread is not flagged, yet. I mean, can we expect that more insights come out of this?

by lukan

3/1/2026 at 3:57:18 PM

>I mean, can we expect that more insights come out of this?

No, because all the points for/against the attacks have already been argued to death in the first thread, and both sides' argument don't hinge on whether there are deaths or not, so this bit of news doesn't really make a difference.

by gruez

3/1/2026 at 5:48:15 PM

This. So tired of the idea that HN trying to stay relatively clear of politics is some great loss when every Israel Palestine submission that makes it through is just the same few dozen ppl shouting some variation of "US/West/Markets=BAD" and another dozen or so grappling with them. Nothing changes, no one learns anything. If ppl want that sort of interaction, it's available 24x7 on Bluesky. Every public web forum devolving into 24x7 culture war doesn't serve anyone's interests except the marxists.

by appreciatorBus

3/1/2026 at 6:40:05 PM

> So tired of the idea that HN trying to stay relatively clear of politics is some great loss when every Israel Palestine submission that makes it through is just...

Honestly I don't mind not talking about those things here but it gets ridiculous when there's directly tech related stuff being flagged because it touches on politics, like the whole DOGE saga for example.

by AlecSchueler

3/1/2026 at 4:02:08 PM

It is pretty hard to have a calm discussion about the outbreak of war. War is awful. People will suffer, people will die. Being angry is an appropriate response. The article is just a list of the ap wire briefs, so it does not tell us very much.

by blululu

3/1/2026 at 4:16:27 PM

... and all the AI bots immediately jump on anything slightly political.

by spwa4

3/1/2026 at 6:30:06 PM

> Surprised the whole thread is not flagged, yet.

Looks like the flagging brigade got this story flagged as well. Of course, HN mods will do nothing about it as usual.

by arunabha

3/1/2026 at 3:22:22 PM

[dead]

by shablulman

3/1/2026 at 3:12:46 PM

[flagged]

by vcryan

3/1/2026 at 3:14:19 PM

> CNN has geolocated video from the scene to the Shajaba Tayyiba School, which sits about 200 feet (61 meters) from an Iranian military base.

Who the fuck builds a military base 200 feet from a school?

by rayiner

3/1/2026 at 3:46:46 PM

The US does. I live near a base and there's a votech high school on the same property that nukes are transported to/from.

During the Cold War, the US government even had maps of potential Soviet ICBM targets and there's a nice dot here where hundreds of thousands live. The US knew the risk but put bases and nukes smack in the middle of that anyway.

by heavyset_go

3/1/2026 at 3:43:12 PM

There's several buildings in Edinburgh that have designation "military base" (mostly Territorial Army) and are within a few hundred yards of a school or nursery. Probably the same in many cities.

It's up to the people with bombs not to bomb schools.

by pjc50

3/1/2026 at 4:03:11 PM

The US puts elementary schools on military bases. Does that surprise you as well? It shouldn't, it's been the norm since before you were even born.

by Jtsummers

3/1/2026 at 3:24:39 PM

Sovereign countries that dont expect to be bombed?

51.50682730317355, -1.964190908830932

51.163248703261374, -1.7644273386532592

50.79917462916731, -1.1036180056831038

by swarnie

3/1/2026 at 3:25:49 PM

I've lived in several midwest towns that have military (usually national guard) bases embedded in residential areas, maybe the school a bit further.

by mothballed

3/1/2026 at 5:28:05 PM

Bringing out the classics huh?

by c0nducktr

3/1/2026 at 3:46:23 PM

It would be a deterrent for people with a soul. The current people are all over the Epstein files, and love genocide so, bonus!

by kgwxd

3/1/2026 at 4:32:01 PM

> all over the Epstein files

I’ve been too busy to read them, can you point me to what you think the smoking gun is?

by rayiner

3/1/2026 at 3:05:11 PM

[flagged]

by 2OEH8eoCRo0

3/1/2026 at 3:12:24 PM

Is it heroic to join the military to pay for school/stay out of jail/escape poverty, and then die because the pedophile president of your country unilaterally decided to begin a bombing campaign against a sovereign nation? And then get unlucky enough to be in the path of retaliation?

That’s not heroism. It’s waste. Their lives were wasted by the MAGA cult, just like the tens of thousands of Iranian civilians and children who are dying to our bombs.

by mcmcmc

3/1/2026 at 3:42:32 PM

[flagged]

by nailer

3/1/2026 at 5:32:44 PM

[flagged]

by frob

3/1/2026 at 3:20:59 PM

[flagged]

by frob

3/1/2026 at 3:15:48 PM

[flagged]

by frob

3/1/2026 at 8:14:39 PM

You can't celebrate people's deaths like this on HN, and it's shocking to see. I feel ashamed of HN when I see things like this. I can't believe you did it, and my first response was to ban the account.

After a minute, I reconsidered, especially after I saw https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46930988 (an excellent post) and realized that your account has been around for over 10 years. I've unbanned it now.

Please don't post like this to HN again. The same, of course, goes for any other account, regardless of political angle.

Also, please don't use HN primarily for political/ideological battle—again, regardless of which politics you're for or against. A certain amount of political overlap is necessary and inevitable, but when an account crosses into primarily doing that, it's basically the line at which we ban it (see https://hn.algolia.com/?sort=byDate&dateRange=all&type=comme... for past explanations).

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

by dang

3/1/2026 at 11:18:01 PM

Dang, if you ban me for celebrating that invaders who slaughtered children in a war of choice died, I will print it out and hang it as a badge of honor.

You work as an agent of imperial slaughter and right-wing propaganda. You will need to sleep with that for the rest of your life.

by frob

3/1/2026 at 10:43:59 PM

> Cry no tears for the slaughter of imperial troops

This comment from the same account above is dead so can't reply to it, but you must understand that the troops themselves do NOT want this. They are not clones genetically engineered for war. A very large fraction of them have been effectively conscripted due to economic pressures and lack of other opportunities.

As a data point, I happened to have a couple of brief but very candid conversations with students in the ROTC program just as the Afghanistan war had broken out. Their chances of getting deployed to the frontlines after graduation were suddenly spiking. Despite each conversation being very fleeting, each of them expressed consternation of their prospects and some regret at signing up just for the chance to get a free college education. They all acknowleged that they knew the risks when signing up, of course, but they had taken the chance at a time when the country was not mobilizing for war.

by keeda

3/1/2026 at 11:20:35 PM

Under their military rules, they have an obligation to disregard illegal orders. This war was not declared by congress. It is illegal and unconstitutional. They are chosing to do this and are thus complicit.

by frob

3/1/2026 at 3:19:36 PM

[flagged]

by herruty