hckrnws

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.

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.

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.

That mechanism used to be shame.

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...

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.

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.

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.

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

Are you sure? https://www.draftbarrontrump.com/

> 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.

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

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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 culture 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.

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?

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.

[dead]

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.

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

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.

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.

[dead]

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.

I was wondering today how many people will develop cancer in a few years because of this.

Why must Israel be so duplicitous? It is exhausting.

It all started with the war in Gaza. We, the West collectively, with the exception of only a few European states like Spain and Ireland, allowed them to perpetrate war crimes, which were rarely met with criticism, let alone consequences.

To me it started with the war in Iraq. Made up story as excuse, expensive disaster as a result.

(Afghanistan was already not great, the Taliban were open to extradict Bin Laden, they just demanded proof first, but it was still sort of a international coordinated action.)

That broke the dam. Why should russia care about international law, if the US does not? When you are superpower number one, you lead by example. For better or worse.

The "war" in Gaza?

Seemed mostly like a nation state bombing refugees to me...

It's not even duplicitous because that implies some sort of benevolent facade. It's outright evil.

Israel does employ a facade of a liberal democracy that aligns itself to some extent with Western culture. Though this is very much in decline and I think, generally, sentiment on Israel has shifted quite dramatically in the West in recent years.

It cares not that the world suffers for it's selfish aims.

"Help is coming" they said. This certainly excludes that the Iranian protesters will ever side with the west again. Terrible strategic move.

Surely:

This will make the US safer.

This will make stuff cheaper.

This is a well thought out war.

It will improve the US economoy.

It will not destabilise the region.

This will make life better for Americans.

It will in no way make people hate the USA.

Great use of tax dollars while the American people face all time cost of living highs among a plethora of many other problems. It’s sickening.

Problem is, it's not being paid with tax dollars. The USA spent 10 trillion on wars over the last decades and none of it was paid with tax dollars.

It is all borrowed or printed. And the wars wouldn't have happened without them having those options, because Americans don't even want this.

And that borrow/print in the end is either future tax dollars/inflation/US pays, stealing from other nations, or default on debt.

https://archive.is/VUzow

Crude oil is over $100/barrel now, affecting almost everyone everywhere.

There's no off ramp whatsoever for both Iran, and Israel and the USA. This will trigger a global recession, everything is about to get much more expensive.

Absolute disaster, all to fill up the coffers of American oil companies...

I don't think any reasonable person would think this decision works to fill the coffers of anybody. Everyone is getting shafted.

If you want to get the Iranian side of the story, look at presstv.ir.

Thanks, but it seems down?

Reachable and up WRT W.Australia - perhaps DNS / otherwise blocked in your location.

rumble.com/presstv

probably your provider is censoring it. it's working here.

> Iranian side of the story

Islamic regime's side. Rather key distinction v. Iranian people.

what stops us to use the same naming and call it USA Regime, Israeli Regime at this point?

Nothing stops you, but I suppose murdering tens of thousands of your own people is a fairly clear delineation that you are not a singular entity?

if for you to be qualified as regime is to murder tens of thousands of your own people then I think you put too high bar on it. I guess killing only few thousands or even few hundreds in your definition would rule out to someone being called totalitarian/autocratic regimes? How about not murdering own people but thousands other people? How is it called? Nazi germany AFAIK mostly murdered millions of other people.

People use this name (Regime) wrong - worth to at least read definion on wikipedia:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regime

Look, I don't understand what you are debating here. I already agreed you can call USA regime just that should you choose to. I don't mind. You might get a scholarship to Columbia while at it.

My post was simply to clarify to the reader that PressTV is owned by the regime in Iran.

Give it time...

I am afraid that this will bring them closer together. That the people who would welcome outside world to do a magical thing that reforms Iran wont like the practical thing the world actually did.

By afraid I am not saying it will happen, it is not a prediction. I think that it is a risk.

After they killed 40k+ in Jan? Perhaps.

Every weeks that number increases.

Two weeks ago it was 30k, a week ago it was 35k, now it's 40k+, but OSINT sources keep the number around 15k (including 1.3 k from the Iranian government own forces) and don't move it up. I'm pretty sure the real number is higher than the one OSINT resources can give, considering the uprising and repression also happened in small, less connected cities, but the constant increase is honestly very off-putting, and the more it happens, the more it feels like manufacturing consent.

There have been numbers as high as 90k reported initially, so I wouldn't say it is "moving up" across time but across sources. There is no clear data, but at this point 30-32k appears to be the lower bound estimate over which there's a consensus. Likely to be higher.

Current campaigns will kill way more iranians. Plus regime didn't bomb 200 girls to pieces in their school, did it.

Thats extremely hard sell, with cherry on top when you have a literal video of tomahawks hitting that area during that time and trump claiming it was iranians who bombed it... just spits and insults in the face

> Current campaigns will kill way more iranians.

Your math is not mathing. 30-40k in 2 days unarmed civilians vs I dunno 6k almost all military in a week? If you look at the stats of executions etc you'll see civilian casualties in Iran go DOWN while being bombed.

> regime didn't bomb 200 girls to pieces in their school, did it.

Yes, actually they did. It was their own missile. Just like the Ukrainian plane they shot down a few years back.

I said will, please read comments more thoroughly before replying. Everybody agrees this war will drag for some time.

Care to backup those wild claims with any facts? The video of tomahawk I talk about is circulating all over internet, so its pretty uphill battle to discredit it when clearly tomahawks are landing

Trump himself confirmed this on Air Force One earlier today. https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2026/03/07/trump-...

Nothing about this is such a wild claim if you are familiar with their past behavior.

There were Persian language sources inside Iran that immediately after the incident attributed it to IRGC missile misfire, before some outlets started using that as propaganda material (which by the way played out perfectly.)

It's ridiculous to say "Trump himself confirmed this" as reliable source of truth.

What do you think the New York Times or CNN is (or rather, were).

Varies. Not all of them are equal. At least not in the same way. Distinctions are important. NYT, for example, employs Farnaz Fassihi who's a known regime shill. CNN recently sent a reporter live to the region who has to operate under the regime's restrictions to be let in and cannot accurately report everything even if they wanted to. Same with Reuters who has an office inside. They basically had a choice to bite the bullet and agree to the terms and be one of the few foreign reporters with access, or not have access at all and freely report.

That said, PressTV is different from the above a it's an officially a state-operated entity, so it is not a question of mere bias.

Regardless of what you feel about the government of Iran, it is not inaccurate to say that country is in a fight for survival against a cabal of child molestors working to bring about the apocalypse.

Anything they do in this conflict is justified, anything less than their total victory is a disaster for the world.

This is madness. The whole region is dependent on very fragile technological infrastructure, that once it is gone, will start a countdown to the death of millions. If things like oil depots and water desalination plants are no longer off limits, this will turn into a huge humanitarian catastrophe.

usa + israel = imperialism + genocide

this should seriously stop. and i am very sad Europeans are spineless and following the US in another insane middle-east war. wasn't afghanistan and iraq enough?

"Europe" is not following the US in this.

But silently watching on the sides. The moral lectures will come out with Ukraine though on what other countries should and should not do.

in what Europe are you living sorry? The only one outspoken against the war have been the Spanish. UK, Italy and Germany are on it - offering logistical support and everything the US needs.

I fear that the push for increasing defense spending in Europe was in preparation for a new NATO alliance case. They are certainly going to try it.

UK is bossed around by the US, ever since WW2. We don't have many choices that don't involve the USA inflicting revenge. They're bullies

It's like criticising an abused wife with no job no money and not many friends for not just leaving immediately, and the husband is rich, powerful and knows everyone

[dead]

Price of a nation disagreeing from turning its people into lowly peasants of the Global Liberal Borg (TM)'s and not accepting its "assigned" role of satrap-y.

In contrast, look at the ignominious history in India (-n subcontinent) over the past millennia - whose moron elites are so deluded that they end up selling even more Anglo-American colonization in the name of decolonization.

Fascinating evolution of these two cousin nations.

Tell me: is the US supposed to stand idly by while the Iranian regime develops nuclear weapons? They pursue nuclear weapons of their own volition, by the way. There are paranuclear states and nuclear threshold states which have not pursued nuclear weapons and have delivered on providing for their people in every manner in which a human society needs. So what does Iran hope to achieve that diplomacy cannot?

At what point does it turn from a "disagreement" to a credible existential threat that an adversary cannot ignore?

Yes, I am fine standing idly by as Iran gets nukes, just as we did nothing when Israel got nukes, and we didn't really do much besides sanctions after North Korea got nukes. Of all these three examples of nuclear states, Israel is the only one that actually committed espionage against the US to obtain nuclear secrets, and we didn't bomb them.

The USSR also committed espionage to steal nuclear secrets from the US and we didn't bomb them either, so perhaps that is the secret? If you steal US nuclear secrets we "stand idly by" but if you develop the nukes on your own or by stealing someone else's secrets, then we go to war?

I'm really struggling to understand when someone getting nukes is reason to go to war against them, I don't see the other side making any rational arguments that don't boil down to "I don't like country X, and so want to see them weaker, but I do like country Y so I don't mind if they get stronger". But that's a very subjective judgment and should not drive national policy.

The USSR acquiring nuclear weapons was the closest humanity has come to complete annihilation. We were one bad day away from extinction during the Cold War. I'm not sure I would point to that as something we should do more of. Not to mention the potential for accidents and mistakes.

I don't think bombing a country should be the first course of action. Diplomatic action should leave no stone unturned. But if all of that fails, it is strategically advantageous and safer for the world to prevent countries from acquiring nukes by any means necessary.

If you set the example that the cost of pursuing nuclear weapons is unbearable, countries will find better things to do, like enriching themselves in more productive ways.

That is a very, uh, idiosyncratic reading of history.

You are conflating the Cuban Missile crisis of October 1962 -- which was the USSR placing nuclear weapons close to the US in Cuba in early 1962, in response to the US placing nuclear weapons close to the USSR in Turkey in 1961, and in your mind you have blended that crisis, which was a close call in which both sides ultimately agreed to withdraw their nukes, with the acquisition of nukes by the USSR 11 years earlier.

Yet when North Korea, India, China, Pakistan, South Africa, or Israel, got nukes this did not set off a crisis, it was the brinksmanship that set off a crisis.

Soon, both major powers in the gulf -- Iran and KSA will get nukes. Odds are this will happen within a decade. There is nothing anyone can do to stop it.

There are too many pressures forcing this to happen, not least of which is the clear understanding that these nations need to have nukes to prevent destruction by the other nuclear powers some of which are clearly hostile to them and bent on their destruction. It's why North Korea, which kept their nukes, is still around, but Libya, which gave up their nukes, has been dismembered. Just as a matter of self-defense and survival this is inevitable.

However what we can do is tone down the rhetoric of nuclear brinksmanship, threatening global war if a rival doesn't withdraw their nukes. That was the real lesson of the Cuban Missile crisis, which you have confused with Russia's 1949 achievement, or China's 1964 achievement.

Since no one is going to disarm their nukes, this is just something people have to live with. Threatening war over this issue is exactly what causes the risk of global catastrophe, not the spread of the technology, which is inevitable.

I'm not sure what Iran having nukes does other than change the power dynamics in the Middle East to one where Israel can't bomb civilians with such impunity...

North Korea and Pakistan has nukes.

I think most people in the middle east will tell you that Iran acquiring nuclear weapons is bad. As I'm sure you're aware, they are a major supporter of terrorist organizations.

I'm aware that the present is informed by the past. 1953, like 1979, being a year in the past.

Discussing what terrorism is, in this context, is rather complicated. Especially speaking as a Brit, and knowing rather a lot of other dates, such as 1917.

It shouldn't be that complicated to acknowledge that Iran's proxies are about as cut and dry terrorists as they come.

It's surprising how many things that you would think are "cut and dried" are apparently in fact not "cut and dried", although granted it's much easier to identify instances that stray to one side of a boundary rather than another.

For example, the idea that bombing civilians is a war.

It was trump who killed off the original agreement. The IAEA was content with the way the inspections went, Trump just once again talked out of his ass.

As far as I know, most countries don't require such an agreement because they don't develop nuclear weapons. Are we forgetting that Iran has autonomy?

Most counties have signed non proliferation agreements.

Iran themselves are an NPT signatory! And yet they pursue nuclear weapons while countries like Japan, Germany, Canada and Netherlands do not.

USA and Israel have brought this upon themselves. After decades of regime change operations in the region (usually for the worse), it is clear that any state that doesn't pursue nuclear weapons isn't really an independent state.

Do you know who doesn't get regime-changed? North Korea.

North Korea has the backing of the US' two most powerful adversaries, it was not a free pass.

The US can deploy a carrier strike group faster than any nation can build a nuclear weapon. And after seeing the hellfire unleashed on Iran, it is clear that pursuing nuclear weapons may not be the answer it once appeared to be.

Meanwhile, the so-called vassal states of the US - some of the richest countries on Earth mind you - haven't bothered to deploy nuclear weapons because we have no use for them.

Man, it seems much more like "must have" thing than it did just 2 years ago. And at that point it seemed more "must have" thing than it did 5 years ago. Trump does not mind nuclear proliferation anyway. If you pay Kushner enough, chances are they will even sell you a nuke.

> Meanwhile, the so-called vassal states of the US

I haven't seen that expression at all, ever. No one was called those state vasal states a year ago. And now, as fascists are in American government, it is becoming routine amount right wing. The logic seems to be that any former ally that does not start war with USA is a vassal or something.

> haven't bothered to deploy nuclear weapons because we have no use for them.

French recently announced change of doctrine, they will expand nuclear arsenal.

Well I won't deny that. Nevertheless, countries who "play ball" seem to have it pretty good. Awfully high cost to pay to stick it to the man in charge.

Do what I say and I won't punch you, maybe.

There is no alternative. Just be thankful it's not the Soviet Union.

There's always an alternative.

Take it to the final form. It's game theory. The US is promoting system that enables a Nash equilibrium. By playing by the US' rules you empower yourself and you empower those around you. And the US takes a service fee for operating the market.

The alternative is trying to fight that, and if you're picking a fight with the strongest player, you're playing to lose.

I agree that's what the US used to do.

Now it's threatening to invade NATO allies, and other allies are deploying troops to deter that; Which makes perfect sense because you cannot appease authoritarians.

The US is in fairly rapid, self inflicted, decline at this point.

I have faith that the Americans will right the ship. "Americans will always do the right thing, only after they have tried everything else."

There was a deal, Trump cancelled. There were negotiations where the Iranian regime actually made big concessions. But, Trump administration was not interested in concessions and started a war with no real reason.

> At what point does it turn from a "disagreement" to a credible existential threat that an adversary cannot ignore?

It was not nearly this point. This was a point where USA, Israel and Saudi perceived Iran as weak and easier target. That is why the war started.

Iran has zero leverage. Any leverage given is an olive branch. Obama era diplomacy was the right path, Trump is a moron. But the bigger issue here is Iran's free-will pursuit of nuclear weapons. It is a choice they're making. They choose to pursue nuclear weapons, forcing the US to either take a diplomatic path to stop them, or intervene.

They don't have to build nuclear weapons! They're just doing that shit.

Well now they have to, given that a single nuke ownership (and its never a single one, is it) would prevent any such actions. I don't think anybody sane at this point thinks any sort of regime change is going to happen in this century.

The bigger problem is - current war won't prevent them from obtaining it. It may delay the date, but also will make them work smarter, hide things better and give them much more resolve. I can see ie putin helping them get through some technological or material hurdles, that would help him greatly in their war in ukraine.

We can agree that starting a war with Iran is sort of the magnum opus of the worst administration in American history.

But I do feel obligated to interrogate the idea that the US is responsible for this escalation. Iran is seeking to expand its power and influence in the region, and employs violent means upon people - even its own people - to achieve these goals. The regime is, fundamentally, amoral.

The US gets to decide if it wants to put a stop to that. But left alone, the world gets more dangerous the stronger the Iranian regime becomes. The same cannot be said about the United States. The period of history belonging to the unipolar US liberal order was probably the most prosperous and peaceful time in history.

Well.

After you've misled the world into supporting the USA in Iraq:

"WHERE IS THE PROOF?"

This time, you didn't even try to submit proof. The "feeling" of your delusional president should be enough.

Or not even that, since the reasoning changes daily.

Try harder.

I'm not American. There is a host of publicly available proof of Iran's pursuit of nuclear weapons. It is not, and has never been, a well kept secret of the regime.

Pentagon made few reports that Iran is not pursuing nuclear weapons - I bet they have better intelligence that you. Their killed religious leader made fatwa that forbid having or using weapons of mass destruction. Surprisingly now when he is gone they can pursue it after being attacked. Also worth to watch many Bibi talks since 1980s where he sais Iran will have nukes very soon and this didn't materialize in 40 years.

List of terrorist groups sponsored by Iran Government

1. Hezbollah (Lebanon)

2. Hamas (Gaza Strip)

3. Palestinian Islamic Jihad (Gaza Strip/West Bank)

4. The Houthis / Ansar Allah (Yemen)

5. Kata'ib Hezbollah (Iraq)

6. Asa'ib Ahl al-Haq (Iraq)

7. Harakat al-Nujaba (Iraq)

8. Kata'ib Sayyid al-Shuhada (Iraq)

9. Harakat Ansar Allah al-Awfiya (Iraq)

10. Kata'ib al-Imam Ali (Iraq)

11. Badr Organization (Iraq)

12. Liwa Fatemiyoun (Syria/Afghanistan)

13. Liwa Zaynabiyoun (Syria/Pakistan)

14. Al-Ashtar Brigades (Bahrain)

15. Saraya al-Mukhtar (Bahrain)

16. Al-Aqsa Martyrs' Brigades (West Bank)

17. Popular Resistance Committees (Gaza Strip)

18. Lions' Den (West Bank)

19. Hezbollah Al-Hijaz (Saudi Arabia)

20. Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) - Quds Force (Regional/Iran)