Iran war discourse
The chat's longest-running geopolitical thread, beginning early March 2026 with what is alleged to have been friendly fire over Kuwait and continuing through the spring as a slow accordion of Iran-related observations from **[[Matt]]** and **[[Daniel Miller]]**.
Iran war discourse
The chat's longest-running geopolitical thread, beginning early March 2026 with what is alleged to have been friendly fire over Kuwait and continuing through the spring as a slow accordion of Iran-related observations from Matt and Daniel Miller.
The Iran war discourse is the chat's most-cited geopolitical thread, with 24 messages mentioning "Iran" across roughly two months. It is, the encyclopedia notes, the only news story to outlast the Epstein discourse in the chat's attention.
Opening
The thread opens with one of Evan Bbbender's rhetorical questions:
"Honestly, works anyone mind if Iran blew up Dubai" — Evan Bbbender, 2026-03-02
Daniel Miller responded with the chat's first serious analytical contribution:
"Seems pretty clear it was what they said it was Friendly fire, no? Iran couldn't shoot down any of the 200 jets that were bombing it, would be surprised if they were able to take out three in Kuwait." — Daniel Miller, 2026-03-02
The exchange establishes Evan as the chat's hypothetical-questioner and Daniel as its empiricist-in-chief — roles each has maintained throughout the discourse.
The Hormuz observation
Daniel's most-cited message in the thread is from 2026-03-13:
"Kinda shocking to me that there wasn't a plan for this, they've been talking about Iran closing the strait of hormuz since the 80s, this was a likely scenario and they seem to have no plan to address it besides like asking nicely" — Daniel Miller, 2026-03-13
Daniel returns to the strait of Hormuz one more time on 2026-04-07:
"What if we wake up tomorrow and Cory Booker is president of a free and open strait of hormuz" — Daniel Miller, 2026-04-07
The two messages together form what is essentially a national-security policy brief disguised as group-chat speculation.
The Matt position
Matt is the chat's institutional Iran realist. On 2026-03-13:
"Declaring victory doesn't mean Iran stops bombing"
"I don't think Iran stops unless they get concessions along the lines of what they got from Obama" — Matt, 2026-03-13
The next day, in a message that received a love-tapback from Evan, Matt offered the discourse's most concise summary:
"Love that he's not mad about the incursion in general just that he didn't convince the American public that we should wipe out the Iranian civilians too" — Matt, 2026-03-14
Closing tone
By April, the chat has settled into a stance Evan describes as professional curiosity:
"I'm excited to see what the Iran war April fools is" — Evan Bbbender, 2026-04-01
The discourse is dormant as of the publication of this encyclopedia but is, the editors believe, only one well-timed Twitter link away from reopening.