He says other nations will have to guard and police the Strait of Hormuz as necessary, after his attacks on the country prompted Iran to target vessels in the crucial world shipping lane. Mark Stone analyses the Truth Social post.

  • Alcoholicorn@mander.xyz
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    66
    ·
    9 days ago

    America: I’ve had enough.

    Iran: I didn’t hear no bell.

    They have no reason to start letting US ships through the strait and America has no ability to stop them.

    • zeejoo@thelemmy.club
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      19
      ·
      9 days ago

      Well according to Chief Cheeto, that doesn’t matter because the USA “doesn’t use it” 🤦‍♂️

        • Alcoholicorn@mander.xyz
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          14
          ·
          9 days ago

          America is a net exporter of oil, Trump could limit the export of oil or make a deal with Venezuela or reduce domestic demand by investing in mass transit and renewables, but any of those would be as bizarre as expecting Richard Nixon to make a trade deal with communist china.

    • marcos@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      8
      ·
      9 days ago

      The nationality of the ships isn’t important.

      Anyway, Iran won’t keep antagonizing the entire world if their existence isn’t at risk. They haven’t been acting like crazy.

      • NoneOfUrBusiness@fedia.io
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        8
        ·
        9 days ago

        The nationality of the ships isn’t important.

        It is; Iranian, Indian and Chinese shipping, among others, is being allowed through the straits. Also you’re right, but as long as America gets to just bomb them at any moment their existence is at risk, so they’ll want some kind of guarantee this won’t happen again.

      • mcv@lemmy.zip
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        7
        ·
        9 days ago

        Nationality matters. Didn’t India negotiate passage for their ships? I can imagine Iran will happily let ships through from countries that cut ties with the US. Don’t host US bases, don’t use dollars to pay for oil. That sort of thing.

        • D_C@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          9 days ago

          Maybe allowing any country’s ships through except the us ships would be better.
          It shows that Iran is open to some form of conversation or negotiation whilst also saying to the us that their war starting shit won’t be tolerated.
          And to come back in 12-15 years after there’s been a few different presidents to see if they’ve changed their warmongering ways. (<-- Haha, yeah)

          • teyrnon@sh.itjust.works
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            3
            ·
            9 days ago

            The problem is no one registers their ships from their actual country. There are a few countries that everyone registers their ships to, so it’s not quite as simple as that, there are hidden paper trails connecting many of these boats to their true owners.

            Liberia, Panama, and the Marshall Islands are the bigger ones.

      • IEatDaFeesh@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        9 days ago

        Backing off means allowing Israel/US to do this again in the future. I don’t think they’re done yet especially since their Supreme Leader got assassinated by the US.

        • teyrnon@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          9 days ago

          I still want to know why Iran had it’s supreme leader and all the other high ups in a vulnerable location knowing this was going to break out into war. Some said maybe the supreme leader wanted to be a martyr, ok, but why was everyone else that was there there? Including the son of the supreme leader. Something stinks about this, Idk what, but there is some fuckery afoot.

            • teyrnon@sh.itjust.works
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              9 days ago

              How do you figure that? The supreme leader, his son, and military higher ups gathered at the ayatollah’s compound knowing Israel and the US were going to attack, and knowing Israel wanted to assassinate the Supreme Leader in the prior war.

              One would have to be quite dishonest or slow to not question why they decided to gather there then, and the newspapers did ask that very question, including the guardian.

              So frankly, your critique says a lot about your own quality.

          • humanspiral@lemmy.ca
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            9 days ago

            supreme leader and all the other high ups in a vulnerable location knowing this was going to break out into war

            US negotiation meetings were scheduled for the next monday. He was very old, and a succession to his son, would seem an opportunity to fake his martyrdom for national unity, if somehow zionist axis thought this was a good idea to hit his house.

            King Charles, relies on thinking it would be a bad idea for US to bomb Buckingham Palace for his security.

            • teyrnon@sh.itjust.works
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              9 days ago

              Israel attacked them in the last war when they were in peace negotiations. So that talks were scheduled is no excuse for not practicing good opsec for their leadership. King Charles isn’t under threat of attack by the US and Israel so I don’t see how that is a good analogy. Iran’s supreme leader was almost assassinated last war, they knew, or should have known, they were going to do it.

              If it’s just about his martyrdom, why include all the other higher ups, and his son? Perhaps the Iranian hardliners tipped off the Israelis is where I’m going with this. I don’t necessarily think the hardliners are wrong at this point don’t get me wrong, this war was going to happen, and the old guard doesn’t quite get it.

              • humanspiral@lemmy.ca
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                9 days ago

                King Charles isn’t under threat of attack by the US

                50/50 on whether it would increase UK sycophancy to US, even though it was unreasonable to expect Iran to be “convinced of US’s force for good” from their attack. The point that the attack only results in loss of prestige/attitudes towards US is the reason to not worry about “the surprise attack”.

                Shorter answer, in hindsight this turned out not to be the most self-preserving decision. It’s not a complicated conspiracy.

                • teyrnon@sh.itjust.works
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  9 days ago

                  Himdsight my foot, I knew Israel was going to try to kill the Supreme leader, but they didn’t? Why the fuck not? The Martyr thing only works if his son didn’t get hit too along with all those other military higher ups.

    • merc@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      9 days ago

      There are very few US ships.

      Almost every ship from a western country flies a “flag of convenience” from a country like Liberia, Panama, the Marshall Islands, etc. If they flew the US flag they’d be subject to US laws, and have to meet US safety standards, pay taxes to the US government, etc.

      The few US ships that exist are there to meet the requirements of the Jones Act which requires that shipments from a US port to another US port be done by ships owned by a US citizen, crewed by US citizens / permanent residents, built in the US, and so-on. These ships only serve US-to-US trips, so they don’t go through the Strait of Hormuz. Incidentally, this is a big reason why prices in Hawaii are so high. Only US-flagged carriers can bring supplies from the US to Hawaii. And, with a population of only 1.5 million, it’s not really efficient to send huge ships from other countries to Hawaii.

  • fun_times@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    61
    ·
    9 days ago

    Imagine if Iran had allied with ISIS, killed the US President and bombed several US schools, then a couple of weeks later Iran’s leader goes “anyway, we are winding down this war. It is someone else’s problem now.”

    That’s not how war works.

  • metermatic26@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    54
    ·
    9 days ago

    Trump expects the world to go to war with Iran. What will actually happen is that the world will re-establish diplomacy with Iran and offer sanctions relief to end the blockade.

    Without war reparations, American ships will forever be barred from sailing the strait, and Gulf states will likely start distancing themselves from the US and re-assess hosting American bases and troops.

    Trump’s victory looks an awful lot like a strategic defeat that sees the US pull out of the Middle East and leave Iran in a more powerful position then before.

    • SolarMyth@aussie.zone
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      20
      ·
      9 days ago

      It also undermines the entire petrodollar/Bretton Woods system that gives the almighty US dollar its power. This will be a big win for China, when countries start trading in their USD for Yuan buy oil.

  • Naevermix@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    46
    ·
    9 days ago

    Trump wont be happy when the “other nations” solve the problem by simply making deals with Iran

      • rwrwefwef@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        7 days ago

        Euros

        Don’t see why they’d make an exception for them. Europe in general supported the strikes on Iran.

        • lepinkainen@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          7 days ago

          Supported “in general”?

          Also Iran hates the US specifically, anything that will hurt them in the long term is a good idea in their book

          • rwrwefwef@sh.itjust.works
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            7 days ago

            Supported “in general”?

            Spain and Ireland have been pretty vocal against the war in Iran, but the rest supported it more or less clearly.

            • lepinkainen@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              7 days ago

              Finland didn’t, Sweden didn’t. Poland told Donald to pound sand

              I kinda want a source for this “more or less clearly”

              • rwrwefwef@sh.itjust.works
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                6 days ago

                I kinda want a source for this “more or less clearly”

                In politics, no outright opposition is tacit approval.

  • minorkeys@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    44
    ·
    9 days ago

    So running away and leaving the mess for his victims to clean up. Much like he probably did to the children he raped.

    • GreenKnight23@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      11
      ·
      9 days ago

      for you it was the Straight of Hormuz. But, for me, it was a Tuesday.

      – Donnie “shits-his-pants” Trump

  • Amberskin@europe.pub
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    36
    ·
    9 days ago

    Retreating. The word he is looking for is ‘retreat’. Also known sometimes as ‘surrender’.

  • dantel@programming.dev
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    34
    ·
    edit-2
    7 days ago

    Look at that, Trump is about to end another war. That’s another FIFA peace prize right there.

  • pulsewidth@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    31
    ·
    9 days ago

    Vietnam speedrun any%

    It did achieve the intended distraction from Trump’s Epstein issues quite well though, they’ve been off the press radar since this began.

    • Grandwolf319@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      9 days ago

      Once the war news slows down and then another Epstein news hits, won’t it come back but stronger?

      The Epstein thing has lasted so long because it’s being drip fed into the news cycle, I honestly think they would have been better off if they just released it all at once.

    • FarceOfWill@infosec.pub
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      9 days ago

      Only, what, 12 more pointless wars and he can coast to the end of his term without epstein coming up again.

    • Tollana1234567@lemmy.today
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      9 days ago

      he realized the venezuelan invasion wasnt enough, so he likely contacted bibi to start a war to distract the MSMs.

  • Bluewing@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    30
    ·
    9 days ago

    Hey, if he pulls the military back out from the Middle East, he can take credit for ending another war that he obviously won single-handedly. Plus he can get another Nobel Prize…