this post was submitted on 15 Mar 2026
652 points (99.5% liked)

World News

54755 readers
3753 users here now

A community for discussing events around the World

Rules:

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.

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.


Lemmy World Partners

News !news@lemmy.world

Politics !politics@lemmy.world

World Politics !globalpolitics@lemmy.world


Recommendations

For Firefox users, there is media bias / propaganda / fact check plugin.

https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/media-bias-fact-check/

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

UK and Japan among countries that are considering options but yet to commit warships to blockaded shipping route

Countries including the UK, Japan, China and South Korea have said they are still considering their options but without making commitments after the US president, Donald Trump, urged them to send warships to the strait of Hormuz to secure the vital shipping route.

The effective closure of the strait of Hormuz by Tehran, in retaliation for airstrikes by the US and Israel, has proved catastrophic for global energy and trade flows, causing the largest oil supply disruption in history and soaring global oil prices.

However, the international response to Trump’s call for the dispatch of warships has so far proved vague and reluctant, with countries unwilling to commit to a military response that could prove treacherous for their navies.

(page 2) 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] Treczoks@lemmy.world 31 points 1 day ago (3 children)

Why should any sane country even respond? This is an American-Israeli undertaking. They started it out of folly, they deal with it.

Maybe he should ask his "Board of Peace" for support. There are more than enough bootlickers.

Or the ships should simply follow the law of the seas: the country responsible for the ships' security in such cases is the one they are sailing under. Let's see how Panama, Nigeria, Philippines (or whatever is the cheapest flag of fancy at the moment) run to help.

[–] Vinylraupe@lemmy.zip 16 points 23 hours ago* (last edited 23 hours ago)

Maybe some FIFA warships will do the trick 🤡🤡🤡👌🏻👌🏻😂😂 Sorry i can't... its the only way for me to digest this timeline xddd

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] TheObviousSolution@lemmy.ca 57 points 1 day ago (20 children)

As it should. NATO is a defense alliance, not a pedoking/kingbibi distraction gone bad. I hope the EU can keep holding on, because the influx into far right parties and EU election tampering has become noticeable enough to possibly change this in the future.

[–] D_C@sh.itjust.works 20 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Why isn't the Orange ShitGoblin using the 'Board of Peace' to sort this trifling issue out?

[–] TheObviousSolution@lemmy.ca 11 points 1 day ago

Typo, it was supposed to be 'Bored of Peace' ^/s^

load more comments (19 replies)
[–] crank0271@lemmy.world 219 points 1 day ago (5 children)

This seems to suggest that shitting on our allies, behaving erratically, and stabbing them in the back (and front) isn't the best way to build a broad coalition devoted to mutual interests, to say nothing of a narrow coalition devoted to obvious imperialism. I look forward to learning more about this hypothesis in The Art of the Deal 2.

[–] fizzle@quokk.au 40 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Everyone is heavily incentivized to watch Trump sweat a bit more.

I imagine there are very few leaders who wouldn't be happy to see Trump replaced.

Why would we come to his aid to mitigate this catastrophic unforced error.

The US has fucked everyone. I've literally been angry about it for a decade now.

The dildo of consequence rarely arrives lubed.

[–] echodot@feddit.uk 9 points 23 hours ago* (last edited 23 hours ago) (1 children)

There isn't a lot of reason for any world leaders to help Trump at the moment. Our strategic oil reserves had some oil in them, it's always a good idea to make sure you have lots of reserve oil before attacking an petrostate, so we can just sit it out for a couple of months.

Also it takes time to ready a naval fleet they're not just sitting around on the off chance that some despotic old fart causes an international incident for literally no reason at all.

So between taking the time to equip and it being strategically advantageous to hold off for a while no one's coming to help any time soon. Also the war is extremely unpopular with the public so there's not a lot of reason for international politicians to damage their reputations, it's not like Trump would be grateful.

If Trump doesn't TACO in the next 6 months then maybe there will be some ships.

[–] fizzle@quokk.au 7 points 22 hours ago (4 children)

I don't think Trump really can TACO on this one. I'm certain that he would like to turn this one off but Iran will continue attacking US allies in the region.

[–] echodot@feddit.uk 1 points 13 hours ago (1 children)

The economic situation will force Trump to negotiate with Iran or the general public will lynch him. Iran's big problem is that the Americans are attacking them so if they stopped doing that and went away Iran could spin it as a victory and Trump can just lie about it and claim that Iran gave massive concessions which never happened. It's not like MAGAs will fact check.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (3 replies)
[–] nymnympseudonym@piefed.social 75 points 1 day ago

Also suggests Trump floated the idea with the press before discussion in detail with, you know, the actual people who would be sending the boats

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] Crackhappy@lemmy.world 12 points 21 hours ago

Moron calls for aid. Crickets

[–] chode_tode@lemmy.world 3 points 16 hours ago

Why on earth would anyone be willing to [insert] themselves into this conflict that wasn't even necessary....

[–] WanderWisley@lemmy.world 14 points 22 hours ago

Mission accomplished! We won the war!…Now everyone help me out with this war! 🫲🍊🫱

[–] ZombieCyborgFromOuterSpace@piefed.ca 39 points 1 day ago (10 children)

Never has it been more obvious how important it is to get fossil fuels out and invest in solar, wind and nuclear power.

I hope everyone else leaves the U.S. and every petro state with their garbage oil and go their own way by investing in green energy, E.V.s and mass transit.

load more comments (10 replies)
[–] West_of_West@piefed.social 41 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Damn, wasn't it like 5 days ago he said he didn't need the Royal Navy?

[–] echodot@feddit.uk 11 points 23 hours ago

Yes but reality and Trump have never been comfortable bedfellows. He claimed that Iran's entire naval fleet had been completely wiped out and it turns out it was just one ship they sunk. And now the world's most powerful military are apparently unable to secure a patch of water about 20 miles across.

[–] Paragone@piefed.social 69 points 1 day ago (6 children)

NO country should side with Trump unless Trump is open to negotiated-ceasefire/settlement.

Otherwise, they're just backing baldfaced imperialism.

& the minute that Trump decides that negotiated isn't on the table anymore?

Withdraw support.

Principles are what no political-gov't can have the spine to have, though.

_ /\ _

[–] Thedogdrinkscoffee@lemmy.ca 81 points 1 day ago* (last edited 14 hours ago) (2 children)

I have to respectfully disagree. There is no such thing as "negotiation" with Trump and his admin. Serial bad faith actors with no checks and balances from courts or congress. They have no rule of law. It's a tin pot dictatorship where no deals are ever honoured.

It is pointless to engage at any level. They act and react, everyone else acts and reacts. That's it. When Trump is dead, the same rules apply because the courts and congress are still populated with the same people that enabled him.

We can save a lot of time and money and just eject US embassies worldwide for at least the next 20 years. US Diplomacy is dead.

load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments (5 replies)
[–] Archangel1313@lemmy.ca 60 points 1 day ago (29 children)

This is really stupid, just from a strategic point of view, let alone from a moral or political perspective. Sending ships into the Strait just puts those ships in the line of fire...so, why would anyone actually agree to send ships there?

Iran has the "high ground" here. There is no way for ships to take back control of the Strait this way. All the US is doing, is asking allies to take losses for no reason.

[–] Teknikal@anarchist.nexus 31 points 1 day ago

My opinion is he knows ships will be sunk so he wants it to be someone else's ships. Let's not forget Iran has a ton of mini submarines probably sitting quietly waiting.

load more comments (28 replies)
[–] elucubra@sopuli.xyz 8 points 22 hours ago (1 children)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] saltesc@lemmy.world 28 points 1 day ago

There's a very simple solution to it. The US fucks off. They've made things a lot worse for themselves and everyone else as it is, so pull out now and we'll all try figure out how to clean this mess up over the next year or two.

[–] Theprogressivist@lemmy.world 54 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago)

Good. Fuck the US, Israel and Trump. And fuck anyone and everyone that supports this pedophilic nazi piece of shit.

load more comments
view more: ‹ prev next ›