A concept of a ceasefire and a quick profit on the stock market (taco Tuesday).
4
DanzakFromEurope6 days ago
+6
I mean, it was effectively a ceasefire.
6
BodybuilderUpbeat7865 days ago
Not in Lebanon it wasn't.
0
coblade145 days ago
+1
When was Lebanon an Iranian province?
1
[deleted]6 days ago
+2
[deleted]
2
ghost_n_the_shell6 days ago
+42
They never ceased firing.
So there’s that.
42
inquisitive_guy_0_16 days ago
+3
So, like a Russian ceasefire?
3
ghost_n_the_shell6 days ago
+6
Very much like this, yes. Except the Russian one includes some friendly fire while you’re at it.
6
Lowfi-Concert6 days ago
+1
Yes they did
1
MachineSpirited70856 days ago
+6
it was barely 12 hours wym
6
[deleted]6 days ago
+18
[removed]
18
[deleted]6 days ago
-35
[removed]
-35
I-figured-it-out6 days ago
+19
Lebanon (and Palestine) were clearly identified in Irans peace-fire demands. Conveniently neglected by USA and Israel.
19
AssistX6 days ago
+12
> Lebanon (and Palestine) were clearly identified in Irans peace-fire demands. Conveniently neglected by USA and Israel.
Source?
12
ChroniclesOfSarnia5 days ago
+1
**Iran and the United States, along with their allies, have agreed to an immediate ceasefire everywhere, including Lebanon and elsewhere, EFFECTIVE IMMEDIATELY,**
\- Pakistani Prime Minister's tweet on April 8th
1
sirsteven6 days ago
+8
Source that shows both the US and Israel agreeing to ceasefire in Lebanon?
8
Superman246o16 days ago
+9
It was *literally* [\#3 of Iran's 10 demands](https://www.listnook.com/media?url=https%3A%2F%2Fpreview.redd.it%2Fthe-alleged-10-point-iran-plan-thats-part-of-the-ceasefire-v0-qb0dfu8msutg1.jpeg%3Fauto%3Dwebp%26s%3De47239e02b4d531ad0dedb937eeec00c108954d3).
9
sirsteven6 days ago
+9
Okay, is there a source that shows that the US and Israel agreed to this 10 point PNG for the ceasefire?
9
Dependent_Star39986 days ago
+12
Trump agreed to a 2 week ceasefire. Show us the ceasefire that he and Iran agreed to.
12
sirsteven6 days ago
+4
The unambiguous language released to the press by Iran was "If attacks against Iran are halted, our Powerful Armed Forces will cease their defensive operations"
In regards to the 10 point plan (which had differing, ambiguous language between the farsi and english versions), it was stated that the US agreed to the *general framework* of the plan as a basis for negotiations.
4
Dependent_Star39986 days ago
+4
Why did Trump say that they've agreed to a ceasefire then?
4
sudi-6 days ago
+2
Not really a ceasefire agreement if there’s no agreement, no?
What’s with the child logic?
2
sirsteven6 days ago
+4
So you're saying the US and Israel must have agreed to that specific PNG because you heard that there was a ceasefire agreement? Yes very logical
4
sudi-6 days ago
+6
I’m saying that there is no agreement if everyone doesn’t agree.
6
PedanticPerson6 days ago
+2
Yeah, it seems what happened was along the lines of “Pakistan agrees there will be a ceasefire in Lebanon”, without seeking the agreement of either party to the conflict.
2
Dependent_Star39986 days ago
+2
Show us the ceasefire language.
2
PedanticPerson6 days ago
+4
There was no formal agreement. There were some closed door talks, where the Pakistani mediator apparently thought there was somehow an agreement for a ceasefire in Lebanon, without actually obtaining consent of either party (Hezbollah or Israel). Hezbollah said they were “informed” they were part of a deal. Israel just said they hadn’t agreed to anything regarding Lebanon.
4
Dependent_Star39986 days ago
+2
I'm wondering why Trump announced a ceasefire then.
2
Money_Do_26 days ago
+3
Yall are delusional.
'This is a ceasefire, but our ally will be invading your neighbor to kill your other allies, deal?' Is a take only an American right winger could have.
3
sirsteven6 days ago
+1
It's very hard to understand, I know, but ceasefires can have things called terms and conditions that both parties have to agree to. Also I'm pretty dang left, not that it should matter. All I'm doing here is stating facts.
1
No_Peace97446 days ago
+2
If you are stating facts, then what are the terms of the deal that were agreed to by both parties?
It seems like y’all are arguing over the details of an agreement that neither of you have seen…
2
sirsteven6 days ago
+3
The terms of the ceasefire communicated to the press by the US and Israel only ever referred to Iran from what I can tell. Israel openly supported ceasefire with Iran. Pakistan claimed it included Lebanon, but Israel contradicted this the next day.
3
AndTheOnlyOne6 days ago
+3
So what you are saying is that based on the fact, you support that what Israel said is right and what Pakistan said is wrong? And you are neutral?
3
sirsteven6 days ago
+2
I am saying that the actual parties to the ceasefire, Israel and the US, never communicated any evidence to the public that the terms for their side included Israel's ongoing fight against Hezbollah in Lebanon.
2
AndTheOnlyOne6 days ago
+3
Yeah and the actual other party to the ceasefire, the Iran, communicated that the terms for their side include Israel's ongoing fight against Hezbollah in Lebanon. So once again, what Israel/US said is right but what Iran said is wrong. Neutral much?
3
[deleted]6 days ago
-2
[removed]
-2
aegee145 days ago
+1
There was a ceasefire?
1
calibosco6 days ago
+225
I think they should blockade trumps blockade of the blockade.
225
AdultContemporaneous6 days ago
+64
Pimp My Blockade
64
Fun_Journalist41996 days ago
+21
I heard you like blockades so we made you a blockage so you can blockade your blockade while you blockade
21
FiveCrappedPee6 days ago
+2
We heard you like fish so we put an aquarium in your blockade dog!
2
Full_Aperture6 days ago
+3
Yo dawg I heard you like blockades, so I put a blockade on your blockade so you can wait while you strait
3
DoctrTurkey6 days ago
+5
“And this is where the magic happens…” Jared kushner whispers as he leads us down into centcom HQ where we find a fully naked trump, Netanyahu, and Epstein in a perpetual elephant walk around a frightened group of children that is, somehow, powering the entire building. “Renewables are all the rage, bro.”
5
Pjpjpjpjpj6 days ago
+6
Iran: We’ll show you, UNO reverse, we are going to let ALL vessels pass freely.
Trump: This will not stand! I’m ordering a full and complete blockade of the straight - NO ships shall pass!
Iran: Wow, you are so smart. We can’t handle all your winning.
6
Gh0stPeppers6 days ago
+4
You need a Navy to do that🤣🤣🤣
4
ReflectedImage5 days ago
+1
Absolutely not. That's old warfare. Nowadays, you just send a remote control drone over to the ships and blow them up.
1
BigPurpleBlob6 days ago
+1
Blockade-ception
1
Deweydc186 days ago
+35
Ope, they’re gonna touch the boats aren’t they
35
TournamentCarrot06 days ago
+13
That never ends well.
13
I_Roll_Chicago5 days ago
+5
>ope
Fellow northern midwesterner
5
sylekta5 days ago
+2
why would they do that, they can just keep doing what they were doing blowing up gulf state infrastructure and making the US look incompetent cause they cant protect them
2
MoistMuffinMaker6 days ago
+59
Episode V: The Islamic Republic Strikes Back
59
Justinc4s3-6 days ago
+2
Which is a subplot of Episode 27 - The middle east shuffle.
2
DrothReloaded6 days ago
+16
He wants Iran to sink a ship and kill American sailors to foment some sort of patriotic movement.
16
SoftlySpokenPromises5 days ago
+4
I think it's just gonna get people more pissed at the wrong people. At this point it is the GOP specifically keeping us there by not limiting the sitting president's wartime powers.
4
DrothReloaded5 days ago
+1
This is purely a Republican war and I will never forget now forgive.
1
HansSolo69er5 days ago
+3
Or give him an excuse to "bomb the shit out of 'em" to prove he didn't TACO out of his threat to destroy their entire civilization "back to the Stone Ages."
3
Boys4Ever6 days ago
+44
Stock market said, "hold my beer". Literally need to put boots on the ground at this point for market to care. Likely pricing in the TACO pivot
44
[deleted]6 days ago
[deleted]
0
Boys4Ever6 days ago
+1
Problem is Iran still ran by religious fanatics as regime change only did was kill the old and promote likely more insane. I've never seen them to just give into demands unless it favored them and last I recall was Obama where he had to promise them to unlock funds.
1
Lowfi-Concert6 days ago
The oil crisis is going to crush China and the US is going to benefit being the main supplier for the world. It will increase prices in the US but it’s going to hurt Asia much more
0
tonycomputerguy5 days ago
+3
Can I buy some pot from you? Because you've got to be stoned.
3
Reasonable-Gas56255 days ago
+1
So the american people are getting money when US oil is sold? How does that work?
1
western_red_cedar5 days ago
+1
For sure man, US is definitely outmaneuvering China, due careful planning, patience and forethought
1
Bebopdavidson6 days ago
+4
Just wait long enough and I’m sure Trump will start attacking the blockade himself.
4
Ok-Lingonberry71436 days ago
+32
However you feel about the war, you have to admit this was a clever uno reverse card by the US.
For those that don’t understand the move: Before now, only Iranian approved ships and tankers could pass the strait. By fully blocking all ships, the US has cut off Irans access as well which accounts for like 50% of government revenue through oil exports.
So the bet is that the US/west can withstand the economic pain a lot longer than Iran can and they will accept the terms.
32
textualcanon6 days ago
+18
Yeah, I hate Trump, but this was actually a smart move.
18
museolini5 days ago
+6
Could not have possibly been his idea.
6
textualcanon5 days ago
+8
Oh 100% no way it was
8
Hypnoti_q6 days ago
+4
Iran doesn’t care about their economy
4
Sidhren6 days ago
+9
Their irgc officers still want to eat and the luxuries they hoarde over the citizenry
9
Affectionate-Ant86 days ago
+8
Yes but they need money to keep waging this war & buying weapons. As much as people think Russia & China will help they aren’t going to do it for free.
8
alexos77lo5 days ago
+2
I don’t think south east Asia, Japan, Korea and Australia like that. I think Trump will move those allies closer to china demanding to lift off the blockade. This is going to backfire worse to USA than to Iran
2
SomeBloke6 days ago
+14
Can somebody smarter and more impartial than me explain if there is any logic to this? I know the easy answer is "No" and it makes for a great headline to laugh at but is there any objectively strategic rationale?
14
NinjaRB6 days ago
+110
Make Iran feel the squeeze economically like the rest of the world is by cutting off their major economic leverage (oil) and have other major powers that depend on Iranian oil pressure Iran into ending the conflict, specifically China. This would make China against helping Iran, whether with intel, arms, whatever. It also prevents Iran from collecting it's $2 mill per ship and that becoming the new norm for ships passing through Hormuz. It's not as bad a strategy as everyone on listnook claims it is.
110
TournamentCarrot06 days ago
+6
Honestly, it accomplishes a temporary crush of economics without damaging their infrastructure (which would cripple the entire world’s economy)…and can be lifted easily. We’ll see if it works, hopefully 🤞
6
SomeBloke6 days ago
+20
I appreciate the explanation, thanks
20
NinjaRB6 days ago
+29
No problem, I appreciate the good question. Too many people just post outrage or bias and don't any kind of productive dicussion.
29
KingRaphion6 days ago
+10
Also they would either A. Make iran take the deal (china and their allies) Or B. Attack the USA Blockade and declare a pseudo war on the USA (with a crazy f****** president). So yea.
10
_BigT_6 days ago
+22
As soon as Iran shutdown the straight, this should have been done. If we are going to get hurt economically, then they need to be crushed economically.
If they go crazy and retaliate via bombing desalination plants, then the other Arab nations will join the war. Its an amazing strategy, albeit way late to start it.
22
hydroracer8B6 days ago
+4
This whole thing seemed like a half-baked idea. (The war, not the blockade)
I'm just wondering why the blockade didn't start right away
4
Keeltoodeep5 days ago
+2
Because uae and KSA needed time to get their bypass pipelines to capacity. Lessens the oil supply shock.
2
idkmyotherusername6 days ago
+5
Why wouldn't China view this as a direct affront from the USA rather than diplomatically exert pressure on Iran and sort of let the USA win here with aggression?
5
Scriefers5 days ago
+2
What is China’s other option? Get militarily involved? China 100% does NOT want to do that. They can put politically pressure either side, but militarily and economically, China is not in a great power position currently.
2
ClosingDay6 days ago
+5
Because the other option to exert influence over the situation is military and china may be a formidable adversary but their ability to project is still pretty lacking.
What will happen if they don’t want to pressure Iran will more than likely be economic pressures on the west. But even that capability is somewhat limited when you have a president who doesn’t seem to care about economic impact
5
__Yakovlev__6 days ago
+5
It's not a bad strategy, it's just that noone in their right mind should have any fait in Trump executing it properly.
5
JustAnotherBlanket26 days ago
+3
If we were primarily worried about Iran making money, why lift sanctions on them selling it?
Also doesn’t denying China oil make them more likely to place pressure on the US?
Really doesn’t seem like the US has many good options left if this is the best they can do…
3
Ok-Lingonberry71436 days ago
+6
At first I think the US freaked out and was doing everything in their power to avoid high oil prices. It was short sighted and pointless though since it just strengthened Irans position.
China only has so many levers to use to pressure the US. Aiding Iran up until this point was one of them. They want to inconvenience the US but not act in a way that would escalate to another trade war.
I have a feeling this tactic may actually work. I bet China begins to pressure them this week
6
idkmyotherusername6 days ago
+6
Can you explain more about why you think China wouldn't just say "f*** that" to the USA's blockade and why they would exert pressure on Iran and try to force some sort of negotiation rather than take it as an affront to their own nation? This feels like an escalation that China may not necessarily just say "oh darn, come on Iran, give it up to those aggressors" in response.
6
No_Branch_50836 days ago
+1
What is stopping China from sending their ships through anyway, safe in the knowledge that Trump always backs down?
1
taintedmask6 days ago
+8
Just to add some context, Iran's economy is not doing so well either, probably worse than the global economy. So blocking Iran oil export will hit them hard. But the hardliners there may keep going even under extreme pain. Their leadership is divided so its hard to tell.
8
LayerComfortable42396 days ago
+15
The idea is to inflict the same economic pressure on Iran that is being inflicted on the rest of the world via the shutdown of the Hormuz strait. It's probably a decent strategy actually all things considered.
It wouldn't have been necessary if the US and Israel had never gone to war in Iran, of course... but here we are.
15
YinzerKermy6 days ago
+6
A large share of Irans government is funded by selling oil that goes through the straight. Iran already has deep economic problems that have lead to instability in recent years. So the idea is that Iran can’t afford a lengthy blockade.
6
scbtl6 days ago
+2
The US and Israel have done a reasonable amount of damage to Iran’s economic engine. The IRGC is trying to find alternatives such as mining the strait and forcing a toll on ships which essentially limits all traffic to being IRGC friendly. It doesn’t bring in a bunch of money but perhaps enough to keep the engine moving. Trump has established a blockade on top of that which removes that stream on income.
To break the blockade you generally either need sufficient political capital, which very few have enough of to offset the hypocrisy of the Iranians impeding navigation is ok but the US impeding navigation isn’t, or enough of a Navy to get the US to flinch, again very few.
It essentially comes down to China, who are already in negotiations with the US, and how much are they willing to intervene. Trump is betting that they’re willing to sell out the Iranians for better terms.
2
Dense-Purchase26436 days ago
+8
I am not impartial, i live in israel, and i am pro usa blockade, but i can offer the other perspective for that reason.
basically, iran said “the road is mine, anyone else that uses the road we will blow up” and the answer of usa is, “its hard to prevent you from blowing up ships, but its easy to prevent you from using the road as well in the meantime.”
so basically iran is still preventing ships from passing, but now it is also suffering from the situation and it is unsustainable for it
8
SomeBloke6 days ago
+2
Cheers!
2
molybdenum756 days ago
+3
But the strait was open as of a month ago - ships could freely pass through. What caused this change?
3
Dense-Purchase26436 days ago
+1
Iran decided that being attacked by USA and Israel means they can retaliate against civilian ships from almost every country.
you can go back and say oh so they were attacked, thats the real reason, I can go back say all of the things that prompted the attack, and then we can each disagree based in our core principles, but the bottom line is: iran said “strait mine” usa now says “strait for no one until you back off”
1
Due-Department-89066 days ago
-1
Do you honestly not know that Iran funds hundreds of thousands of men with weapons to attack Israel constantly? This war was done poorly, but in what world was it done without reason?
Imagine if Russia, instead of attacking Ukraine, funded enemies on several sides of Ukraine to host armies hundreds of thousands strong who endlessly send missiles over the border, who build vast networks of tunnels to remain hidden, who are literally always looking for weaknesses in the border so they can attack like on Oct 7.
Even more, imagine that Israel wasn't as crafty at war as it is. Again, these men number in the hundreds of thousands. That's a big deal. What if they really did manage to get a few tens of thousands of men inside the border. Do you know what a nightmare it could become to defeat them? They're a legitimate threat to Israel. The one and only reason you don't side with Israel is because, so far, their competence has kept their army dominant over the proxies.
And just to add further on the Russia example. In that case where it's Russia supplying weapons to proxies to attack Ukraine. Does Ukraine not, in that scenario, have a valid reason to attack Russia? Sure, it's not Russians shooting Ukrainian people, but it is Russian equipment. It is under Russian command. Wouldn't it be smart to attack the source of your enemies if possible?
Explain a counter to every single point I've made. I feel like your only opinion is that Israel shouldn't exist which, guess what, isn't possible. So given the reality of today, tell me what Israel should be doing. Should they let themselves get destroyed? Explain in clear English.
-1
I-figured-it-out4 days ago
Do you know that Israeli has been attacking Iran for more than five decades, long before anyone attacked modern Israel.
0
idkmyotherusername6 days ago
-1
I'm wondering if bombing other nations and killing civilians is the only conceivable option to manage this problem.
-1
DLRevan6 days ago
+2
I would add this to what the other person who commented said. Yes, this does put pressure on Iran and Iran's supporters like China. However, the problem with this plan is fundamentally it's simply another form of escalation.
Remember that the current status of the conflict is still technically a ceasefire. If you are Iran, consider what your response is going to be. You have already engaged in a short war where you have managed to bring the USA to the point of frustrating deadlock. Your primary goal is to still preserve the regime. Your economy was already hurting, and you were engaging in said war with existing resources, not on-going supplies or external mercenaries.
The obvious choice is to simply go back to the previous conflict. That's why folks are against escalation of any kind, whether it's coming from Iran or the USA. While we can't see where this conflict is going to end exactly, it's very unlikely that it would happen while the conflict escalates. We've already gone through that for a month.
The other commentor is wrong, or more accurately, short sighted. They claim that there is no productive discussion, but they are ironically shutting down people who disagree as just having bias or anger, while being too narrow-minded as to where this escalation obviously leads. Which is why I'm replying to you directly. Someone like that usually has no real interest in engaging with opposing opinions, despite claiming so. It's not like other commentors are unaware of the direct motivations and impacts of this blockade, it's just not the complete picture.
2
Lowfi-Concert6 days ago
+1
This combined with Venezuela just cut off Chinas 2 largest sources for oil via sea. The Russia supply is only 20% of their oil and they’ve maxed out the existing pipelines. This is going to crush China’s economy (and other Asian countries) as they are not energy independent.
1
verstehenie6 days ago
+2
Yeah, the US has a secure domestic supply of oil and gas, so the main losers are the rest of the world. It will hurt rich countries in Europe and East Asia economically, and it could cause famine in poorer countries since huge amounts of fertilizer are exported through the Gulf. Trump likes to hurt people who aren’t his type of American, so it’s a win even if Iran doesn’t concede.
2
KingRaphion6 days ago
+2
Then the USA goes "Well tell Iran to take the deal" Or "Attack the blockade with your warships and declare war on the USA"
2
Greyboxer6 days ago
+23
That is precisely the point of the naval blockade. US wants to incite further escalation (by pre-emptively escalating via the blockade)
23
Pjpjpjpjpj6 days ago
+12
I *think* Iran wants to let its ships pass (ships to/from Iran carrying oil) while limiting other ships (those of certain countries) going to other countries (eg Iraq) and charging the ones they do let pass a toll which also helps fund their economy.
I *think* the US wants to stop the ships going to Iran to cut off their money from selling oil. And also wants to try to prevent Iran from charging a toll to cut off that money by stopping ships that agree to pay the toll.
I’m not saying the US has a brilliant plan or that it will work, but it isn’t like the social media posts dumbing it down to a complete blockade on top of another complete blockade.
12
StabbingHoboReturns6 days ago
+12
They're so f****** horny for a war.
12
mr_birkenblatt6 days ago
+5
We're gonna fight to open the strait from the American blockade. 5D cheese right here. Make Iran want to open the strait.
/s of course
5
daytodaze6 days ago
+3
The blockade will either work, or it will put US sailors and ships in harms way, leading to some kind of crisis that will justify escalation.
3
rameshpawar44666 days ago
+9
I don't know how was good Biden for usa, but at least for rest of the world he didn't cause as much trouble as Trump did.
9
LePouletPourpre6 days ago
+32
Biden was fine. Should have bowed out sooner so Democrats were able to select his successor instead of having Kamala forced on us. The Gaza situation made a lot of progressive folks not vote or even worse, ironically, vote for Trump.
32
Mediocre_Comedian7396 days ago
-1
Biden wasn’t fine. He failed to defeat the Russians when he had the chance.
-1
Conscious_Youth_7526 days ago
+8
Just curious—since Iran has two major ports on the Caspian Sea providing them access to Russia and Central Asia—how does the US plan to stop them from just shipping oil to and receiving weapons from Russia that way?
Also, you know as soon as the mullahs agree to let him take a cut of the toll into his family crypto wallet, we’ll suddenly have a peace deal and all of his billionaire friends will make tons of money knowing when to benefit from the market jump!
8
fury4206 days ago
+30
How do you think they're gonna get the oil from their infrastructure at Kharg Island to the Caspian Sea?
Most of Iran's oil production is near and connected via pipeline directly to Kharg Island for export.
30
LostRonin6 days ago
+8
Without infrastructure you move nothing.
The amount of oil we use as a species on a daily basis is staggering. There must be pipelines to move oil because it isnt physically or financially feasible to move it any other way.
Along the pipeline route there must be additional infrastructure to maintain the integrity of the pipeline and to apply pressure to keep oil moving.
At the end of the pipeline there must be infrastructure to process the oil for being shipped.
8
United_Intention_3236 days ago
+5
It’s the same as saying the Gulf countries should use Red Sea ports. Theres not enough pipe to get it there.
5
StatisticianIll44256 days ago
+8
Iran is blockading ships also. So, I'm not sure how they think this is illegal for the US to do. Is the US also going to charge a safety toll in waters owned by God?
8
h4v3anic3d4y6 days ago
+5
Show me where God claimed ownersip of any given land. How? In writing?
5
cyber966 days ago
+7
God isn’t real
7
okshowcase6 days ago
+3
Duh
3
HashtagDadWatts6 days ago
+4
More pointless violence half the way around the world. Apparently this is “America first”
4
[deleted]6 days ago
+3
[deleted]
3
Individual_Door_32516 days ago
+7
The high oil prices needs time to work its way through manufacturers, supply chains, etc. and you'll notice a big jump in prices by July/August according to some economists. Most likely Covid style shock.
7
lonigus6 days ago
+1
Seen some very grimm predictions by economists. Ofcourse the poorer the country the harder the effects. And all of that is without any potential escalations.
1
ruskyandrei6 days ago
+9
Oh the shock is coming. It's just a question of how bad it'll be at this point.
Every day this goes on will be more inflation, more rising costs of everything and longer to recover from.
But hey, billionaires are going to make bank.
9
MAst3r0fPupp37s6 days ago
+4
Radical Islamics sure do love to punch up
4
Tyler102746 days ago
-2
Missile attack occurrences and drone swarm chance for weather? 80%.
Better hope a single one of those drones doesn't get through to the carriers and hit the water line.
Or you're looking at a worse USS Bismark Sea.
Crazy to me you'd put ships anywhere near smaller kamikaze's that have proven to destroy capital ships(Moskva) in the big 2026. But, I'm not a stable genius.
-2
zachxyz6 days ago
+23
Carriers won't be within 1000k of the strait.
23
TotalNonsense06 days ago
+9
> Or you're looking at a worse USS Bismark Sea.
I'm sorry, what?
9
DrPsyz96 days ago
+1
How dare they!
1
East1st6 days ago
+1
Double dare?
1
lc44445 days ago
+1
No way?!?
1
Opinions_ideas5 days ago
+1
Don't touch our boats!
1
Opinions_ideas5 days ago
+1
A resolve is so easy-
1. Iran agrees no nukes ever
2. Let them ship their oil out
3. Let them charge a reasonable fee to use the Strait.
4. US troops come back home.
1
mmoonbelly5 days ago
+4
Why should there be a charge on the strait?
There wasn’t before.
4
Opinions_ideas5 days ago
+2
I know, totally understand. I am saying that we can give them something for all we would be gaining.
2
Stonp5 days ago
+1
China says they’re still going to and from Iran port. I’d love to see the US stop a Chinese ship
US has depleted so many missiles and sent some to Israel, but China is fully stocked with new military weapons ready to test
1
Winter_Criticism_2365 days ago
+1
When the 1st US military ship sinks due to a Iranian sea baby the rest will leave, just like the Russians left Ukraine's coast..
New war tactics needed, Trump & Co has zero clue what is coming..
1
StatisticianIll44255 days ago
+1
So I can say I own some waterway and charge people to use it?
1
Apprehensive_Sea95246 days ago
+1
Day 44 of Trump's plan Epic FAIL.
1
IcyEpid3mic6 days ago
+2
Ughhhnow we're gonna have to block the blockade, which are blocking the blockade. This isn't how blocking works lol
2
pumpkinspicecum6 days ago
+1
This is why we didn’t want Trump to be president
1
flatline________6 days ago
+1
So earlier Iran was blocking the strait and US was trying to keep it open. Now US is blocking and Iran will try to keep it open. I sympathize with future students of history.
147 Comments