ListNook

Mr_J90K 4 hr ago +1

Look, all I’m saying is that it’s outrageous that military vessels cost so much these days. I feel my kith and kin are demanding that I take up this private endeavour.

1

Initial-Return8802 4 hr ago +1

"The gang goes to the strait"

1

Mr_J90K 3 hr ago +1

What's the difference between a pirate and a privateer? Going straight.

1

lordph8 3 hr ago +1

One, I hate to agree with Iran, but if the US starts interdicting oil ships that are willing to pay the Iranian tolls in international water, well, yeah, that's piracy. Two. The US ships do not have a cost effective mechanism to deal with drones/droneswarms. They need to return to a port to get resupplied with interceptors. It will be hella expensive, and ships can only stay on station as long as they have interceptors available, and they'll need a lot or risk being overwhelmed.

1

Aggressive_Lie_4446 3 hr ago +1

That is why I can see this ending with an actual boots-on-the-ground invasion of the islands in the Strait.

1

Sinaneos 3 hr ago +1

Still not enough....there is still a threat of drones and rockets coming from deep inside Iran....no ship will take the risk of crossing and insurance will be so expensive, if possible even.

1

Mr_J90K 3 hr ago +1

Pirate? I'll have you know I am in the process of becoming a bearer of a letter of marque!

1

FudgeAtron 3 hr ago +1

>One, I hate to agree with Iran, but if the US starts interdicting oil ships that are willing to pay the Iranian tolls in international water, well, yeah, that's piracy. No it's not. Piracy involves doing it for money. As long as the US does not steal those ships and any goods on them, it's not piracy. So long as the US makes no profit from stopping the ships, it can't be piracy. It's just a blockade.

1

Ashkrow 3 hr ago +1

Yeah... Lets trust that the guys timing announcement of war with markets closing/opening to not profit from the blockade

1

Substantial-Spite747 3 hr ago +1

Biggest question raised here for me is what happens when a chinese ship pays the Iranian toll and goes through? Is the US going to stop a chinese ship? Sink it? Will China let this happen? How will they react? Send ships in to e***** vessels? Will the US chicken out? Will this be a Suez Crisis-lite for the US or is this going to escalate like it did during the 1941 oil blockade of Japan that led to Pearl Harbor?

1

Lord__Abaddon 3 hr ago +1

Iran won't even charge Chinese most likely. let them go through to show the US blockade failed to embarrass them or the US attacks a neutral ship or seizes it... it's a lose lose situation. I wonder if the reason the Iran deal failed was because Vance asked for a % of the tolls and iran told them to kick rocks.

1

No-Faithlessness2879 3 hr ago +1

I agree with you on two. Point one though makes no sense. Idc what anyone says, that strait is legally international waters and the terrorists running Iran have no legal right to charge anybody anything for transiting the strait. This sets a dangerous legal precedent around the world which will change maritime travel forever. Iran mining the strait and coercing people to pay them in order not to get hit by sea mines is literally piracy.

1

Hjemmelsen 3 hr ago +1

What about the terrorists running the US? The rest of us don't want either to be honest.

1

Fit-Professional3095 4 hr ago +311

Wow! Now iran wants open hormuz and america wants a closed one?

311

TheBlack2007 4 hr ago +1

No, Iran wants to establish Dominion over the Gulf and the Americans, realizing their historic fuckup are now moving to prevent that from happening.

1

tundra445 3 hr ago +1

pretty much. with that said, this is not the first time Iran has done this. And there is a non-zero chance they would have done it anyways at some point.

1

NZSheeps 4 hr ago +1

Trump wants his cut

1

purplewhiteblack 3 hr ago +1

I predicted this, if someone pays Iran, the US should want 3x as much to police against this practice.

1

idancenakedwithcrows 3 hr ago +1

Okay but like is the US military gonna blow up a saudi tanker?

1

JD0x0 4 hr ago +1

The US blockade is only limiting ships going directly in/out of Iran's ports. None of the oil ships need to stop in Iran's ports so all of that is unaffected.

1

Phase3Investor 4 hr ago +1

No its blocking everyone because no insurance company will insure tankers in a war zone The blockade prolongs strait closure, reduces amount of oil and gas on the market and raises prices Genius lol

1

Anteater776 3 hr ago +1

I mean, yeah. But that’s not the direct consequence of the US blockade. It’s the consequence of all the stuff the US did earlier

1

archiekane 3 hr ago +1

Still Trumps fault then, just like most things.

1

djabor 3 hr ago +1

they do insure them, just at higher cost

1

Fit-Professional3095 4 hr ago +1

Basically no ships will pass.

1

WindHero 3 hr ago +1

The point is if Iran blocks other people's ships or charges a toll then the US will do the same to ships going to Iran. Iran earns hundreds of millions of dollars a day from oil sales. How much of that gets pocketed by their ruling class? They're going to feel the pain in their pocket book. No more allowance for their kids at private school in Switzerland. Also Iran has to be very dependent on seaborne imports for key supplies including military related equipment.

1

Jordo_14 4 hr ago +1

The GCC ships will be droned if this is the case.

1

MrDerpGently 4 hr ago +1

But is that including ships who pay the toll?

1

Catch_022 3 hr ago +1

Any ship which paid the toll will be stopped by the US (what about the thousands of small ships, fishing ships, etc.? Idk) Only big ships which paid the toll can get through the strait. US and Iran are now blocking the strait.

1

HarEr89 4 hr ago +1

No. The US naval blockade is only against Iran-linked vessels. The Iranian blockade is against non Iran-linked vessels or vessels that refuse to pay a high toll.

1

renok2504 4 hr ago +1

Not really, Iran wants to be able to limit what ships can cross, allowing them to set a toll and not let certain ships pass at all. So much for international waters

1

ICEpear8472 4 hr ago +1

The strait of Hormuz is not international water though. It is territorial water of Iran and Oman and has been since 1972 when Oman expanded its territorial water to 12 nautical miles of its coast. Iran already did so in 1959. Passage through the strait was free because of the “Right of Innocent Passage“ as defined by UNCLOS (United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea) so by international maritime law. To my knowledge Iran has never ratified that part of UNCLOS though. So while them blocking the strait and demanding a toll does violate international law I am not sure if they are legally even bound by that part of international law.

1

topyTheorist 4 hr ago +1

It didn't matter because ships prefer to pass through the Omani side anyway. And of course Iran is not allowed to block that.

1

Far-Fennel-3032 3 hr ago +1

And that doesn't matter as Oham has agreed to work with them.

1

tundra445 3 hr ago +1

lol, what are you talking about. Oman didn't consent to Iran blocking international shipping from their territorial waters.

1

topyTheorist 3 hr ago +1

No it didn't. https://www.msn.com/en-in/news/world/oman-rejects-irans-hormuz-toll-plan-can-ships-be-legally-charged-and-what-it-means-for-the-ceasefire/ar-AA20qg99?apiversion=v2&domshim=1&noservercache=1&noservertelemetry=1&batchservertelemetry=1&renderwebcomponents=1&wcseo=1

1

MrDerpGently 3 hr ago +1

And the US rather famously refuses to be bound by international law. Like, you don't get to insist that the only thing that matters is raw strength, break your alliances, betray your friends and rub their faces in it, repeatedly betray your enemies while pretending to negotiate, then appeal to the rule of law and the international community for help as soon as you lose.

1

Eve_Doulou 3 hr ago +1

The US is finding out that by acting in that way, it directly affects its strength.

1

MrDerpGently 3 hr ago +1

It was powerful because it was the muscle and market for pretty much everyone. Even it's enemies were really playing either the heel or betting against the consensus (selling sanctioned goods for a premium, for example). The only thing the US can't do, is flagrantly break it's own rules. It can bend and strain them, so long as there is general consensus, but it can't just go rogue. It's like thinking the bouncer is the most powerful person at the club because they can beat people up.

1

ThePrimordialTV 3 hr ago +1

So much for international law, so much for sovereign borders, so much for congressional approval. Get used to it, there are now laws or treaties anymore unless they can be enforced

1

diemenschmachine 4 hr ago +1

From what I understand the passage deep enough for tankers is only 4km wide and passes through Iranian water, so I'm not sure it is international waters. If it is, it's simply piracy. If it's not, $2 million is not so much compared to how much cargo a tanker can carry so it won't impact oil prices significantly, and iran gets some money to repair their girl schools, bridges, desalination plants, and power plants.

1

tundra445 3 hr ago +1

I think you could technically stay in Omani water, but it would essentially turn into a single lane road. Not that it matters, since Iran is claiming control of the entire strait regardless of whos water you are in.

1

Ok-Drawer5245 4 hr ago +1

How else are they going to get war reparations for Trumps ill-conceived (and illegal) war of aggression? They arguably have a very strong case for enforcing tolls. We should all thank Trump

1

HarEr89 4 hr ago +1

They will never get any reparations.

1

Ok-Drawer5245 4 hr ago +1

Hence the tolls (And of course this pisses of Trump endlessly, his war literally made things worse)

1

neohellpoet 3 hr ago +1

They'll also never get tolls. Between Mid East oil and the freedom of navigation, the US will blackmail the world with nuclear weapons into going green before giving up on the latter. The freedom of navigation IS the new world order. It's the principal source of US wealth and power. The US is sensitive about oil, but if you look at how most US wars start, it's about someone trying to mess with US shipping.

1

el_grort 4 hr ago +1

>They arguably have a very strong case for enforcing tolls. We should all thank Trump Except the vast majority of shipping going through the straits aren't American, they are Asian and European, so it's mostly punishing other countries. Iran describes what the US is doing as piracy, but so is their toll.

1

NeoHV 3 hr ago +1

By the nature of the US being the global reserve currency and dominant hegemony, all global market downturns are reflected in the US

1

windingsand 4 hr ago +1

I wonder if they will have to change their country’s currency as it’s worth zero rn

1

Ok-Drawer5245 4 hr ago +1

I believe they are using bitcoin

1

Legionof1 4 hr ago +1

Ahh Bitcoin, the currency of criminals and apparently terror states. So glad we keep that shit around.

1

Ok-Drawer5245 4 hr ago +1

If it wasn’t for Bitcoin they would probably demand payment in USD, Euro or Yuan haha

1

Ntroepy 4 hr ago +1

I definitely agree with this line of reasoning. I mean, how can you expect the UN (or anyone) to do **ANYTHING** meaningful against the almighty US?!? Well, except China, of course who’s supplying arms to Iran. But we don’t want to talk about that.

1

Ok-Drawer5245 3 hr ago +1

The UN is completely useless nowadays. Anything meaningful is ALWAYS vetoed

1

Toasterturning1234 3 hr ago +1

Wasn't that basically always the case, not just nowadays?

1

L_Cranston_Shadow 3 hr ago +1

They've been useless since at least the Rwandan Genocide in 1994.

1

Phase3Investor 4 hr ago +1

The Strait of Homuz is not internatiomal waters and Iran was attacked in viola5ion of international law

1

Speedstick2 4 hr ago +1

The strait of hormuz is not entirely Iranian waters either.

1

Phase3Investor 4 hr ago +1

So what? Trump Miller and Hegseth said international law doesnt exist only power does. Well guess what

1

SpiritedCatch1 4 hr ago +1

So why you make a point about law if you clearly don't care.

1

teddy5 3 hr ago +1

If the US says international law doesn't exist and only power matters, then breaks international law to attack other countries; other countries won't respect international law and will show them power matters. Pretty simple point and is exactly how we got where we are.

1

SpiritedCatch1 3 hr ago +1

Sure I get that. I still think that the US is a better hegemon than Iran so I rather see the influence of the US increase and the influence of Iran decrease. The best outcome (which look like a pipedream now but we never know) would be the end of the IRI.

1

salamisam 3 hr ago +1

> Strait of Homuz is not internatiomal waters The Strait of Hormuz is not international waters but an international strait. Ships have a right of transit passage under customary international law (reflected in UNCLOS), even though Iran is not a signatory. The strait lies entirely within Iranian and Omani territorial waters, and most large commercial traffic follows lanes closer to Oman, though transit still involves both states waters. > Iran was attacked in viola5ion of international law That may be true, but blocking the strait is still against international law, charging a toll would be in bad faith, and since some ships would be allowed through it seems punitive in nature and possibly illegal. Now while Iran has blockade rights during the conflict even though those rights are limited, it is not favourable looked on as many would suggest passage should still be open to traffic even during war time. Iran threatening civilian ships and firing at them on purpose would be against international law.

1

Lopsided-Affect-9649 4 hr ago +1

Two demented rogue states doing demented rogue state stuff.

1

Personnel_jesus 4 hr ago +1

Without wanting to come across like a certain unpopular paperclip; Did you mean *Rogue* states?

1

Lopsided-Affect-9649 4 hr ago +1

Yes, thank you, corrected. For the thousandth time, don't comment from your phone...

1

casualmolly 3 hr ago +1

Very silly Clippy reference, we all liked that.

1

Rambler_Hoss 4 hr ago +1

That’s an uno reverse.

1

SpiritedCatch1 4 hr ago +1

They want an open Hormuz with them controlling the tollgate. Basically free real estate and a good way to claim victory against US. Never going to happens.

1

Eddyzk 4 hr ago +1

It is utterly farcical

1

Accurate_Result5427 4 hr ago +1

Rubio: it's means bulshit mister President.

1

Codex_Dev 4 hr ago +1

😂😂😂 They only want this because now their ships are about to get blocked off cutting a critical source of revenue for their country. Regardless, the USA shouldn't be involved, but I am surprised that America didn't do this sooner.

1

neohellpoet 3 hr ago +1

It's not exactly that strange. The US has a tangential interest in the region. Closing the straight primarily hurts the Gulf States, India and China. Oil prices may be global, but oil supply isn't. If this was Reagan in charge, the US would also be finding Ukraine against Russia and pushing for more strikes against Russian oil infrastructure, leaving the US in a near monopolistic position when it comes to energy. Trump is a moron as are most of the people in his cabinet but there are at least a few people in his orbit who see an opportunity. If nobody else, the oil people and the alternative energy EV people, especially Musk, are definitely happy about this.

1

God_I_Hope_Its_Urine 4 hr ago +1

Reverse-psychology

1

shriand 4 hr ago +1

Yup. Iran's gonna blockade the US blockade of their original blockade. It's like kids playing *block* on Instagram but with an extra *-ade* as suffix.

1

misterdonut11331 4 hr ago +1

I got a Trace Buster Buster Buster for yo ass!

1

supx3 4 hr ago +1

All the Navy guys watching One Piece are going to be stoked.

1

DingleBerrieIcecream 4 hr ago +1

Move.Away.From.Oil. Big oil in the US lobbies hard to slow the transition to renewable energy sources as they make billions keeping everyone tied to the pump. And this is where it leads… dependency on volatile petroleum prices that change on the whim of a president, cleric, or dictator. F that.

1

12345sixsixsix 4 hr ago +1

Oil is also used to make plastic. Natural gas is used to make fertiliser. There’s a lot more to this than petroleum.

1

backfire10z 4 hr ago +1

Oil is also needed for synthetic rubber

1

neohellpoet 3 hr ago +1

Even more reason to stop burning it. If we burn up all the c**** oil to generate power and run cars we won't have it available for cades where there's no substitute

1

One-Man-Wolf-Pack 3 hr ago +1

Maybe less plastic would be cool too, y’know. Maybe recycle more…

1

hauntingdreamspace 3 hr ago +1

Think of the turtles

1

DingleBerrieIcecream 4 hr ago +1

Right. Use petroleum products for its chemical uses, and move away from petroleum as an energy source as there are multiple alternatives.

1

Alt4rEg0 3 hr ago +1

What do we do with all the left over petrol & diesel from the refining process?

1

Druggedhippo 3 hr ago +1

Of course, but fuel for vehicles and light trucks makes up 40-45% of the oil use, followed closely by Diesel / heating oil at around 27%. The amount used by plastics and other is miniscule compared to that. Which is why the oil companies don't want renewables. If everyone switched to electric vehicles tomorrow (and the infrastructure could handle it), they would lose at least 40% of their revenue from light vehicles alone. It doesn't matter how much better it would make everyone's health, or how much smog reduction there would be, or how much improvement in the environment. Profits man, gotta keep those profits.

1

tundra445 3 hr ago +1

Well, I am guessing if we were to move away from gas powered cars in some substantial way, then the overall demand would be much lower, and losing a source of oil like this wouldn't really matter so much.

1

glorious_reptile 4 hr ago +1

Yeah but realistically that is a multi decade thing ang for many products there isn’t even currently a no-oil solution

1

In-All-Unseriousness 4 hr ago +1

When it comes to transportation, we could have started moving away from it decades ago.

1

neohellpoet 3 hr ago +1

We have a solution to roughly 30% of oil consumption that's popular and could be implemented overnight. Mandatory work from home where possible. It's rare to have such s clear and obvious fix and to just never consider it

1

DingleBerrieIcecream 4 hr ago +1

Yeah, we went to war in Iraq over oil 25 years ago. We’ve had decades to switch to alternatives but we all dragging feet.

1

balooaroos 4 hr ago +90

Pirates calling pirates pirates huh. Well shiver me timbers, looks like its pirates all the way down ☠️

90

Jeovah_Attorney 4 hr ago +1

Reminds me of that scene in pirates of the Caribbean where the glass eye guy calls their opposing group "bloody pirates"

1

VellhungtheSecond 4 hr ago +1

Scissor me Xerxes!!

1

fitnessCTanesthesia 3 hr ago +1

The straight was open and free before USA attacked them.

1

Mongri 4 hr ago +1

the united states are the bad guys in this case, no matter how you wanne spin it, they broke their own agreements and are now scrambling to get a new ones f****** warmongering nation of idiots

1

Tel_Janen 4 hr ago +1

It was iran who blocked the straits first

1

Mongri 4 hr ago +1

the united states and israel attacked iran on february 28 2026, after that the strait was closed, get your f****** timeline right

1

StrangeStephen 4 hr ago +1

Both are bad. Iran is no saint lmao

1

HarEr89 4 hr ago +1

Both actions are illegal.

1

Horat1us_UA 4 hr ago +1

That doesn’t mean Iran get a pass for blocking 3rd party ships in international waters. Get your f facts straight

1

Mongri 4 hr ago +1

when you are attacked it is morally okay to use every bit of leverage in your arsenal, this includes closing your waterways building presure on the world econemy that is depending on this route attacking a sovereign country, threatening your allies, abducting foreign leaders or killing them is not okay in any metric, no matter how much dollar you clown loses

1

Horat1us_UA 4 hr ago +1

You seems can’t comprehend with presence of two evil sides

1

Mongri 4 hr ago +1

i can very well comprehend two evil sides, i just say that the united states are worse here, they are the aggressor in this case and the reason the straight was closed in the first place iran is not a good country, bad people died when the us attacked, but the us had no right to attack it and now saying that the consequences of exactly that actions are on iran is just plain wrong and i frankly can not understand your stance at all if my country would be attacked i would want to hurt my attackers and make them stop at any price would you watch how your country gets bombed to the ground while economically important targets just go by as if nothing is happening? if you put yourself in iran´s shoes closing the straight is a logical and smart move and the only thing that gets the ball even remotly into your courtside

1

strand_of_hair 4 hr ago +1

The “presence of two evil sides” is why Republicans won. F*** off with that.

1

Horat1us_UA 4 hr ago +1

You are saying that Iran is in any way better than the US? Such a joke lol

1

HarEr89 4 hr ago +1

Iranian regime killed 1000s of Iranian civilians in January, hanging innocent people every day and some people act as if this evil regime has the moral high ground.

1

LFC47 4 hr ago +1

US seems to think they aren't bad guys. That is the difference.

1

Typical_Rip_1818 4 hr ago +1

Where do they claim Iran gets a pass for this? They're just saying America/Israel are the bad guys here, We all knew this would happen if Iran was attacked hence why no ones ever done it. Iran can still also be the bad guys in this scenario

1

StrangeStephen 4 hr ago +1

Saying Usa and israel the bad guys makes an impression that you think Iran is the good guys. You have to make that clear. Iran also is a piece of shit.

1

HarEr89 4 hr ago +1

Iranian regime is one of the most evil and violent regimes. They should ask the Iranians who survived the January massacres.

1

Mongri 3 hr ago +1

i did ask one of them, he said he did not want a foreign country to bomb his, what a weird take

1

StrangeStephen 3 hr ago +1

Weird. All I am seeing is that Iranian doesnt want US to stop.

1

Martoxic 3 hr ago +1

but they did not restrict Hormuz. That was Iran.

1

Jaded-Currency-5680 4 hr ago +1

Iran is as evil as evil can be, but so far they haven't done any pirating the US has done plenty though

1

Thurak0 4 hr ago +1

Of course they have! They have hit ship in the strait and demand money for passage. That's textbook piracy already.

1

HarEr89 3 hr ago +1

Some people here are too dumb to see this. What Iran does is like highway robbery on sea = piracy.

1

themathmajician 4 hr ago +1

Charging the toll is close enough.

1

HarEr89 4 hr ago +1

Charging a high toll, attacking vessels and threatening to blow up more vessels is piracy.

1

clarkrd 4 hr ago +1

I'll timber your shiver's... ;)

1

thatkidnamedrocky 4 hr ago +1

[ Removed by Listnook ]

1

PeksyTiger 3 hr ago +1

"The horrible piracy, out noble tolls"

1

wrobbii 4 hr ago +1

Can we get a Lego AI vid for this?

1

5u114 3 hr ago +1

The US restrictions are piracy. But the Iranian tolls (etc) are absolutely piracy too. The sick part is the Trump administration had been expressing an interest in taking part in Iran's toll piracy in a 'joint venture' ... which may end up happening after all is said & done.

1

mmoonbelly 3 hr ago +1

Nah, that’d be like calling the East India Company pirates. Oh

1

This_Way_Comes 3 hr ago +1

Damn. Gonna be tough days ahead

1

uae08 3 hr ago +1

two can play this game

1

Dark_World_Blues 4 hr ago +1

It is funny that Iran has been doing this and is extorting ships for 2 million USD and justifying it, but it is completely wrong if another country does it.

1

Caymonki 4 hr ago +1

They’re both wrong, both unwilling to negotiate (especially since America and Israel keep negotiating in bad faith) and both willing to burn the world to be the ultimate “w*****” while the vast majority of the planet loses. Wouldn’t say any of this is funny though.

1

cn0MMnb 3 hr ago +1

To be fair, the world can only win long term from another oil scarcity. In the 70s we didn’t have the tech, but nowadays we don’t need to burn oil anymore for heat and individual transportation. We should try to get as much momentum out of this short term pain for long term gains (using their punchline against their interests)

1

fitnessCTanesthesia 3 hr ago +1

It is funny that there was no toll and the straight was free and open before USA attacked them.

1

butwhywedothis 4 hr ago +1

We need Russia and China to join this and we can have a WWE style fatal 4 way Hormuz Championship match and the degenerate American administration can bet on it to make some $$$ cause that’s what it’s all about. /s

1

neohellpoet 3 hr ago +1

The hell is Russia going to do? They can't fly their planes in Ukraine, they sure as hell can't fly them where the USAF is operating. They somehow lost their Navy to a country that doesn't have one and I don't think their troops swimming at US ships is a fruitful strategy

1

Anonmonyus 4 hr ago +1

You, me, average person don’t want this. We are back in the days of Black Beard and Jack Sparrow for chryps sake

1

Legionof1 4 hr ago +1

Okay but hear me out… parrots…

1

SomeRandomJPN_guy 3 hr ago +1

Strait of mines and tolls… Damn, I really wish this was an April fools' day joke.

1

Martoxic 3 hr ago +1

thats grand when you were the first to restrict Hormuz...

1

Ericridge 4 hr ago +1

This is hilarious. Increased gas prices is totally worth watching two nation states b**** and moan 🤣 Trump: you know what? I'm shutting down the straits entirely because frak you! Iran: No, not like that! Nooo! That's piracy!!!! *Makes random accusations in hope it hurts USA in return.*

1

tundra445 3 hr ago +1

The U.S blockade on Iranian ports has definitely triggered the biggest reaction I have seen so far in this conflict. Iran is not happy. But I am surprised they are so surprised. Did they really think they could shutdown the strait, try and charge tolls, all the while their own ships get to sail around scott free w/ the U.S Navy at their doorstep ?

1

Fast-Satisfaction482 3 hr ago +1

They thought winning on social media was equivalent to winning a physical war.

1

Spard1e 3 hr ago +1

They did, because their analysis said the US demands global oil prices to be as low as possible. Stopping Iranian tankers going to China, impacts the global oil price as much as stopping Saudi tankers going to Europe Trump's main goal however, is to make himself rich. Unlike previous American presidents, whom all cared about low oil prices. Furthermore the US has the ability to be self sufficient on oil, but it does come at a sllightly higher cost compared to cheaper imports.

1

bendub556 4 hr ago +1

Not hilarious and not worth it. Be more human, less a******.

1

AlizarinCrimzen 3 hr ago +1

This is what happens when there are no adults left in the room, btw.

1

No_Presentation_876 3 hr ago +1

And yet Americans will send their children to die. In Islam, its 72 virgins. In Christianity, what is it? eternal heaven? Same same but different, die to impress God and you shall be rewarded.

1

ElegantNatural2968 3 hr ago +1

Iran keeps talking & talking & talking & talking…..

1

G00b3rb0y 4 hr ago +1

And Iran is correct. The US just committed piracy

1

1Beholderandrip 4 hr ago +1

Wait. So it wasn't piracy when Iran closed it, but it is now that the U.S. is closing it?

1

misterdonut11331 4 hr ago +1

it's whoever says it first that counts

1

id_doomer 3 hr ago +1

So the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) defines different types of piracy. The United States is one of 12 member states to the UN that has not ratified the convention. Keeping company with: - Afghanistan - Bhutan - Burundi - Central African Republic - Colombia - El Salvador - Ethiopia - Iran - North Korea - Libya - Liechtenstein - United Arab Emirates One of the reasons given (semi) recently by Donald Rumsfeld was: > Under the treaty, industrialized countries pay royalties to less-developed nations for profits made while exploiting unclaimed energy resources, he said, adding that this type of wealth redistribution is a *“novel principle that has, in my view, no clear limits”* that *“could become a precedent for the resources of outer space.”*

1

HarEr89 3 hr ago +1

Do did Iran by attacking vessels and claiming a high toll.

1

MetalGhost99 3 hr ago +1

Its called war.

1

Raphael1987 3 hr ago +1

So USA blocking is piracy, Iran blocking is...?

1

Xplosive0 3 hr ago +1

Its in Iran, dipshit.

1

StevenK71 4 hr ago +1

Well, that's the definition of piracy, lol

1

Yellow_Marker_ 4 hr ago +1

It sounds like it is exercising the right to defend itself and control it's territorial waters

1

StrangeStephen 4 hr ago +1

what does threatening of gulf port have to do anything with defending its territories?

1

Yellow_Marker_ 4 hr ago +1

It says they will retaliate in kind if their ports are attacked. Any other country would do the same. It also says it will co-control the waterway in it's and Oman's waters. Also not a controversial idea. The two topics are independent in my opinion.

1

Speedstick2 4 hr ago +1

Well, if you are for BEVs then you want this Hormuz to stay closed.

1

Over-Willingness-933 3 hr ago +1

If it stops Iran from profiting, then closing the strait is the only thing. If Iran gets no benefit from the piracy in terms of money they might behave better. Also any money given to Iran fuels the regional wars they have caused for the last 40 years

1

rokahef 3 hr ago +1

I do find it hypocritical that the Panama Canal can charge upwards of 50,000 USD per tanker going through, but somehow Iran putting a toll on the straight is wrong. Admittedly, the Panama Canal was man made, but I'm not sure that fundamentally changes the issue.

1

salamisam 3 hr ago +1

> I do find it hypocritical that the Panama Canal can charge upwards of 50,000 USD per tanker going through, but somehow Iran putting a toll on the straight is wrong. No hypocrisy. Panama Canal = is like an artificial water toll bridge, the Strait of Hormuz = natural water way.

1

HarithBK 3 hr ago +1

Panama canal req maintenance and workers to work. The strait will work and exist without human involvement. The same is true for the sues canal. This means charging a fee is more of a racket than anything.

1

5u114 3 hr ago +1

>I'm not sure that fundamentally changes the issue It does. Fundamentally. Your ignorance is impressive ... it's not often someone actually knows and expresses the distinction between two fundamentally different things, and then claims there is no distinction.

1

ClassicBit3307 3 hr ago +1

All I’m saying is they ain’t wrong, and the bad guys are good now, while the good guys are bad. Strange world.

1

Iran vows permanent Hormuz control mechanism and warns no Gulf port will be safe if Iranian ports are threatened — calls US restrictions piracy

💬 Send a Message

164 Comments