I think it's a great idea, Germany is (justifiably) not interested in solving the mess created by the US and Israel but Trump is still pressuring European countries to intervene. This way:
1. Someone vetoes the mandate so nothing happens and Merz can say he at least tried;
2. There is a UN mandate, which gives legitimacy to an eventual European military mission.
Either way is better than helping the US without any mandate.
129
famine-1 day ago
+69
Which is exactly why China vetoed the last UN resolution.
>This war was imposed upon Iran. The US and Israel are the instigators. The resolution would give unauthorized military action a cloak of legitimacy.
69
Rock_mage1 day ago
+34
Actually China has multiple reasons. China has also claimed international water ways and enforced piracy alongside Iran. Voting against this is just for their own best interest as people can aggress upon China.
34
Sid-Hartha1 day ago
+26
There is no military solution to ‘secure’ the straight of Hormuz unless you want a permanent occupation force of a few hundred thousand troops to occupy Iran’s mountainous coastal region - and likely come under constant withering attack. Maybe this should have been understood before USA and Israel started an illegal war. The solution to the straight of Hormuz is diplomatic. Which means treating Iran like a sovereign nation.
26
TxM_24041 day ago
+3
Not unfeasible for America.
>The solution to the straight of Hormuz is diplomatic.
It's naive to believe that Iran is gonna open Hormuz without a toll. And that's not an option anyone should agree to.
3
Sid-Hartha1 day ago
+5
TACO isn’t going to go down that road of massive escalation and thousands of body bags being sent home. Iran will destroy a massive amount of gulf energy infrastructure. Oil will be $200 a barrel. It will utterly tank trumps second term in office. It’s the last thing the narcissist in chief wants. So not gonna happen. Safe passage isn’t the same as free passage. Iran has got Trump in a bind - and he knows it. Which is why he’s losing it on social media and threatening to nuke the country.
5
Busy_slime1 day ago
+2
2.
There is a UN mandate, which gives legitimacy to an eventual European military mission. Which Germany will fulfill how ? So again, he can say he tried, with other countries resources...?
2
Omegatherion1 day ago
+2
> Which Germany will fulfill how ?
With the german military most likely
2
Busy_slime1 day ago
+1
Are we talking about the german navy?
1
Omegatherion1 day ago
+1
Maybe. I suppose a UN mandate would specifiy which country contributes which kind of troops/ units
1
fec22451 day ago
-3
Germany is more affected by the strait closure than the US, the idea that only the US is affected is often implied but ignores reality.
-3
caudatus671 day ago
+7
I never said that, I know that Germany (and Europe) is more affected from the closure than the US, but I still don't think it's Europe's job to open the strait.
By this logic it's should be the job of Asian countries, as they are more affected than Europe, but somehow Trump is not bullying India or the Philippines to reopen it.
7
fec22451 day ago
-9
It's not a question of whose job it is, this isn't kindergarten. Leaders should act in the best interest of their countries. This is a tough question and I'm not sure what the best path is but the "whose job" framing adds nothing.
-9
DexJedi1 day ago
+2
The best thing European countries should do is push for diplomatic solutions, but they do not have the best diplomatic relations with Iran so that will not work.
So they should push the US and Israel. Maybe they will someday act in the best interest of their people.
I would agree this is not kindergarten... But then I see one of Donald his social media tantrums and I begin to doubt that statement.
2
fec22451 day ago
Trump is an idiot but my point is that they can't just point out how dumb he is, ask him to be less stupid and call it a day. And sure, they can ask Iran to stop threatening war crimes against civilian ships but Iran won't listen. They can ask Netanyahu to end his endless wars as they have for the last few years but he won't listen. It's a tough spot to be in but acting as if the strait being closed is solely the US's problem misses the point, it's their problem.
0
0xfeel1 day ago
+2
Yeah nah. Rather people stop using cars.
2
unfortunatebag1 day ago
-13
I mean yeah, doing nothing while you complain and argue about someone else doing something is the European way.
-13
caudatus671 day ago
+9
Why should Europe do anything? The US and Israel started the war, they should solve it. And if the mighty US navy is not able to open the strait of Hormuz, what can the poor German navy do? (sarcasm very much intentional)
9
Alaza781 day ago
+1
How do you intend to force the US,Israel, or Iran to open the strait? If you can’t maybe you should negotiate for another deal that the other party can agree with.
1
unfortunatebag1 day ago
-1
I never said they should.
But their MO is unsurprising.
Also you're right, the EU needs to get ready to fight Russia on their own, why would they risk ships and personnel in an unrelated conflict?
-1
DexJedi1 day ago
+1
The EU and Ukraine ARE basically taking Russia on their own. The US is only selling weapons, if they even deliver.
1
Brief_Hospital_17661 day ago
+63
Why would Russia or the US agree to such a thing? It'll be vetoed before it gets off the ground.
63
cmfarsight1 day ago
+33
The US might, get the rest of the world to fix their mess. No way Russia would though so I doubt it matters.
33
IntelArtiGen1 day ago
+27
Even China would veto, they already did: https://news.un.org/en/story/2026/04/1167261 / https://apnews.com/article/un-iran-us-strait-hormuz-bahrain-resolution-640e644b57df5c762ed9c57ef87b0427
> Russia and China veto watered-down UN resolution aimed at reopening the Strait of Hormuz
27
asdhjasdhlkjashdhgf1 day ago
+7
isn't that the whole point. Demanding an UN mandate which will likely never come allows to offer engagement while knowing the massive L also lands in the corner were the rule of (international) law was undermined. So it says "yes" while saying "haha, told ya so".
7
hahaz131 day ago
+10
The point isn’t to get it passed. It’s to give Germany and the rest of NATO plausible deniability when dealing with Trumps lies.
10
Brief_Hospital_17661 day ago
+1
I'm sorry, I'm not following you. Plausible deniability for what exactly?
1
hahaz131 day ago
+1
Trump keeps going on about how EU is doing f*** all to fix the bullshit mess he caused. This is one of the primary arguments that he's been making to support his claim that America should leave NATO.
By going through the 'proper' UN channels, even despite virtually guaranteed failure, the EU is preventing him from spouting lies baselessly.
1
HP8441821 day ago
+1
"Sorry, I can't play. Mom said no"
1
GoodVibrations771 day ago
+1
Yes that's the rationale , the only flaw is that this will not prevent Trump from spouting anything.
1
Deadman_Wonderland1 day ago
-9
But what a spineless thing to do. When they could just say no to Trump's face. Tell him to f*** off.
-9
hahaz131 day ago
+5
This isn't about that at all. And they have been telling him no.
This is so they can take refute any bullshit Trump tries to yap about to his base. Covering their asses.
5
psyon1 day ago
+4
Why would the US be against it?
4
OneThirstyJ1 day ago
+7
US would love it. Kinda crazy China wouldn’t.
7
madogvelkor1 day ago
+2
China can make their own deal with Iran and screw everyone else over.
2
zenbowman1 day ago
+1
They don't need a deal anyway, Iran is in their debt. It's mostly Europe and China's rivals in East Asia who will end up paying the toll.
1
Witty_Formal73051 day ago
+2
The U.S would, Russia wouldn't, especially because they need the oil $$, China won't because they're watching the U.S deplete their stockpiles.
It's just Merzs way of a middle ground. "Yeah, we'll help, but only if the U.N mandates it and makes it legitimate", so he LOOKS willing to step in, knowing full well Russia and China will kybosh it anyways so it'll never happen.
2
Brief_Hospital_17661 day ago
+1
The 'US end user' would, but Trump doesn't care about the people. He's beholden to Putin, which is why he unsanctioned his oil and why he's happy to play his part in saving Russia from itself by assisting with higher oil prices.
So yeah, the US consumer definitely wants lower oil prices, but the US administration appears to not give two fucks about the electorate.
1
bodhidharma1320011 day ago
+5
Mandate. How you going to enforce it?
5
mr_p00nsl4y3r1 day ago
+2
Blue helmets across all of Iran 🤣
2
Stennan1 day ago
+15
Chinese ships are passing just fine, so they could probably stand to benefit from not filling the Hormuz straite with warships.
Also Russia is making good money and can potentially secure more business from having it closed.
But it is still good to know that us Europeans don't show up at the US "beck and call". Unless something happens that fall within our existing treaties and legal framework, we need a legitimate reason to send in military forces to a foreign region. 100% with Mertz on this and by pushing for a UN mandate, he can show that we are not obstructing to having Hormuz open, it is the usual suspects, the "Axis of Upheaval".
15
TopNefariousness99431 day ago
+4
Europe will do nothing, will probably pay more for everything that transit that go through Hormuz, I don't understand people that cheering Iran for wanting money from ships that transit international waters because we're gonna pay that money.
4
StupidScaredSquirrel1 day ago
+10
Remember the rules:
if the US veto something at the UN: USA and UN bad
If China or Russia veto something at the UN: USA and UN bad
10
supx31 day ago
-1
You forgot another one: always say Israel bad.
-1
Nick_Strong1 day ago
+14
The UN is a joke. The US, Russia, and China can veto anything they don't like. Merz is either hopelessly naive or just pretending to be constructive while knowing how powerless he really is. He wants to live in a world where everyone follows the rules, but that world is gone, if it ever existed. Right now, might makes right.
14
Master-Rent50501 day ago
+41
Merz is not willing to go to war. The request for UN approval has two aims 1) cover his ass in front of his domestic opinion, saying that the mission is following international law 2) ensure that (some of) the main stakeholders are willing to accept the intervention, reducing the risk of being dragged into a war
41
Shot-Toe-28841 day ago
+9
It’s a joke but it’s the best we’ve got.
To a major extent, the international body still functions because countries still use it and buy into it. To many international scholars, that alone is the real purpose of the UN. A marketplace of debate and ideas. A refuge of peaceful diplomacy in times of war. It’s not meant to be an enforcement mechanism. A place to bring forth your idea and try to gain international support for it.
Disagreement is the main feature, not a bug. The body wouldn’t be necessary if we all just got along and agreed on everything in the first place. And although the security council is pretty corrupt, consider that the UN would have ceased to exist without its establishment. Those countries would have formed their own international council and spurned the UN. Like I said, an international body needs international buy in, especially from the big fish in the pond.
You may not like and I know I don’t like it, but every country on earth is using its seat at the table right now, and that means it’s still functioning and countries still see it as a worthy use of resources to be represented there. That to me is the essential, fundamental goal of international governance.
9
Replop1 day ago
+16
The point for Germany isn't to go to Hormuz, it's to tell America :
>F*** you, we aren't jumping when you call to clean up your mess,
If you want stuff done, there are proper channels for that.
It will never pass, but you can try to send us there anyway, we'll get the popcorn ready.
16
zenbowman1 day ago
+1
Why would a UN mandate help with that? Trump will just say, "nice mandate, why don't you guys enforce it", and we'd be back to where we are now. If anything it would play right into Trump's hands - though at this point the most likely outcome is some kind of tolling regime where countries pay Iran, which Trump will also accept if he gets a cut.
1
Bear_Unlucky1 day ago
+10
It doesnt and that is never the point. Since China and Russia can and will just veto it so he can just withhold any help without directly denying help.
10
zenbowman1 day ago
+1
Ahh okay, as face saving measure it makes sense.
But I think the net outcome is still some kind of toll regime which helps Iran reconstruct their country from this act of unprovoked aggression.
1
legend-no1 day ago
+10
Maybe it’s a third option: he does not want to secure the straight
10
Questionsaboutsanity1 day ago
-2
he’s hopelessly naive *AND* pretends to be constructive, yet powerless.
-2
Lopsided-Affect-96491 day ago
+4
We in Europe need to work out a deal with Iran and distance ourselves from Trumpistan and Israel, if India and China have done it so should we. Beyond that, we need to move to EVs, renewables and nuclear with a war like mindset, no more pandering to NIMBYs and other muppets.
4
JoSeSc1 day ago
+6
People way overestimate how many Chinese ships have passed through, there is no real free access for Chinese or Indian ships either, Iran has let barely a handful of Chinese ships through as a gesture of good will but it's trickle compared to the usual flow.
6
psyon1 day ago
+11
Making deals with Iran is the problem. We keep talking about international law and order during this conflict, but the international community recognizes the straight as internation and that all foreign ships are free to use it regardless of if what the bordering states say. Making a deal with Iran only legitimizes their claim that they should control it.
11
0xfeel1 day ago
+2
All these despot autocracies, which now include the US, actively worked on destroying international law. So who cares. Let the Saudis, Qataris, and the others REALLY affected by the war solve this with Iran.
2
Sid-Hartha1 day ago
+2
If the USA and Israel can ignore international law at will, and indeed constantly seek to undermine it, they can’t then cry foul when international law becomes meaningless to their detriment.
2
zenbowman1 day ago
+1
What legitimizes their claim of control is they have shown they can control it through action.
So the reality on the ground is that Iran does control the strait, and whoever wants to get goods through it has to play nice.
1
zachxyz1 day ago
+3
Anyone can launch missiles at ships in the strait. That doesnt mean they control it.
3
OffbeatDrizzle1 day ago
+4
If it's stopping ships from going through it sure sounds like control to me
4
zenbowman1 day ago
+2
Every missile demonstrates the strength of their veto power.
2
GloriousPudding1 day ago
+2
Politicians wasting their breath, as usual.
2
DaySecure76421 day ago
+2
Behold, the EU just used very strong words like "mandate" and "demand". The Strait of Hormuz will be forced to open soon by the European poetic literacy.
2
Bear_Unlucky1 day ago
+6
Like do you even understand what the point of it is. Its just a elegant way to just not getting involved at all since USA, China and Russia have veto rights anyway. Meaning the mandate never would come to be anyway. The opening of the straight is USA and Isreals problem and Trump has a far more serve inner political pressure because of this pointless war than anyone else.
6
Wanna_make_cash1 day ago
+1
What do other countries do when the USA and Israel will refuse to solve the problem? You're acting under the assumption that they will or want to solve the problem, but these are toddlers, they make problems, they don't fix anything of their own accord.
1
El-Yal1 day ago
+2
Wat willer?
2
Lenz_Mastigia1 day ago
+1
Irgendwas mit Eiern und Zungeneinsatz, keine Ahnung.
1
my_juicy_nose1 day ago
+3
Safe transit is different that free transit. Free transit in terms of accessibility is different than free transit in terms of cost.
3
yosisoy1 day ago
+1
Did they miss the veto?
1
Darkstar1971 day ago
+1
Russia - likes high oil prices
China - getting safe passage from Iran anyway
That alone will make whatever U.N. resolution that comes through completely toothless
1
SandVir1 day ago
+1
Let America solve this itself... I am waiting for the bomb attacks to follow. Interference seems like a no-go for domestic security..
1
paulsteinway1 day ago
So NATO should bail out Trump from his unilateral, illegal attack on Iran at the same time he's talking about ditching NATO after the war.
0
Ultra_Metal1 day ago
-2
Russia, China and France already vetoed this because they support the Islamic Republic and all the atrocities and war crimes it carried out.
-2
MatioyrsIfo1 day ago
-1
The one carrying out atrocities is Israel
-1
IMGcertified1 day ago
-1
And what is the UN going to do if a super power breaks that mandate? LoL.... cut this UN BS out....
76 Comments