history class in 2045 is going to be absolutely unhighed
60
DarthGader5 days ago
+9
They'll just gloss this under "failed negotiations" which is a shame because this is real comedy material... Once enough time has passed of course. Right now its a tragedy.
9
plan_with_stan5 days ago
-3
The year is 2026 Iran, under an oppressive Islamic regime had to undergo with the United States, a country run by a comedian of sorts.
-3
Longtimeseenot5 days ago
+48
Americas accusing others of economic terrorism is peak US hypocrisy.
Considering the countless false narratives to invade nations to pocket their resources
48
Trust_Process09105 days ago
+12
And the lackadasical throwing around of tariffs.
12
flaviu01035 days ago
+1
But at least, right now, everyone knows the US is at fault here - because Trump seelms to always act in bad faith.
If it wasn't for the Trump factor, they could have spin it - that they care about the people of Iran or other bullshit.
1
Heisenbergg555 days ago
+12
A naval blockade without broad international backing is basically unilateral economic warfare and in a chokepoint like the Strait of Hormuz even “limited enforcement” risks miscalculation that could spike global oil prices far beyond Iran’s economy alone...
12
livinginahologram5 days ago
+7
>A naval blockade without broad international backing is basically unilateral economic warfare and in a chokepoint like the Strait of Hormuz even “limited enforcement” risks miscalculation that could spike global oil prices far beyond Iran’s economy alone...
The US is now singlehandedly in violation of international waters law. As if the whole tariffs fiasco wasn't enough to turn all the world against the US ..
What an amateurish corrupt administration, I'm so dumbfounded how it's possible the Americans are still submitting to it.
7
BigHandLittleSlap5 days ago
-12
This is just false. Blockading a country you’re at war with is permissible. The announcement by CENTCOM was carefully phrased to be 100% legal.
-12
Ironvos5 days ago
+18
Wouldn't that require an official declaration of war by congress?
18
livinginahologram5 days ago
+7
>Wouldn't that require an official declaration of war by congress?
It would, the person you are replying to is writing bullshit. This is exactly the reason why the Trump's administration has been avoiding to call it a war (even though contradicting statements have also been said....). It's some kind of special military operation (gosh where did I hear that?).
7
CannonAFB_unofficial5 days ago
+7
Wait what war?
7
livinginahologram5 days ago
+8
>This is just false. Blockading a country you’re at war with is permissible. The announcement by CENTCOM was carefully phrased to be 100% legal.
First, I don't think you understand what Trump intends doing with the blockade. Trump wants the US Navy to blockade any ship passing through the straight which is a violation of international waters law [source](https://time.com/article/2026/04/12/trump-blockade-strait-of-hormuz-iran/):
« *Trump said the U.S. Navy would block “any and all Ships trying to enter, or leave, the Strait of Hormuz” in a post on Truth Social.* »
It doesn't matter if it's done though a legal path in the US, it still violates international law. The moron even said in the past that the US would do a joint blockade with the Iran (and charge a passing fee to other nations).
Second, the Trump administration has publicly stated several times this isn't a war, they also issued contradicting statements about that but it can't be a war because that would be up to congress to approve.
8
Clean_Figure66515 days ago
Trump's truth social post is not a fact or a reflection of reality. He just says dumb shit. What the US is actually doing is blockading only ships entering and leaving Iranian ports, not the whole strait. It's completely legal to do this per maritime war law. Also, the US has not officially declared war since 1942, so almost 100 years of precedent to back up not declaring a war here either
0
livinginahologram5 days ago
+2
>Trump's truth social post is not a fact or a reflection of reality. He just says dumb shit.
Trump is still the f****** president of the United States and shouldn't be declaring false statements, much less illegal intentions that have major international repercussions.
2
pepe_acct5 days ago
-2
I mean both US and Iran did not sign on to the Law of the Sea. In this case what international law has jurisdiction?
-2
livinginahologram5 days ago
+1
>I mean both US and Iran did not sign on to the Law of the Sea. In this case what international law has jurisdiction?
Since when ?
https://www.noaa.gov/maritime-zones-and-boundaries
« *The maritime zones recognized under international law include internal waters, the territorial sea, the contiguous zone, the exclusive economic zone (EEZ), the continental shelf, the high seas, and the Area. The breadth of the territorial sea, contiguous zone, and EEZ (and in some cases the continental shelf) is measured from the baseline determined in accordance with customary international law as reflected in the 1982 Law of the Sea Convention*»
From the 1982 Sea Convention :
https://www.un.org/Depts/los/convention_agreements/convention_overview_convention.htm
« *Ships and aircraft of all countries are allowed "transit passage" through straits used for international navigation; States bordering the straits can regulate navigational and other aspects of passage* »
Furthermore,
https://www.state.gov/law-of-the-sea-convention/
« *1983 President Reagan’s Ocean Policy Statement declares that the United States will accept and act in accordance with the provisions of the Convention relating to traditional (non-seabed) uses of the ocean, such as navigation and overflight.* »
It is my understanding that the US tried to agree on a ratification of the agreement to include deep-sea mining provisions but that never materialized. However the 1982's agreement is still in effect ?
1
pepe_acct5 days ago
+3
US never ratified law of sea. I don’t know what are you talking about. The law of the sea convention of 1982 was never accepted by congress. US just voluntarily comply most of the time. To ratification of international treaty, there needs to be 2/3 majority in senate which this convention never received.
3
livinginahologram5 days ago
-1
Dude what the f*** ? Do you have a reading problem or what ?
Here is what's written [on the US state department website, copied verbatim:](https://www.state.gov/law-of-the-sea-convention/)
« 1983 President Reagan’s Ocean Policy Statement declares that **the United States will accept and act in accordance with the provisions of the Convention relating to traditional (non-seabed) uses of the ocean, such as navigation and overflight.** »
THE US HAS AGREED TO THE NON-SEABED TERMS OF THE CONVENTION
-1
pepe_acct5 days ago
+3
Dude are you American or just uneducated. In the states we have a thing called congress and presidents need congressional approval to rectify international treaties. What you quoted there is a political statement by one of US president which new flash, is not law! In fact if you just scroll down a bit you will see senate never approved this international treaty
3
livinginahologram5 days ago
-1
> Dude are you American or just uneducated. In the states we have a thing called congress and presidents need congressional approval to rectify international treaties. What you quoted there is a political statement by one of US president which new flash, is not law! In fact if you just scroll down a bit you will see senate never approved this international treaty
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_and_the_United_Nations_Convention_on_the_Law_of_the_Sea
« the Conference continued until its final meeting in late 1982, at which time the final act was signed and the Convention was opened for signature. As time went on, it became clear that the United States, among other developed states, was not willing to agree to Part XI of the Convention concerning deep seabed portions and mining of potentially valuable metals."
(...)
In March 1983 President Ronald Reagan, through Proclamation No. 5030, claimed a 200-mile exclusive economic zone. In December 1988 President Reagan, through Proclamation No. 5928, extended U.S. territorial waters from three nautical miles to twelve nautical miles for national security purposes. However a legal opinion from the Justice Department questioned the President's constitutional authority to extend sovereignty as Congress has the power to make laws concerning the territory belonging to the United States under the U.S.
(...)
**The United States accepted all but Part XI as customary international law.**
(...)
In 1990, consultations were begun between signatories and non-signatories (including the United States) over the possibility of modifying the Convention to allow the industrialized countries to join the Convention. The resulting 1994 Agreement on Implementation was adopted as a binding international Convention.
Thus, modifications to that provision were negotiated, and an amending agreement was finalized in July 1994. **The U.S. signed the Agreement in 1994 and now recognizes the Convention as general international law**, but has not ratified it at this time. UNCLOS entered into force in November 1994 with the requisite sixty ratifications. »
YOU ARE CONFUSING PART XI SEABED MINING LAW WHICH THE US NEVER AGREED UPON WITH THE REST OF SEA LAW WHICH IS RECOGNIZED AS INTERNATIONAL LAW BY THE US
-1
pepe_acct4 days ago
+2
Excuse me? Who accepted it as international law? Only congress have this power and they never voted to accept it. Reagan’s proclamation has no legal basis as far as recognizing international treaties. Just look at the graph you in the page, US is not a member.
https://www.congress.gov/crs-product/IF12578#:~:text=Agreement%20Relating%20to%20the%20Implementation%20of%20Part,Sea%20(commonly%20known%20as%20the%201994%20Agreement)
2
livinginahologram4 days ago
+1
It's not just Reagan, pretty much every president has sent it to the Senate but it always ended up being postponed. The US has not ratified the treaty but in practice many of the treaty provisions were adopted by the US as customary international law...
This is written in the congress document you shared:
« *The United States is not a party to UNCLOS, but related U.S. law largely comports with its provisions. In addition, the United States historically has considered portions of UNCLOS to reflect customary international law binding the conduct of states even in the absence of a treaty.* »
So we are actually both right, in strict terms the US isn't a signatory of UN's Sea Law but in practical terms the US can be held accountable for violating many of the treaty provisions that are customary international law.
And think about about this, it makes total sense. The US couldn't participate in free trade agreements with most of the world if the US could violate if they wished basic laws governing world trade such as international waters law.
1
slothcough4 days ago
+2
Every time I think the Americans can't do anything dumber they find a whole new f****** level of stupidity
2
LiteratureMindless715 days ago
+5
McValue hitler sure seems hell-bent on ruining as much as if the world as possible before he croaks.
5
RRaj0075 days ago
+3
Brain Dead POTUS strikes again
3
WasThatInappropriate5 days ago
+2
I wonder how much it costs the US to maintain this blockade vs how much it'll cost Iran
2
ApprehensiveSize76625 days ago
+2
Okay, now what you guys going to war with china? That.......um.........eh bigger than iran.
[US-sanctioned tankers pass Strait of Hormuz despite US blockade, data shows](https://www.reuters.com/business/energy/us-sanctioned-chinese-tanker-passes-strait-hormuz-despite-us-blockade-data-shows-2026-04-14/)
>SINGAPORE, April 14 (Reuters) - A Chinese tanker sanctioned by the United States passed through the Strait of Hormuz on Tuesday despite a U.S. blockade on the chokepoint, shipping data showed.
The Rich Starry would be the first to make it through the strait and to exit the Gulf since the blockade began, data from LSEG, MarineTraffic and Kpler showed.
2
ramakitty5 days ago
+6
The blockade is of Iranian ports, not the strait itself.
6
twelve_goldpieces5 days ago
Maybe the americans just need to go home.
Canadians and mexicans and others are fine.
31 Comments