this post was submitted on 12 Apr 2026
150 points (97.5% liked)

World News

55511 readers
2906 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
 

cross-posted from: https://piefed.world/c/world/p/1034118/trump-says-u-s-navy-will-immediately-blockade-strait-of-hormuz-after-ceasefire-talks-end

President Donald Trump on Sunday said the U.S. Navy would "immediately" begin a blockade of ships entering or leaving the Strait of Hormuz, after U.S.-Iran ceasefire talks in Pakistan ended without an agreement or next diplomatic steps in sight.

In his first public comments after the 21-hour talks, Trump sought to eliminate Iran's key source of leverage in the war by exerting strategic control over the waterway that was responsible for 20% of global oil shipping before fighting began.

A U.S. blockade could further rattle global energy markets. Trump told Fox News the goal was to ensure all ships could transit: "It's going to be all or none, and that's the way it is."

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] Laser@feddit.org -2 points 4 days ago (1 children)

What you're implying makes no sense.

The ships passing are not "NATO owned". They're most likely not even ships owned by the armed forces of NATO countries apart from the US. And even if they were attacked, this is outside of the territory of the NATO member state, which is a condition for triggering article 5.

[–] ramble81@lemmy.zip 4 points 4 days ago (2 children)

Let me clarify: If any ships that passed through were registered to a NATO owned country (not saying that any actually are right now).

Now the territory part is interesting. So does that mean you’re free to attack a nations resources outside of their borders without giving them a means triggering Article 5?

[–] icelimit@lemmy.ml 4 points 4 days ago* (last edited 4 days ago)

Art 5 doesn't cover the outlying french (or Spanish. Or English, or Hawaiian) territories that are outside north arlantic for example. So ships - even less so. Art5 (along with all other arts) are an obligation. It gives member countries a strong casus belli, in a sense. Art5 doesn't suddenly place the armed forces of NATO under some command structure to be commanded at will by US or the aggrieved memberstate.

That said, a memberstate whose properties or civilians are attacked as an act of war is free to choose their response. Countries allied to any fighter can choose their supporting response outside the NATO framework.

[–] DaMummy@hilariouschaos.com 1 points 4 days ago

I would guess that's precisely where the term "international waters" refers to.