World News
A community for discussing events around the World
Rules:
-
Rule 1: posts have the following requirements:
- Post news articles only
- Video links are NOT articles and will be removed.
- Title must match the article headline
- Not United States Internal News
- Recent (Past 30 Days)
- Screenshots/links to other social media sites (Twitter/X/Facebook/Youtube/reddit, etc.) are explicitly forbidden, as are link shorteners.
-
Rule 2: Do not copy the entire article into your post. The key points in 1-2 paragraphs is allowed (even encouraged!), but large segments of articles posted in the body will result in the post being removed. If you have to stop and think "Is this fair use?", it probably isn't. Archive links, especially the ones created on link submission, are absolutely allowed but those that avoid paywalls are not.
-
Rule 3: Opinions articles, or Articles based on misinformation/propaganda may be removed.
-
Rule 4: Posts or comments that are homophobic, transphobic, racist, sexist, anti-religious, or ableist will be removed. “Ironic” prejudice is just prejudiced.
-
Posts and comments must abide by the lemmy.world terms of service UPDATED AS OF OCTOBER 19 2025
-
Rule 5: Keep it civil. It's OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It's NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
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.
-
Rule 6: Memes, spam, other low effort posting, reposts, misinformation, advocating violence, off-topic, trolling, offensive, regarding the moderators or meta in content may be removed at any time.
-
Rule 7: We didn't USED to need a rule about how many posts one could make in a day, then someone posted NINETEEN articles in a single day. Not comments, FULL ARTICLES. If you're posting more than say, 10 or so, consider going outside and touching grass. We reserve the right to limit over-posting so a single user does not dominate the front page.
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
Ask Historians !askhistorians@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/
- Consider including the article’s mediabiasfactcheck.com/ link
view the rest of the comments
The underlying idea is news to a lot of people
The Strait of Hormuz is like a nuke Iran can ethically use and un-use at any time. It completely negates any need for an actual nuke. There is no bargaining leverage they would get from a nuke that they don't get from the strait
This is important because it undermines the stated reason for this war: Preventing Iran from having a nuke
I disagree on it being a ethical thing to use. Interdicting free trade and bringing hardship and danger to your neighbors to hold a different enemy hostage should be considered a international crime.
And I don't believe that preventing nukes was the cause of the Iran war. Shooting some prince didn't cause the great war to happen either, after all.
I can’t say I agree. The strait, as significant as it is, is just a very small piece of the earth. The only thing that is transported through there are oil and oil products. It’s a widely used product and a large portion of the product goes through it, but there are alternative places to get the oil and alternative ways to generate the energy it provides. We’ve seen oil prices go up shortly because of a scare, but we’ve also seen them come down again.
The strait is not a deterring force. They can still get bombed and the only bargaining chip that the strait provides is a financial one. That is a far cry from the mutually assured destruction that a nuclear weapon provides. I can’t remember the last time a war was started against a nuclear power. Maybe some small conflicts between India and Pakistan, but nothing major that comes to mind. I think the war between Russia and Ukraine is now the first time a nuclear power has been bombed on a somewhat larger scale.
Yeah, you're wrong or uninformed. It is not a minor strait by a long shot and thousands or more will die of it. Economy isn't just magical numbers on sheets but the real economy is what allows people to carry on existing.
I already acknowledged it was an important product, but if you really think that one product has the same power as a nuclear bomb I don’t know what to tell you. Especially in a time with plenty of alternatives, where the most populous and powerful country is moving towards those alternatives –and away from said product– at breakneck speed, while also pushing the rest of the world towards those ever more affordable alternatives.
So once again, no, I don’t think I’m the uninformed one.
There is no alternative to fossil fuels that you can switch to overnight. Just going cold turkey is genocide. For people will freeze and boil in their homes and possibly starve.
Good thing only 20% of it comes through the strait then!
And the people who freeze and boil are not the ones attacking Iran. Nor do the ones attacking care about what happens to people in other countries.
20% of the population are a whole lot of people.
Do you honestly think that 20% of the population of the US and Israel will die when Iran closes the strait or do you just hate to admit you were wrong?
It's a very significant amount and many people tend to die even if just the stock market drops a bit.
The real implications of goods availability and the economy is harrowing.
And I don't know why you are talking about us/is population. Goods are taken from the poorest first. Why do you not care about them but only the rich.
Yes. That is what I already said a few comments ago. If you’re going to have a serious discussion you can at least have the decency to read what is written.
I am talking about the US and Israel because they are attacking Iran, so they are the ones who would have to be deterred from attacking Iran by either closing the strait of Hormuz or getting one (or multiple) of their cities wiped off the face of the earth by a nuclear weapon. That is the problem that was posed.
So let me ask you this: how is people in Africa dying going to deter the US or Israel from attacking Iran? And how would that deter them moreso than the threat of getting nuked?
Iran closing the strait isn't a targeted measure against the Aggressor and hence unethical.
To be fair they could also destroy desalination plants and kill many millions directly.but that's a worse war crime.
That’s all true but not the topic of discussion.
The topic is closing the strait of Hormuz being a better deterrent to the attacking forces than having nuclear weapons.
So, staying on topic, again: how is Iran’s control over the strait of Hormuz going to deter the US or Israel more from bombing Iran than Iran having nuclear weapons does?