News

Strait of Hormuz coalition 'won't work': Expert says it's impossible without Iran's assurance  CNBC

Can this US-Israeli war of choice on Iran be stopped? Nelson Wong on Fri, 03/13/2026 - 18:54 Time is short. Every day the bombs fall, the risk of wider escalation grows, and the institutions preserving global peace are further eroded Members of Iran’s Red Crescent society walk near smoke plumes after an air strike on the Shahran oil refinery in northwestern Tehran on 8 March 2026 (AFP) On The bombs falling on Iran represent more than just another Middle Eastern conflict. They represent a fundamental assault on the international legal order, a deliberate escalation by powers that have chosen military force over diplomacy, and a dangerous gamble with global stability.  As the United States and Israel prosecute their joint military operation against the Islamic Republic, we must ask ourselves: can this war of choice be stopped? And perhaps more urgently, what are its true objectives? This is not a war of necessity. Iran was not attacking the US or Israel. It was engaged in diplomatic negotiations when it was attacked.  This is a war of choice, chosen by Washington and Tel Aviv, imposed on Tehran, and justified through claims that crumble under scrutiny. Article 2(4) of the UN Charter prohibits “the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state”. Self-defence is permitted only “if an armed attack occurs”.  (adsbygoogle = window.adsbygoogle || []).push({}); No such attack occurred. The “imminent threat” invoked by US officials has been a pretext for aggression throughout history, from the Gulf of Tonkin to the Iraq War. The US and Israel have bombed Iranian cities, killing Iran’s supreme leader, top officials and hundreds of civilians, including around 160 children at a girls’ school. This is not self-defence. This is blatant aggression. The hypocrisy is striking. The same powers that lecture others about the rules-based order are tearing that order apart. The message is clear: international law applies to everyone except the US and its closest allies. Iran's right to self-defence In response to the attacks that began in February, Iran has struck US military bases in neighbouring Gulf countries used as launching pads for strikes on its territory. Western media portrays this as escalation, but this portrayal is backwards. Iran’s strikes are acts of self-defence. A nation under attack has the right to strike back at the forces targeting it, including the bases from which attacks are launched. (adsbygoogle = window.adsbygoogle || []).push({}); What is remarkable is Iran’s restraint. It has targeted military installations, not civilians, and it has made clear that its strikes will cease when the aggression ceases. Contrast this with the US-Israeli operation, which has bombed schools, residential areas and civilian infrastructure, killing indiscriminately with no concern for the laws of war. Gulf countries could pressure the US, but they remain caught between dependence on American security guarantees and fear of Iranian retaliation Gulf countries hosting US bases - Saudi Arabia, the UAE, Kuwait, Qatar and Bahrain - find themselves in an impossible position. By allowing their territory to be used for attacks on Iran, they have made themselves legitimate targets under international law. The US could stop this war tomorrow. But the Trump administration shows no inclination to de-escalate. The influence of the Zionist lobby, acknowledged by Secretary of State Marco Rubio (though clumsily), appears decisive. Israel sets the pace; the US follows. Israel could stop this war. But Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s government has its own reasons to prolong the conflict, including domestic pressures, strategic ambitions, and a desire to eliminate what it sees as an existential threat. Gulf countries could pressure the US, but they remain caught between dependence on American security guarantees and fear of Iranian retaliation. European countries have diplomatic relationships and economic leverage, but they have shown themselves unwilling to act independently of Washington. This leaves Russia and China. Both have voiced disapproval of the unprovoked war and called for a return to negotiations. Both view Iran as a strategic partner. Russia, deeply engaged in the Middle East, views a weakened Iran as a strategic loss. China has even more at stake: Iran is a key node in the Belt and Road Initiative and a major oil supplier, and the neighbouring Gulf countries are home to substantial Chinese investments. A destabilised Iran threatens Chinese interests directly. But their influence is limited. They can provide diplomatic support, offer mediation, and use their UN Security Council positions. But ultimately, the decision to end this war lies with those who started it. The grand strategy Are we witnessing disconnected events, or a pattern aimed at containing Washington’s strategic competitors? Consider the record: a pressure campaign against Venezuela, which is aligned with Russia and China; threats over the Panama Canal, where serious Chinese investments rest; bombing Iran, a country integrated deeply with Russian and Chinese interests; and renewed threats against Cuba - all of this while the US has explicitly identified China as a “pacing challenge” and Russia as an “acute threat” in strategic documents. (adsbygoogle = window.adsbygoogle || []).push({}); Iran matters for its connections to Eurasia. Russia’s strategic alliance with Iran is no secret, and it has also relied on countries in the region for money transfers bypassing western systems, gold trade, and access to warm-water ports. Disrupting these connections weakens Russia. China imports substantial oil from the Middle East through the Strait of Hormuz, while Chinese goods flow along Belt and Road routes traversing Iran. A war destabilising this region threatens all these interests. By serving Israel's agenda, Trump betrayed Gulf allies Read More » If this is a coordinated strategy, the US is using military power not just for immediate objectives, but to disrupt the economic and strategic connections underpinning the rise of other powers, namely China and Russia. This war of choice can be stopped, but not easily. It requires sustained pressure from multiple directions: Russia and China coordinating diplomatic efforts, Gulf states asserting their interests, European countries acting independently, and the international community defending the UN Charter. Most of all, it requires the American people to demand that their government cease its aggression. The antiwar movements that helped end Vietnam, opposed the war in Iraq, and challenged endless wars over the last two decades must be revived. But time is short. Every day the bombs fall, the risk of wider escalation grows. Every day the fighting continues, the institutions preserving international peace are further eroded. We must act now. We must demand our governments choose diplomacy over war. The alternative is too terrible to contemplate. A widened war in the Middle East would destabilise the global economy. It would threaten energy supplies. It would displace millions. It could draw in other powers, including Russia and China, with consequences no one would be able to predict. And it would deal a lasting blow to the non-proliferation regime, opening the door to a nuclear-armed Middle East, and the collapse of the entire system of arms control built since the Cold War. This war of choice can be stopped. But only if we choose to stop it. The views expressed in this article belong to the author and do not necessarily reflect the editorial policy of Middle East Eye. War on Iran Opinion Post Date Override 0 Update Date Mon, 05/04/2020 - 21:29 Update Date Override 0

Imperial Decline in the Straits of Hormuz  CounterPunch

Existential Attrition: Iran’s Closure of the Strait of Hormuz  CounterPunch

Japan not planning naval deployment to Hormuz, prime minister says Japanese Prime Minister Sanae Takaichi said that the country is not currently planning to send ships to help secure the Strait of Hormuz,  after US president Donald Trump urged allies to deploy naval assets to the region. “We have not yet made any decisions whatsoever regarding the dispatch of naval vessels,” Takaichi told parliament. She added that the government is examining “what Japan can do independently within our legal framework” to protect Japanese-linked ships and their crews. In a social media post on Saturday, Trump said, “Hopefully China, France, Japan, South Korea, the UK, and others” will send ships to the region, but Takaichi said there was no formal request to Tokyo yet.

Oil prices keep rising as Trump seeks coalition to reopen Strait of Hormuz  Al Jazeera

Trump warns Nato faces ‘very bad’ future if US allies fail to assist in opening the vital oil route; Israel says thousands of targets in Iran remain – follow it live How have you been affected by the latest Middle East events? Iran’s foreign minister has claimed Israeli strikes on fuel depots across Tehran amount to “ecocide”, citing the impact on the health of the Iranian capital’s residents. “Israel’s bombings of fuel depots in Tehran violate international law and constitute ecocide,” Abbas Araghchi said on X. Residents face long-term damage to their health and well-being. Contamination of soil and groundwater could have generational impacts. In the current Iran situation, we are not at the moment considering issuing a maritime security operation. Continue reading...

US officials say escort mission in Hormuz may take weeks Plans to escort commercial ships through the Strait of Hormuz could take weeks to implement, The New York Times reported, quoting White House officials. Official sources also assessed that the war with Iran could last four to six weeks, the report said.  According to the report, the Revolutionary Guard may keep nuclear fuel as leverage in negotiations, while Iranian attacks on regional oil facilities followed earlier strikes on Iranian oil storage tanks. Iran’s ability to threaten the strategic waterway and widen the conflict is greater than expected, it said.

Australia rules out naval deployment to Hormuz Australia will not send a ship to the Strait of Hormuz despite calls from US President Donald Trump for allies to help secure the key waterway, the country’s transport minister said Monday. Transport Minister Catherine King told the ABC that Australia had not been asked to deploy a vessel and would instead contribute by providing aircraft to assist with defence efforts in the United Arab Emirates. “Well, we’ve been very clear about what our contribution is in relation to requests, and so far, that is to the UAE – obviously providing aircraft to assist with defence, particularly given the number of Australians that are in that area in particular – but we won’t be sending a ship to the Strait of Hormuz,” she said.

Government reluctant to dispatch ships amid concerns complying with Trump’s demands could escalate Iran crisis Ministers are drawing up plans to send minesweeping drones to the strait of Hormuz amid concerns in Whitehall that complying with Donald Trump’s demand to send ships could escalate the crisis. The government is considering dispatching aerial minesweepers to help clear the vital waterway of mines in an attempt to allow the flow of oil exports to resume. However, officials said that sending ships, as requested over the weekend by the US president, could worsen the situation given the volatile nature of the war. Continue reading...

Trump begs allies to send warships to the Strait of Hormuz but gets no promises  PennLive.com

Iran’s ambassador to Saudi Arabia denies attacks on its oil facilities  Al Jazeera

submitted by /u/Spare_Prize_5510 to r/worldnews [link] [comments]

There is little sign of imminent regime change in Iran as its blockade of strait of Hormuz shocks global economy Middle East crisis – live updates Few doubt that in the first days of the new war in the Middle East, the initiative belonged to the US and its ally Israel. Now it seems less sure, however. Mohsen Rezaee, a senior officer in Iran’s Revolutionary Guards, on Sunday said “the end of the war is in our hands” and called for the withdrawal of Washington’s forces from the Gulf and compensation for all damage caused by the assault. Continue reading...

submitted by /u/1-randomonium to r/worldnews [link] [comments]

By Timour Azhari RIYADH, March 15 (Reuters) - Iran's relations with Arab Gulf states will require a "serious review" in light of the U.S.-Israeli war on Iran, limitingthe power of external actors so the region can become prosperous, Tehran's ambassador to Saudi Arabia told Reuters on Sunday. Asked if he was concerned that relations would be harmed by the war, Ambassador Alireza Enayati said: "It's a valid question, and the answer may be simple. We are neighbors and we cannot do without each other; we will need a serious review."

Trump's call for countries to send warships to protect the Strait of Hormuz brings no promises  WRAL

Legal and Operational Issues in the Strait of Hormuz: Transit Passage Under Fire  Just Security

Trump’s call for allied deployment to strait of Hormuz meets muted response  The Guardian

Strategic oil release may calm markets but cannot fix Hormuz disruption  Al Jazeera