[HN Gopher] Japanese, French and Omani vessels cross Strait of H...
___________________________________________________________________
Japanese, French and Omani vessels cross Strait of Hormuz
Author : vrganj
Score : 136 points
Date : 2026-04-05 14:27 UTC (8 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (japantoday.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (japantoday.com)
| zzzeek wrote:
| The US , when finally back in control by reasonable adults, will
| need to offer great concessions to Iran in order to extricate
| from the effects of a disastrous, illegal (both from a US as well
| as an intentional standpoint) and of course, completely, utterly
| failed war. And it might be just that Iran gets to be a permanent
| toll collector for the global economy.
| vrganj wrote:
| No matter who controls the US in the future, it will never go
| back to the position it once had globally.
|
| It's been actively harming it's allies, threatening them with
| invasion and conspiring with their enemies.
|
| The rest of the world cannot afford to give the American people
| the benefit of the doubt.
|
| After Trump I, there was hope it was just a fluke. Trump II is
| much worse and cements the unreliability of the American voting
| public.
| nozzlegear wrote:
| Never is a long time. Look at where Germany was after both
| WWI and WWII, and where it is now; it's demonstrably possible
| to cause irreparable damage to everyone around you, and then
| rise back to the top (multiple times!). The only questions
| are timeline and scale.
| vrganj wrote:
| Germany wasn't and isn't the world's hegemon.
|
| I don't think that position is recoverable the same way.
| evilduck wrote:
| You also have to consider the outside intervention forcibly
| imposed upon Germany, after being defeated in war both
| times, and how the first round of that contributed directly
| to WWII. It's not exactly a playbook to copy verbatim.
| stevenwoo wrote:
| Germany got a new type of government. The 2/3 required in
| USA for significant change will be insurmountable short of
| a disaster on order of second Great Depression since
| plurality of American voters can't see past next paycheck,
| no Democrat that can win Presidential primary has any kind
| of revolutionary vision, it's all muted, even Bernie got
| squashed by centrist voters eventually and he was not even
| that far to the left IMHO - he even stayed away from race
| or gender issues.
| rchaud wrote:
| Germany changed its constitution, banned its former ruling
| party, and actively explores and teaches their school kids
| about their crimes. The US on the other hand has a chunk of
| its electorate flying Confederate flags and voting for
| politicians who think US history textbooks should be more
| "pro-American".
| feb012025 wrote:
| Look at where Germany is now?
|
| They're a total non-player on the world stage. They
| completely kowtow to the US. Hardly a good example
| bdbdbdb wrote:
| This. We all thought Trump was a crazy accident but the fact
| that he almost beat Biden, and then did beat Harris, means we
| just can't trust Americans to put sensible people in charge.
| Assuming a democrat takes the office next, they will inherit
| an economy in tatters, a failing infrastructure and a broken
| strategic alliance. They'll have four years to try to fix all
| of that while the republicans blame them for everything
| they've inherited, and four years from that the American
| people will have largely forgotten how Trump and his minions
| trailed dog shit all through the house and they'll vote for
| the next right wing dick that's been groomed for the job -
| probably Pete Hegseth, or Don Jr, or Mark Wayne Mullin
| SoftTalker wrote:
| Neither Biden nor Harris were sensible candidates.
| Democrats could have easily beat Trump by running a more
| appealing/less polarizing candidate. Didn't even have to be
| both. Obama was polarizing but he was appealing and he won
| comfortably.
| adrian_b wrote:
| As a non-American I have always wondered about the
| criteria used by Americans to vote for their presidents.
|
| Clinton and Obama had various defects, but at least both
| of them looked like presidents and talked like
| presidents.
|
| On the other hand, both George Bush Junior and Trump (of
| course especially the latter), looked like clowns and
| talked like clowns.
|
| I have never understood their appeal to the masses. I
| understand the discontent of those who have voted against
| the Democrat "elites", but the fact that anyone could
| look at Trump and believe that he is the right man for
| the job seems unbelievable, regardless of how inept were
| his opponents.
| bdbdbdb wrote:
| > Neither Biden nor Harris were sensible candidates.
|
| I just can't fathom how you can think this. How 25% of
| your country can think this. How 50% thought it wasn't
| worth voting for either.
|
| America has lost its marbles
| sneak wrote:
| > _The US , when finally back in control by reasonable adults_
|
| Everyone reasonable seems to be holding their breath in
| anticipation of this eventually happening.
|
| What if it doesn't? What if all of this is a symptom of an
| underlying deterioration that extends deeper and beyond the
| current administration? It's not Trump that made Americans A-OK
| with wars of aggression; Obama blew up as many kids using
| drones as Trump put into cages. What if the next few are the
| same, or worse? What do we do if this _isn't_ a temporary
| excursion but the new normal for the US and A?
| thyristan wrote:
| > What if it doesn't? What if all of this is a symptom of an
| underlying deterioration that extends deeper and beyond the
| current administration? It's not Trump that made Americans
| A-OK with wars of aggression; Obama blew up as many kids
| using drones as Trump put into cages. What if the next few
| are the same, or worse? What do we do if this isn't a
| temporary excursion but the new normal for the US and A?
|
| In the cold war, there was the "Evil East" and the "Good
| West", and this opposition forced at least some token
| "goodness" and a certain predictable behavior on both sides.
| It also forced both sides to have some firm principles they
| adhere to. Now the cold war is over, and while it did change
| more in the formerly East, the West, at least in some parts,
| also learned a few things. Among them that principles are
| negotiable, especially without a closed opposing bloc with
| the opposite principles. Doing business with China and Russia
| not only made people rich, it also moved Western culture more
| towards the Eastern ones, more than anyone would like to
| admit. Starting to see things from the Eastern perspective
| also induced the West to over time to not just understand the
| former enemy better and learn the "good stuff". We started to
| find things like strong autocratic leadership, compromises on
| human rights, ignorance of international laws and treaties,
| and wars of aggression and conquest more acceptable and even
| preferable.
|
| So I don't think this is just temporary.
| ted_bunny wrote:
| None of that is new or imported from the Asiatic Hordes.
| It's just more visible now.
| selimthegrim wrote:
| Funny that you use those words; Trump seems to be
| champing at the bit to bring back the Asiatic Barred Zone
| nozzlegear wrote:
| > _Obama blew up as many kids using drones as Trump put into
| cages._
|
| Obama didn't deliberately target kids using drones.
| InsideOutSanta wrote:
| Yeah, that's what I'm afraid of. The US saw what Trump did
| during his first term, and four years later, after relative
| calm, they were like "nah, let's go back to Trump." That's
| the new normal. In fact, things will be worse during the next
| election, with even more of the media owned by unhinged
| billionaires intent on robbing as much as possible from
| normal people.
| ted_bunny wrote:
| I don't think the electorate ran back into Trump's arms.
| Kamala was an egregiously poor candidate. He didn't win,
| she lost.
| lifestyleguru wrote:
| > The US , when finally back in control by reasonable adults
|
| There is no way back, as there is no way back to the world
| before covid or before the 2008 global crisis. They say about
| Russian history "it was bad and then it got worse". Over and
| over, for hundreds of years. Vlad and Donnie are friends now.
| Jensson wrote:
| > The US , when finally back in control by reasonable adults
|
| Betting says next president will be Gavin Newsom or JD Vance or
| Marco Rubio, so I wouldn't bet on that happening anytime soon.
| It is weird how so bad people bubble up in american politics.
| zzzeek wrote:
| none of those three people will be president
| Jensson wrote:
| Then you can get rich by betting against it, so most people
| seem to disagree with you. And in a democracy most people
| decide who the next leader will be.
|
| https://www.oddschecker.com/politics/us-politics
| vntok wrote:
| Why would you assume that the parent (1) has a gambling
| addiction, (2) has enough side money they can lock into a
| far-away bet and (3) wants to place a bet that will more
| than probably never pay anyway because it won't be
| insured nor escrowed by a trusted third party?
|
| Buying or selling stocks of companies owned by MAGA
| henchmen is probably much safer.
| Jensson wrote:
| > Buying or selling stocks of companies owned by MAGA
| henchmen is probably much safer.
|
| Not if you are 100% sure, which the poster seemed to be.
| Its not gambling if its a sure case. So you saying this
| is a risky bet means you disagree with the person.
|
| > wants to place a bet that will more than probably never
| pay anyway because it won't be insured nor escrowed by a
| trusted third party?
|
| Betting sites are trusted third parties.
|
| Anyway, I wasn't telling him to bet on it. My point is
| that it is weird to say those for sure wont be the next
| president when most bettors are betting on those being
| the next president. You saying this is a risky bet means
| you disagree with him as well.
| vntok wrote:
| > Not if you are 100% sure, which the poster seemed to
| be. Its not gambling if its a sure case. So you saying
| this is a risky bet means you disagree with the person.
|
| This is incorrect. You can be sure, certain even, of a
| specific outcome, and yet still be scammed out of your
| money by the entity that took your bet.
|
| > Betting sites are trusted third parties.
|
| No they aren't, lol. Of course they aren't. Many are
| illegal, most operate from shady jurisdictions, all have
| unclear T&Cs and so on.
| rawgabbit wrote:
| If I interpret the odds correctly the site is saying
| Newsom has 22% chance and Vance has 20% chance. These
| odds seem rather low.
| Jensson wrote:
| Still above 50% chance one of the 3 people I mentioned
| will become next president according to the betting odds.
| zzzeek wrote:
| betting markets aren't "most people"
| dyauspitr wrote:
| I wish with all my heart it's going to be Newsom. Perfectly
| center left just like I like it.
| Jensson wrote:
| He does seem wildly corrupt though with extreme exceptions
| in bills for his friends and backers, more than other
| politicians I've seen. He is probably better than Trump or
| JD Vance but that isn't saying much.
|
| I too mostly agree with his populist center takes, but that
| doesn't mean he is reasonable.
| feb012025 wrote:
| I can assure you that no "center left" president will be
| fixing any problems in the middle east anytime soon
| jMyles wrote:
| > The US , when finally back in control by reasonable adults
|
| This rings as "make America great again", just with a different
| mythology standing-in for "again".
|
| The US (or at least the US _state_) hasn't been in control by
| reasonable adults in over a century, or arguably ever.
|
| What is finally becoming obvious is that this particular
| landmass is much too large to be under the control of a single
| state, and now that we have instant communications and
| ubiquitous cameras, even the arguments (laid out eg in the
| federalist papers) are no longer dispositive.
|
| Calm and careful deprecation of the US as a state needs to top
| the new agenda.
| b0rtb0rt wrote:
| > when finally back in control by reasonable adults
|
| no one even knows who was really in control during the previous
| administration. quite a few idiotic and destructive policy
| changes were made during that administration too
| ogogmad wrote:
| Just about a week ago, Trump was joking about Pearl Harbor on TV
| while the Japanese PM was sitting right next to him. What's more,
| she's a nationalist.
| throw949449 wrote:
| Remember that video about ethnical clensing gaza, beach resort
| casinos and golden Trump statues? Real estste crypto bro
| version of hitler!
| andy_ppp wrote:
| If only Hollywood had have let Trump be in more films than
| Home Alone 2, none of this would have happened!
| lifestyleguru wrote:
| That's a revenge for not letting him to play his character
| in Back to the Future.
| fhdkweig wrote:
| Or in Super Mario Bros 1993
| skeletoncrew2 wrote:
| I only give Trump about 25% credit for that joke, the reporter
| tee'd it up too much.
| https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=fFmA0xlINGg&ra=m
| jghn wrote:
| Last week the US stated they didn't need any of the oil, and that
| if other countries wanted it they could go figure it out
| themselves. Looks like they have. And yet the US is now back to
| threatening Iran if they don't open up the oil.
| hmmmmmmmmmmmmmm wrote:
| It is the weekend, of course there is a threat. Tomorrow there
| will be a deal.
| throw949449 wrote:
| New deal: There is a toll 5 million usd per tanker, and oil
| must be paid in RNB not USD.
|
| Basically Iran put sanction on US. I guess Trump expected fight
| or something.
| Spooky23 wrote:
| It's the same grift all over again. The market will drop 2-3%
| Monday. Jared and Jr will load up on options, WTI puts, and
| whatever other BS they do.
|
| Then Tuesday we'll announce that "good talks have happened" and
| bridge day is delayed. Maybe they'll roll out the Shah's nephew
| or whatever and pave the way for an announcement of a
| transitional government.
|
| They'll push the strikes until late in the week or early next
| week to maximize volatility - next Friday is the April options
| expiry. It likely the Treasury is intervening in the oil
| markets, so there's likely a counter-trade there as well.
|
| I've 3x'd my salary on this trade as an observer, the insiders
| are printing cash. Eventually the credibility of the office of
| the POTUS will erode to a point where it is going to blow up,
| we probably have another 3-5 rounds of this.
| e2le wrote:
| We are 1 Year and 3 months into this current administration, 2
| years and 9 months remain. Despite the short period in office,
| so much damage and chaos has being caused by one individual and
| the sycophants who surround him.
|
| It is a fact that the reputation of the USA has being damaged,
| perhaps not repairable for decades or more. This will have
| consequences.
|
| Perhaps, I hope, Americans will take action to save the
| democratic norms and institutions that so many of them have
| claimed to cherish. Before he has dismantled and replaced too
| many to salvage. Or perhaps they have work tomorrow.
| iJohnDoe wrote:
| Worst case there will be another Republican president from
| the same tribe. We could be in for the same exact chaos and
| damage for another four years. This could go on for a long
| time.
|
| Remember, Republicans get out and vote. They would rather
| suffer and destroy America just so the democrats don't win.
| ronnier wrote:
| I think a large part of why they do this and vote the way
| they do is because of comments like yours. Hacker news,
| Reddit, award shows, movies, universities, etc all have a
| constant drum beat of disdain and hate towards them. I
| think this motivates them into voting even if the vote is
| against their own interest.
| watwut wrote:
| Everything republican party do and everything republicans
| vote for ... are fault of the opposition. Always.
| Republicans are little helpless souls having no choice
| but cause maxinum harm as long as opposition in any for
| exists.
|
| Look at what that party collectively stands for now, who
| they kick out and who they keep. They all stand behind
| trump.
| devinplatt wrote:
| I learned recently that there's actually a name for this
| concept. Murc's law states that in American politics,
| only Democrats are assumed to have agency.
|
| Presumably democratic reforms could help change the
| dynamic if they changed the incentives. Right now, it's a
| politically viable strategy to just obstruct the other
| party when out of power, and politically unviable
| strategy for Congress to oppose a president from the same
| party. Both of which lead to a lot of dysfunction.
|
| As an example, if Congress had multimember districts with
| an appropriate voting system (e.g. ranked choice voting
| for all members at the same time), then you can
| effectively nullify the power of gerrymandered voting
| districts (the current system, where effectively
| politicians choose voters rather than the other way
| around). Doing so would elevate the influence of general
| elections over party primaries. Then representatives
| would be less afraid of challenges in those primaries,
| which is currently one of the major disincentives in
| opposing the president of the same political party (fear
| of being "primaried").
| Jensson wrote:
| That is just progressive vs conservative, ie changing
| things vs conserving things, humans are biased to
| conserve things unless the set of changes are
| overwhelmingly better.
|
| So conservatives win when progressives push for too many
| changes, not changing things is the default. So saying
| that the democrats lost the election by pushing too fast
| is not weird, that is just how humans works.
| devinplatt wrote:
| There's definitely an asymmetry in how the systemic
| dysfunction benefits the Republican party over the
| Democratic party. (Overall the system benefits both
| parties though since it entrenches partisanship.)
|
| I'd argue that the asymmetry has less to do with change
| vs. no change and more to do with the Republican party
| currently being an "anti government" party (pivoting to
| that post New Deal). So less is expected of them in terms
| of functional governance.
|
| With respect to change: I've heard a lot of commentary
| that the Republican party today is more of an instigator
| of change than the Democratic party (being seen as a
| defender of the status quo), despite the traditional
| alignment of Republican/conservative/no change. Democrats
| are seen as pro-institution and Republicans anti-
| institution.
|
| In case it matters, I personally don't identify with a
| political party. I just want functional government and
| politics and I see a lot of dysfunction. I'm an engineer
| so naturally I gravitate towards systemic solutions to
| systemic problems.
| bigbadfeline wrote:
| > That is just progressive vs conservative, ie changing
| things vs conserving things.
|
| Conserving distraction == wars, progressive distraction
| == LG, then B, then T, there are still letters in the
| alphabet to progress to - mandatory for school children
| to study in detail.
|
| Conserving inflation same as progressive inflation, the
| small group benefiting form it - the same too.
|
| Changing presidential candidates a few months before
| election and doing everything to let the other side win?
| Very progressive.
|
| Promising no-more-wars and delivering more-wars? Very
| conservative.
|
| Moral of the story - while 'progressive' and
| 'conservative' are used haphazardly, lacking precise and
| concrete definitions in terms of specific, measurable
| goals and commitments, using them for political analysis
| is just mud in the eyes.
| qwerpy wrote:
| Unironically yes. I lived in the Seattle area and
| witnessed firsthand the effects of state/county/city
| Democrat rule. Gifted programs cancelled, streets full of
| homeless and drug addicts. Hateful people yelling at and
| flipping me off as I take my kids to daycare for the
| heinous crime of driving a Tesla. I'm a well educated
| highly paid minority, the kind of voter that Democrats
| take for granted. I voted Republican down the ballot last
| election.
| wrs wrote:
| Are you familiar with the phrase "cutting off your nose
| to spite your face"?
| qwerpy wrote:
| Assuming that people vote a certain way out of spite is
| narrow-minded. Talk to people outside of your bubble and
| try to understand them instead of reducing them down to
| caricatures. I don't judge people on the left the way
| that I get judged by them. I genuinely think that my
| choice of political party is better for my family's
| quality of life.
| aurareturn wrote:
| I agree. I would vote republican locally, but I'd vote
| for anyone to replace Trump and his circle.
| Nursie wrote:
| Well let me be the first to thank you for the extra
| dollar a litre on my fuel, the extra hundred or so
| dollars a month on my mortgage and the impending
| recession that your choice has imposed upon me here in
| Australia.
|
| Thanks so much for voting in Trump and his enablers.
| aurareturn wrote:
| Rather than blame this voter, why don't we put some blame
| onto the democrats. In San Francisco, progressive
| democrats have wasted billions on homeless and crime but
| with little to show for.
|
| Sometimes democrats do push too far left. Far left is not
| that much different than far right.
| nozzlegear wrote:
| Horseshoe theory is real, but much like Seattle, SF's
| biggest problem is politically active NIMBYs (and SF has
| more than most places). Democrats and Republicans both
| have NIMBYs, it transcends political boundaries.
| aurareturn wrote:
| NIMBYs aren't causing homeless problems.
| nozzlegear wrote:
| "I don't want affordable apartments or housing in my
| backyard because it lowers my property value" is a pretty
| clear amplifier of homelessness.
| aurareturn wrote:
| You do realize that normal people who can't afford a city
| will just move to a cheaper area right?
| ceejayoz wrote:
| Cool.
|
| Who staffs your stores when everyone moves away? Who mows
| the lawn? Who builds the houses?
| nozzlegear wrote:
| That's not at all incompatible with what I said though,
| right?
| Nursie wrote:
| Because, uh, Democrats didn't do this?
|
| I don't really give a rats ass who runs the internals of
| your country, and what goes on in San Francisco seems
| like a you problem. Due to voters like this, Trump is now
| my problem many thousands of miles away.
|
| Don't underestimate just how much ill will he is
| generating around the world, especially in allied
| nations, by insulting leaders and pushing up all of our
| energy prices.
| qwerpy wrote:
| Strange that when Democrats mess things up "they didn't
| do that" or "that's a you problem" but when the other
| side does something you're very quick to assign specific
| blame. One-sided thinking like this is why no one can
| find common ground anymore and politics has veered off
| into extremes.
| nozzlegear wrote:
| You witnessed the firsthand effects of NIMBY rule, which
| both parties have in abundance.
| watwut wrote:
| So, you did not voted for centrists and chosen to vote
| for nazi salute throwing radicals ... because there are
| non meek leftists groups.
|
| The only way to win against Trump voters like you is to
| ignore them, because people like you will choose nazi
| until nazi are the only game in town.
| qwerpy wrote:
| My favored candidate may lose but I'll be fine regardless
| of who is in power. I may pay more taxes or have to pay
| extra for private schools, but I've budgeted for that.
| You can still call it "winning" against me if that helps
| you feel better though.
| kdheiwns wrote:
| I think we're beyond the point of "you can't criticize
| them. That's mean and motivates them." At what point is
| the line drawn? Should it be in bad taste to criticize
| Orban supporters because it makes them support him more?
| What about Erdogan? Putin? Kim Jong Un? And why is it one
| sided that they can't be criticized, but it's all fair
| and good for their own leaders to demonize everyone? It's
| a silly double standard and people see through it now.
| Concern trolling stopped being effective years ago.
| Jensson wrote:
| If you want to win elections, yes. You never convince
| voters by telling them that they are evil people. Its
| fine to say Trump is evil, its not fine to say Trump
| voters are evil because those voters will now be much
| less likely to vote for you. They can't take back their
| votes, they already voted for Trump before, so they will
| just not vote for you when you attack them like that.
| kdheiwns wrote:
| Dems have tried the strategy of pandering to republicans
| for decades. That strategy in 2024 backfired and made
| Dems not care about the election. The whole time
| republicans ran a campaign saying that blue haired
| democrats are harming kids and they're burning down
| cities and someone needs to lock them up all up.
| Republicans had a great election year.
|
| Again, one sided. People are tired of it. More
| importantly, people are growing tired of the tolerance
| for the people who support the current happenings. Look
| around about what people who stayed out of the 2024
| election said and it's that Dems were milquetoast and
| tried to be friendly and play both sides. Look around and
| see why republicans were fired up to vote. It's because
| they loved the demonization of Dems.
|
| The funny thing is you can criticize the supporters. It's
| no problem. You can criticize Bush voters and everyone
| will agree with you. Why? Because nobody voted for Bush.
| Yet he won two elections. Meaning those people regretted
| their vote and now completely hide that they voted for
| him. They also retroactively hate the Iraq War, despite
| supporting it in 2003 and saying anyone who opposes it is
| unamerican. But those people will now say Dems started
| the war.
|
| Trying to pull those people over is like trying to
| wrestle with a greased pig. No kind words will ever be
| enough to grab them. They're incredibly loyal to their
| side no matter what, and will deny ever supporting it the
| moment social pressure builds up too much. But
| interestingly, they also respect anger and vitriol
| against those they feel betrayed them. Republicans loved
| voting for Trump because he said he was against neocons
| and the Iraq War and all those people who voted for them.
| If Trump ever falls out of favor, those people who once
| supported him won't be begging for leniency. They'll put
| on a new hat and demand revenge against him and his
| supporters. They don't want a both aisles softy. They'll
| just pretend they were always against him.
| Jensson wrote:
| > That strategy in 2024 backfired and made Dems not care
| about the election
|
| Are you saying democrats didn't vote for Kamala since
| Kamala didn't call Trump voters evil? What are you on
| about? I see no reason why you should call Trump voters
| evil.
|
| As I said its fine to call Trump evil, but why call the
| voters evil? What purpose does that serve?
| ceejayoz wrote:
| > Are you saying democrats didn't vote for Kamala since
| Kamala didn't call Trump voters evil?
|
| Dems were disillusioned by the Biden administration's
| lack of meaningful effort to nail the previous
| administration's criminals to the wall. Merrick Garland
| was an absolute failure.
|
| Add in things like cozying up to the Cheneys, and the
| incorrect assumption Trump II would be similar to Trump
| I.
| amalcon wrote:
| Republicans have been calling democratic voters baby-
| killers for the entire time I have been aware of what a
| republican is. This sort of behavior has only gotten
| worse over time. They still manage to win elections.
|
| I get that there are real asymmetries here, but I really
| don't think there are substantial blocs of swing voters
| who use "who has insulted them less" as a real factor. If
| that were the case, Trump would not have made the gains
| he did in 2024.
|
| The important thing is to make people feel welcome in
| your coalition. It is clearly possible to do that either
| with or without being nice. It's just a different
| skillset.
| jibal wrote:
| I'm not about to bite my tongue for this absurd cowardly
| fallacious reason.
| thisislife2 wrote:
| What you say is insightful and true. The west, America in
| particular, has a genuine problem today with its politics
| of polarising people to extremes. It partly has to do
| with how politics is done online in the internet, through
| the creation of "echo chambers" where no "dissent" is
| tolerated.
| LeFantome wrote:
| One third of Americans voted Democrat.
|
| One third voted Republican.
|
| One third did not vote.
|
| I hold the last group most responsible.
| shrubby wrote:
| One group voted for nicely speaking tax free
| zillionaires. Another one voted for hate speaking
| zillionaires.
|
| Third one didn't want to vote for zillionaires.
|
| Perhaps next time there'll be someone to vote not
| representing the zillionaire-class?
| PowerElectronix wrote:
| It's hard to blame it on people not voting for options
| that suck and do not represent their political stance.
| ceejayoz wrote:
| Bless your heart, you're doing the cartoon.
|
| https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2018/8/8/1786532/-Cartoo
| n-Y...
|
| Why are all the Democrats Fox News (and the actual
| _President of the United States_ himself) does a
| "constant drum beat of disdain and hate towards" not
| doing the same thing? Why is this only a concern on one
| side?
| jibal wrote:
| That's a completely intellectually bankrupt argument that
| blames good people for the actions of bad people. It
| doesn't have a shred of fact or logic to support it.
| yongjik wrote:
| Everything Trump has done since he was re-elected made
| Democrats hate him more, and more publicly, and you know
| what, despite that Trump's ratings have steadily fallen.
|
| If your thesis is true, you'd expect Trump's ratings to
| go up.
|
| As far as I can see, partisan hatred doesn't matter,
| because pretty much everybody speaking and listening to
| such rhetorics have already made up their minds. The
| battle is fought in the middle, and these people don't
| care about latest Truth Social posts. They care about the
| price of gas.
|
| Trump fucked with the one thing people will not forget
| about, because their livelihood depends on it. It's going
| to be... interesting.
| none2585 wrote:
| It may even be Trump again! Wouldn't be surprised if we see
| some movement towards removing presidential term limits.
| They weren't always in place and they can be removed again.
| b0rtb0rt wrote:
| why is it that democrats always assume they are the correct
| side and that everyone else agrees with them?
| gffrd wrote:
| > They would rather suffer and destroy America just so the
| democrats don't win.
|
| This is true.
|
| Which raises the question: could Democrats use this reality
| (whatever they touch is poisoned, in eyes of the other
| side) to steer the result a bit?
| gosub100 wrote:
| My hope is that this will show weaknesses in our supposed
| "checks and balances" that can be patched later. If that
| means it takes an act of congress to even fire a single
| military weapon, so be it. That's just one example, but
| basically "they" need to backtrack and find every "hack"
| trump used and plug it so this never happens again.
| freedomben wrote:
| Agreed, but the problem is that whichever party is in power
| wants to expand presidential authority, and only the
| minority party wants to reign it in. When the president
| flips, usually so do the parties in power. Plus you have to
| be enough majority to override a presidential veto. I don't
| see this ever workign out :-(
| LeFantome wrote:
| What "checks and balances"?
|
| The SCOTUS ruled that presidents cannot be held
| accountable.
|
| The constitution is pretty clear. Trump does not have the
| authority to invade Iran. Yet he did. What are you planning
| to patch?
|
| Despite everything, Trump has 35-40 percent approval right
| now. You cannot patch that out.
| gosub100 wrote:
| the ones that were printed in my middle school government
| McGraw Hill textbook...
| ceejayoz wrote:
| "First, your return to shore was not part of our
| negotiations nor our agreement, so I must do nothing. And
| secondly, you must be a pirate for the Pirate's Code to
| apply, and you're not. And thirdly, the Code is more what
| you'd call guidelines than actual rules."
|
| Turns out that last bit is how the US was setup. Oops.
| pjc50 wrote:
| Checks and balances mean nothing when the same party
| controls house, senate, president, and supreme court.
| Jensson wrote:
| And the military. Who the majority of soldiers supports
| matters a lot since they have the final say when leaders
| cannot agree. Trump does a lot to gain favor with the
| military, democrats doesn't do much for them.
| gosub100 wrote:
| I disagree. Plenty of republicans are vociferously
| disagreeing with Trump over Iran and Epstein. But even if
| your premise is true, what if the two-party system were
| constructed or manipulated by a foreign government with
| the express intent on dividing us? Maybe that should be
| addressed as well?
| temp8830 wrote:
| Approximately the same things were said about Dubya Jr's war
| with invisible WMDs. If you've forgotten - listen to some
| songs that came out at the time. It's not about a particular
| president, it's that the US seems to have a systemic
| dependency on starting these wars.
| chaostheory wrote:
| Back then we had approval from our coalition. We also
| shared the spoils, which the Russians noted.
|
| Also, none of the Bush's ran on an "America First"
| isolationist political campaign. Even own base is
| fracturing because of this.
| LeFantome wrote:
| Your point seems to be that the US has not changed.
| Regardless, the world thinks it has.
|
| The "coalition of the willing" is not behind the US this
| time.
| anjel wrote:
| And so this Easter day a new oxymoron is born: the
| coalition of the unwilling.
|
| Do with that, in terms of foreign policy, what you will.
| watwut wrote:
| Why is that oxymoron? You can, in fact, have a coalition
| focused on not doing something.
| Jensson wrote:
| Yeah, its called home owners associations, NIMBY etc.
| layer8 wrote:
| The unwilling don't particularly coalise.
| micromacrofoot wrote:
| and we're still experiencing damage from that war, and it's
| getting worse because of some things that it changed
| (patriot act, creation of homeland security, etc)
|
| we've faced two major recessions since then and may very
| well be entering our third
|
| at this point it seems we're just trying to find out where
| the breaking point is
| SecretDreams wrote:
| Information, both good and bad, is a lot more accessible
| this time around. It has been a dramatic accelerator to
| worldly views of America in the wake of their recent
| actions.
|
| There are political similarities between the two
| aforementioned wars, but the social and technological
| backdrops are quite different, and they're working against
| US public perception. Furthermore, decorum is entirely gone
| this time around, which isn't helping.
| kakacik wrote:
| Whole world would weep with joy if somebody like Bush jr
| would come into power now. Even when talking about that
| cocaine nepo kid of his cia chief father. I recall those
| times and emotions well from european perspective, not
| everybody here is 20-something.
|
| These 2 are incomparable on any level. If you want to say
| it can always get worse that I can agree with.
| nozzlegear wrote:
| > _Perhaps, I hope, Americans will take action to save the
| democratic norms and institutions that so many of them have
| claimed to cherish. Before he has dismantled and replaced too
| many to salvage. Or perhaps they have work tomorrow._
|
| I'm going to take action by voting in November. Or are you
| suggesting revolution is more prudent, that I should put my
| life on the line right now because the global economy is a
| little fucky?
| vntok wrote:
| Interesting question. Do you believe that waiting is fine
| because the election will be fair in November?
| nozzlegear wrote:
| Yes? I've been a poll worker for every election since
| 2018, I have no reason to believe they won't be this time
| around. Do you have reason to believe that Trump isn't
| just full of hot air, bluster and bullshit like usual
| (TACO)?
| vntok wrote:
| Well yes, of course. For example this a month or so ago
| seems worrying: https://www.lemonde.fr/en/international/a
| rticle/2026/02/14/t...
|
| > US President Donald Trump, on Friday, February 13,
| _threatened to try to bypass Congress and force new
| voting laws_ ahead of the November midterm elections,
| where his Republican Party fears losing control of the
| legislature. Trump said he would soon _issue an executive
| order_ attempting to impose the rules if Congress does
| not pass a law requiring photo identification to vote and
| other nationwide reforms.
|
| > "There will be Voter ID for the Midterm Elections,
| _whether approved by Congress or_ not! " Trump wrote on
| his Truth Social platform. "If we can't get it through
| Congress, there are Legal reasons why this SCAM is not
| permitted. I will be presenting them shortly, in the form
| of an Executive Order," he wrote.
| convolvatron wrote:
| that makes absolute sense. on one hand legally voting
| process is delegated to the states, and we can argue
| about to what degree congress might be able to impose
| federal standards. but an executive order has absolutely
| no bearing on the situation legally.
|
| but if you believe, as many people claim to, than an
| executive order is actually a federal law, then if some
| blue state decides to ignore such an executive order,
| then you can claim that the election process was tainted,
| illegal, and illegitimate. maybe you can even round up
| all the ballots in order to perform an 'investigation'.
| maybe send federal officers to check IDs. all kinds of
| things.
| bathtub365 wrote:
| The sooner regime change comes in the US, the better.
| swarnie wrote:
| > 2 years and 9 months remain
|
| You think.
|
| Peaceful transfers of power are always tricky in younger
| democracies.
| Arubis wrote:
| My strong suspicion is that the current POTUS will leave
| the White House in a box. My hope is that this precedes the
| next election cycle.
| actionfromafar wrote:
| Do you think the ThielVance will leave peacefully?
| bebop wrote:
| They don't have the cult of personality to hold on to
| power in the same way djt does.
| actionfromafar wrote:
| Who needs personality when you got your own stormtroopers
| with guns?
| Jensson wrote:
| The standard dictatorial takeover of a democracy is to
| keep the elections and the presidency, but to add a
| supreme leader above the president, similar to what Iran
| or Russia or China is doing. So Trump would no longer be
| president, he would be supreme leader joining what the
| other world powers are doing.
| ceejayoz wrote:
| > add a supreme leader above the president, similar to
| what Iran or Russia or China is doing
|
| This is trivially debunked.
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/President_of_Russia
| andy_ppp wrote:
| If you could design a perfect plan to destroy the United
| States, Donald Trump, probably through sheer buffoonish
| incompetence seems to be implementing it.
| SilverElfin wrote:
| I don't think he's incompetent. He's actually quite good at
| extracting wealth for himself/family/donors/friends out of
| whatever the administration is doing.
|
| Iran is a distraction from the Epstein files, and the fact
| that many from the Trump circle appear in it - Trump
| himself, some of his children, Elon Musk, Steve Bannon,
| Peter Thiel, etc.
|
| The war with Iran is also a way to make a few more
| suspicious trades on the market swings, especially the ones
| following each speech or decision. It would be easy to time
| trades if you know what will happen because you're deciding
| it.
|
| The US may be destroyed but it's because it's just
| collateral damage to the billionaires and Epstein class.
| Not because they're incompetent. We need to contain their
| wealth and power with totally new laws.
| throw310822 wrote:
| You mistake for competence his greed and that of those
| who surround him. I don't think there was a plan to
| profit from the disaster; rather, they're so incompetent
| that they even lack the basic self-control to avoid
| publicly taking advantage of the mess they unwillingly
| caused, however bad and dangerous that might be.
| Jensson wrote:
| I imagine Trump wanted to do some fun new things when he
| is old and will soon die. Its not many who get to
| experience what it feels like to start a war and kill
| world leaders, and when you are gonna die soon anyway why
| not?
| sieste wrote:
| I think this is the correct lense. He's a malignant
| narcissist on his way out, with absolutely nobody to stop
| him.
|
| I'm genuinely worried that he secretly wants to go down
| in history as the crazy guy who set the oil fields on
| fire and dropped a nuke on Tehran or something.
| throw310822 wrote:
| Not sure what moves Trump- could be any of that or more.
| What we all know is that Netanyahu and Kushner found this
| and used it to get what they wanted. This is not Trump's
| war, he's not the initiator and he doesn't have goals of
| his own (though at times he might believe he does). It
| actually contradicts what he campaigned on for years.
| aaa_aaa wrote:
| Not one individual. You forgot the ones put the yoke.
| shrubby wrote:
| Modus operandi for the leading democracy in the world has
| been war also before. Now it's only bit more erratic and
| honest.
|
| I sure hope that after this the return won't be the previous
| normal.
| cyberge99 wrote:
| Honest? Trump is the most dishonest president in history.
| He literally says two diametrically opposite things: - we
| don't need any oil - open up the strait or else severe
| consequences Which is it? Only fools think his opacity is a
| feature not a terrible bug.
| KellyCriterion wrote:
| > take action to save the democratic
|
| Im beting 1000 USD that Trump comes up with whatever
| story/issue/incident to "manipulate" all upcoming elections
| to his favour
| petre wrote:
| If the doesn't turn up as the first US president to
| actually be impeached. You've got other two who got
| assasinated. The right to bear arms mskes that sort of
| thing a bit easier than impeachment.
| ceejayoz wrote:
| Andrew Johnson was the first US President to be
| impeached.
|
| Clinton too, then Trump twice.
| petre wrote:
| Didn't go through. None of them were removed from office.
| ceejayoz wrote:
| > None of them were removed from office.
|
| Correct. But that's not because they weren't impeached.
|
| Impeachment is part of the process; three presidents have
| been impeached, Trump twice. Then comes the trial, and
| conviction/acquittal.
| augusto-moura wrote:
| Thing is, that is not just the individual, the world lost the
| trust in the american vote. Trump was elected twice, it is
| easy to imagine that another megalomaniac might be elected
| next.
|
| In a democratic system, the ruler is a reflection of the
| majority of the population. Of course it can change during
| the course of the administration (as seen in the approval
| ratings), but the trust is lost and most countries now
| believe that, one way or another, the majority of the US
| population agree with some of the ideas behind Trump. The
| damage will not stop by the end of Trump's administration, it
| is truly the end of multilateralism as we knew it
| simgt wrote:
| How many people voted for that "one individual causing chaos"
| again? 70 million? He's also backed by billionaires and an
| administration that seems to be just as unhinged. It's not
| one person causing chaos, it's a whole country with its
| violent culture. The scale changed slightly, but it's also
| nothing new.
| villedespommes wrote:
| This. There are really two explanations here. Either the US
| hasn't been a democracy in the first place. Or the majority
| of the US voters prefer autocratic amoral psychopaths
| running their country.
| pas wrote:
| Brits also voted to leave the EU where they had the
| absurdly privileged position of picking (almost freely)
| which rules applies to them, while benefiting from others
| applying them fully.
|
| ...
|
| Democracy is only as good as the people doing the voting,
| who are about as good (as the rules they don't protest
| againsts) and the content they consume, which is about as
| good as certain groups make it to be.
| Cyph0n wrote:
| 1. A non-trivial proportion of us voted for Trump.
|
| 2. Blatantly kidnapping and assassinating heads of state is
| the culmination of US foreign policy and _not_ an anomaly.
| The machine is working as designed.
|
| The only foreign policy blunders I would attribute to Trump
| are the completely unnecessary spats with Canada and
| Denmark/the EU, although neither blunder seems to have made a
| dent in the ass kissing.
| csa wrote:
| > It is a fact that the reputation of the USA has being
| damaged, perhaps not repairable for decades or more.
|
| The MAGA base does not care about the international
| reputation of the US. They lean heavily towards isolationism
| (irrationally, imho).
| ndiddy wrote:
| > And yet the US is now back to threatening Iran if they don't
| open up the oil.
|
| Trump's most recent statement (
| https://truthsocial.com/@realDonaldTrump/posts/1163519987825...
| ):
|
| "Tuesday will be Power Plant Day, and Bridge Day, all wrapped
| up in one, in Iran. There will be nothing like it!!! Open the
| Fuckin' Strait, you crazy bastards, or you'll be living in Hell
| - JUST WATCH! Praise be to Allah. President DONALD J. TRUMP"
| vkou wrote:
| Given the events of the past month...
|
| Are we at a point where we can conclusively say that the
| United States is a country that wants to wipe Iran off the
| face of the Earth?
|
| Bombing them into the stone age where they belong, complete
| destruction of them, no quarter, decapitation strikes, bridge
| day, etc?
| morkalork wrote:
| He's thiiiiiisss >< close to threatening to drop a nuke on
| Tehran isn't he
| rockemsockem wrote:
| Go back to Reddit where you belong
| morkalork wrote:
| If you're going to judge people's quality of online
| commentary, I can think of a "bigger fish to fry" than
| myself. They're even quoted in this very thread!
| rchaud wrote:
| There was a time when The Onion might have run a headline
| like "Concerned over low troop morale, President converts to
| Islam to inspire spirit of martyrdom". No more.
| The_Goonies1985 wrote:
| >And yet the US is now back to threatening Iran...
|
| It's not you specifically, but there's a broader sociological
| problem where we anthropomorphize countries and then claim they
| are doing things.
|
| The average person in the US is not threatening Iran, and
| rationally the US cannot be said to be threatening Iran. What's
| happening is that an elite clique of Epstein-adjacent legacy-
| power-trolls (aka The US Government) are threatening Iran.
|
| The US does not have legs, arms, or hands, it cannot _do_
| anything. This turn of phrase in which the US (or any country)
| _does_ something is a semantic-contraption of legacy-power
| designed to make citizens (whether left, right, or undecided)
| feel psychologically-responsible for the actions of a
| entrenched-class of elite-warmongers who do not represent them;
| and have not represented them for, likely, thousands of years.
| Matl wrote:
| Israel wants to completely destroy Iran so than no one would be
| willing to in any way challenge its occupation of Palestine,
| nor its ambition to expand into Lebanon, Syria, Jordan, Egypt
| and beyond.
|
| Then there's an element of extremist Christian ideology from
| Pete H. etc.
|
| Hormuz has little to do with it, it's just an excuse to destroy
| Iran.
|
| Trump has been convinced that the Iranians are after him, plus
| there's the Epstein kompromat that the Israelis have on him.
| He's the only US president compromised enough to destroy Iran
| for them, war crimes and all.
| postsantum wrote:
| The oil narrative is what worked after Iraq war and I am
| afraid it will work now
| Hamuko wrote:
| > _And yet the US is now back to threatening Iran if they don
| 't open up the oil._
|
| Because no matter how much they pretend it doesn't affect the
| US, oil is a global market.
| soared wrote:
| This seems like one of the first very clear indications that
| separating your country from the US can be beneficial. The first
| stone unturned - will we see more countries aligning with other
| powers?
| Jensson wrote:
| France and Japan never distanced themselves from USA here.
|
| I imagine France threatened to enter the conflict and that is
| why they got it, Iran did kill a french soldier after all, just
| that normally such threats happens behind closed doors so we
| just see the outcome.
|
| The current Japanese leader is also a war mongerer, so I'd bet
| they also threatened to enter the war on USA's side if their
| ships weren't allowed to pass. The countries like Spain that
| takes Iran's side hasn't gotten their ships through yet, that
| seems like a weaker strategy.
| watwut wrote:
| What are on about now? France explicitely and vocally refused
| to enter the war. That is why their tanker passed.
| Jensson wrote:
| If that was true many more tankers would have passed from
| other countries that were more against the war.
|
| France is one of few countries with large military presence
| in the area, that is the only thing they do more than most
| other countries.
|
| Edit: And France even directly threatened to use force
| here. If you only read American news you wouldn't know
| since they want it to seem like the world is on Irans side
| here. What we are seeing is that Iran has started buckling
| to these threats, not that they are giving passage to those
| who didn't threaten.
|
| > France is advising Bahrain on a draft United Nations
| Security Council resolution that would authorize the use of
| force to reopen the Strait of Hormuz and restore global
| energy flows, according to three diplomats informed of the
| process.
|
| https://www.politico.eu/article/france-advising-bahrain-
| un-s...
| watwut wrote:
| Spanish tankers are going through. Filipinian and Indian
| too.
|
| Again, what are you on about.
|
| France was one of 3 countries that literally blocked UN
| resolution about opening straight by force. And president
| repeatedly called it "impossible".
|
| You read weird news if you thing "a threat" of anything
| is making iran to let ships pass. Money and
| noninvolvement do.
| Jensson wrote:
| > Spanish tankers are going through
|
| No they are not, this French ship was the first European
| tanker going through.
| vntok wrote:
| "X is doing B" and "Y was the first to do B" can both be
| true at the same time.
| ReflectedImage wrote:
| The Spanish tankers aren't going through because there
| aren't any Spanish tankers that operate in that region.
|
| Spain has permission from Iran to send through tankers if
| it indeed had some.
| expedition32 wrote:
| Nobody is on Iran's side. The world is not black and
| white.
|
| Most countries want STABILITY not WAR. Yes Iranian regime
| is evil. Yes they kill people. And no that's not worth
| bombing them over.
|
| There are politicians who actually THINK and do
| CALCULATIONS. This war has probably already cost the
| global economy a trillion USD.
| kakacik wrote:
| Certain people in power dont care about global trillions
| lost, rather billions they earned for themselves in
| insider trading. Quite a few articles in recent weeks
| pointing out billion+ moves just before some potus
| announcement.
|
| Also, US is certainly gaining here from high oil prices
| since its not an optional luxury rather a necessity for
| entire economies.
| stinkbeetle wrote:
| Many people don't think Ukraine is worth resisting Russia
| over either. But as you just said, the world is not black
| and white. Your decree of what is and is not worthwhile
| to do, is nothing more than that.
| maratc wrote:
| France also joined China and Russia in blocking Bahreini
| resolution that would authorise "all defensive means
| necessary" to protect commercial shipping in the strait.
| _That_ is why their tanker passed.
| petre wrote:
| _All defensive means_ can mean anything. Like a military
| escort that would shoot back at Iran in case of an
| attack, which amounts to further escalation.
| maratc wrote:
| Not arguing about what that can mean; all I'm saying is
| that France and Iran exchanged favours.
| petre wrote:
| I wouldn't call non escalation a favour. It should be
| standard practice.
| maratc wrote:
| I wouldn't call "letting a tanker pass in international
| waters without blowing it up" a favour either.
| petre wrote:
| France also has a problem with Israel waging war in
| Lebanon, a former French administered teritory. As long as
| Israel sticks to eliminating Hezbollah only, they'll shut
| up about it, but anything beyond that, like that bridge
| bombing or displacing and killing civilians it's bound to
| have a negative reaction from France.
| Shank wrote:
| > The current Japanese leader is also a war mongerer, so I'd
| bet they also threatened to enter the war on USA's side if
| their ships weren't allowed to pass.
|
| The amount of misinformation foreign people have about
| Takaichi-san is staggering. She is by no means a "war
| mongerer" and the Japanese constitution has clear limits that
| prevent Japan from doing virtually anything. The reason why
| Japan can get a pass is because they specifically have
| diplomatic relations with Iran, and when she met with Trump,
| she promised absolutely nothing due to constitutional limits.
| Jensson wrote:
| Why would she promise anything to Trump? She just wants
| Iran to let them through, USA isn't blocking anyone here,
| USA isn't a part of that conversation.
| b0rtb0rt wrote:
| why are you adding japanese honorifics when the rest of
| your post is in english?
| adrian_b wrote:
| In non-English texts it is not unusual to see English
| honorifics like Sir, Lord, Lady, Duke etc. or even Dr.,
| Mr., Mrs.
|
| Similarly, in English texts it is not unusual to see
| foreign honorifics besides the actual names.
|
| It is quite frequent for someone who otherwise does not
| speak another language to address foreigners as they
| would be addressed in their own language in formal
| situations where politeness is expected, e.g. using Herr
| or Frau for a German, and so on, or using Takaichi-san or
| Takaichi-sama (more formal) instead of translating that
| to Mrs. Takaichi.
|
| I think that when speaking about a prime minister, formal
| language is not inappropriate.
|
| Trump is probably the most obvious chief of state whose
| name would look completely inappropriate in the context
| of using formal polite language, but this should have
| been an exception.
| simgt wrote:
| The most an average person in the west knows about Takaichi
| is that she "said" Japan would go to war with China for
| Taiwan. That's of course not true, but the person you're
| replying to also thinks Spain is on Iran's side. They are
| clearly misinformed or lying to fit their narrative.
| Maken wrote:
| The only countries going to war with Iran are Israel and USA.
| The other countries are negotiating with Iran and reportedly
| paying the toll. Also, the strait has been open to Spanish
| tankers since two weeks ago.
| Jensson wrote:
| > Also, the strait has been open to Spanish tankers since
| two weeks ago.
|
| But no Spanish tankers have gone through so that doesn't
| seem to be accurate. An Iranian diplomat saying that
| publicly doesn't matter when the irgc continues to shoot
| them. The only known European aligned tanker to have gone
| through is this French one we are reading about here.
| thisislife2 wrote:
| While there are reports that Iran has been charging a toll
| on some ships from "hostile" countries, there is no such
| report suggesting that the French, Japanese and Omani ships
| cited in this news report did so too.
|
| In this particular case, it is a diplomatic and reciprocal
| gesture of goodwill from Iran - the French have publicly
| said that joint military operations to open the Strait is a
| bad a idea and diplomatic options need to be pursued for
| the same while the Japanese have confirmed that they won't
| be sending any minesweepers to the Strait ( _Japan Isn't
| Sending Minesweepers to Middle East, Takaichi Says_ -
| https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2026-03-12/japan-
| isn... ). Oman, of course, has been the mediator in the
| early US-Iran negotiations, and has publicly said Iran
| cannot be blamed for the US-Israel attacks ( _' This war is
| not of their making,' Omani foreign minister says of Iran_
| - https://www.middleeasteye.net/news/war-not-their-making-
| oman... ) as it had accepted a new nuclear deal with the
| Trump administration during the negotiations ( _Peace
| 'within reach' as Iran agrees no nuclear material
| stockpile: Oman FM_ -
| https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2026/2/28/peace-within-
| reach-... ). He has blamed the Trump administration for
| undermining negotiations and implied that they acted in bad
| faith.
| tarkin2 wrote:
| France has distanced itself from Israel recently; Israel is
| refusing to buy more French military equipment
| YZF wrote:
| This is just a culmination of the last two years of
| tension. The most recent friction is around Lebanon where
| France sees itself as the protector of its former colony.
|
| Interesting take from Le Monde: "Israel turns its back on
| France as Paris struggles to maintain dialogue"
|
| https://www.lemonde.fr/en/international/article/2026/04/01/
| i...
| ceejayoz wrote:
| > France and Japan never distanced themselves from USA here.
|
| Trump sure seems to think France did.
|
| https://www.cnbc.com/2026/03/31/trump-attacks-uk-france-x-
| po...
|
| "President Donald Trump on Tuesday warned the U.K. and France
| that the U.S. "won't be there to help you anymore," as he
| vented his frustration over the close allies' refusal to join
| military action against Iran."
| jonplackett wrote:
| Maybe do some research before just dispatching random
| thoughts
|
| https://www.thenationalnews.com/news/europe/2026/04/03/franc.
| ..
| 54agfvb wrote:
| Yes, France did: It went with Russia and China in the revised
| and postponed UN resolution that does _not_ mention use of
| force to reopen Hormuz.
| anigbrowl wrote:
| Complete nonsense, easily debunked. You should be embarrassed
| to post this.
| andy_ppp wrote:
| There's every chance that the US loses the trust of the GCC
| countries and they choose to spend their oil money away from the
| US should all of this madness ever calm down.
| rchaud wrote:
| It's extremely unlikely without a common currency and a
| military alliance with larger, more populous states like Egypt
| and Iraq. The former would be unacceptable as it would
| represent a competitor to the Petrodollar, and the latter would
| be a threat to Israel.
| andy_ppp wrote:
| One of the conditions Iran has placed on ships travelling
| through the strait of Hormuz is that the oil is
| traded/purchased in RMB.
| tarkin2 wrote:
| Israel recently refused to buy more French military equipment,
| and France's relations with Israel is at a low; I'm wondering it
| was the reason the French vessel was allowed through.
| alephnerd wrote:
| France hasn't bought Israeli weapons systems and vice versa for
| years, so it's just a quick populist win with 0 practical
| implications either way.
|
| That said, French and Israeli vendors like Thales, IAI,
| Dassault, Rafael, Elbit, etc still collaborate closely becuase
| they are both OEMs, vendors, and JV partners in Indian defense
| deals that integrate both into Indian weapons systems -
| especially as both are integrated (along with Russian and
| indigenous weapons systems) with what is become Indians version
| of the Iron and Steel dome [0][1]. Vietnam is mandating the
| same thing as part of their 2045 Drone manufacturing strategy
| [2].
|
| And both MIC ecosystems still collaborate together on defense
| deals back in Armenia, Cyprus, and Greece.
|
| Most countries that historically had a Soviet/Russian kit are
| now mandating French+Israeli interoperability becuase of
| India's success at using it to replace older Soviet or Russian
| systems where possible.
|
| [0] - https://www.thalesgroup.com/en/news-centre/press-
| releases/th...
|
| [1] - https://www.israeldefense.co.il/en/node/64841
|
| [2] - https://www.intelligenceonline.fr/asie-
| pacifique/2026/03/02/...
| YZF wrote:
| I think there has been some low volume defense trade in both
| directions.
|
| What some people seem to forget is that France and Israel
| also compete over some of the same defense deals. There was
| these incidents where France banned Israeli companies from
| some defense shows:
|
| https://www.politico.eu/article/france-bans-israeli-
| companie...
|
| https://www.france24.com/en/live-news/20250616-france-
| blocks...
| alephnerd wrote:
| Yep, but the biggest customer and JV partner for both the
| French and Israeli MIC (India) ensures that they cooperate,
| as India has forced both to create JVs owned and operated
| by Indian SOEs and transfer IP and manufacturing capacity
| as a result.
|
| And French companies are fine with that - as can be seen by
| Thales [0], Safran [1] and Rafael (IL) [2] working on
| Indian JVs for India's Rafale [3] and Tejas [1]
| requirements.
|
| It's cheap for French politicans to make pronouncements
| (and given how competitive the 2027 election is going to
| be, Macron has no choice but to resort to such populism),
| but French Inc ignores it and carries on because business
| is more important.
|
| It's the same reason why Dassault bluntly rejected German
| input on SCAF [4] and why France's Safran and Russia's UAC
| are working with India's HAL to indigenize the SJ-100 [5].
| And now that the UAE has pulled out of Dassault's F5
| program [6], they are even more dependent on India.
|
| As I've mentioned before on HN, French and American
| business culture are very similar.
|
| Even Vietnam is starting to turn the screws on France,
| especially now that En Marche's Stephanie Do has now become
| a lobbyist [7] for FPT's defense arm [8] which is partially
| owned by Vietnam's KGB (the MPS/BCA).
|
| It's the same kind of arm-twisting China used in the
| 1980s-2000s and 1990s-2010s respectively to force Israel
| [9] and Russia [10][11] to transfer IP for China's J-XX
| program, except both India and Vietnam are applying such
| arm-twisting on France on top of the other two.
|
| And Macron and all the other centrists politicans cannot do
| anything against Dassault, Thales, etc lest they switch to
| supporting Bardella and RN like Bollore [12] and Sterin
| [13] are doing. Macron himself is only in power because
| Arnault [14] and his son-in-law (and CEO of Scaleway)
| Xavier Niels [15].
|
| [0] -
| https://www.asdnews.com/news/aerospace/2022/07/21/iai-
| select...
|
| [1] -
| https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2025-11-25/india-
| to-...
|
| [2] - https://gbp.com.sg/stories/rafael-eyes-ice-breaker-
| spike-lr2...
|
| [3] - https://aviationweek.com/defense/aircraft-
| propulsion/dassaul...
|
| [4] - https://aviationweek.com/defense/aircraft-
| propulsion/dassaul...
|
| [5] - https://idrw.org/original-sam146-engine-likely-to-
| power-indi...
|
| [6] - https://www.latribune.fr/article/defense-
| aerospatiale/defens...
|
| [7] - https://www.tst-consulting.fr/
|
| [8] - https://www.intelligenceonline.fr/asie-
| pacifique/2026/04/03/...
|
| [9] - https://www.nytimes.com/1993/10/12/world/israel-
| selling-chin...
|
| [10] - https://thediplomat.com/2010/12/how-chinas-jets-
| threaten-rus...
|
| [11] - https://asia.nikkei.com/politics/international-
| relations/rus...
|
| [12] - https://www.mediapart.fr/journal/culture-et-
| idees/dossier/la...
|
| [13] -
| https://www.nytimes.com/2026/03/22/world/europe/pierre-
| eduoa...
|
| [14] -
| https://www.lemonde.fr/en/politics/article/2023/08/07/how-
| be...
|
| [15] - https://www.lemonde.fr/en/les-
| decodeurs/article/2022/07/10/u...
| LunaSea wrote:
| Israel also recently killed three UN soldiers and bombarded
| positions a few meters away from french soldiers. The french
| ministry of defence wasn't exactly thrilled with this.
| clydethefrog wrote:
| They announced they will veto military actions to open Straight
| of Hormuz in the UN security council.
| 54agfvb wrote:
| That is a good move from Iran. The EU is tired of US induced
| wars, tired of Greenland threats and just wants to focus on its
| economy.
|
| In a US war you always have to ask yourself if you do exactly
| what the US wants in secret. Here it could very well be that the
| Gulf monarchies are deliberately weakened and the EU/Japan/China
| are cut off from fossil fuels, so they are even more dependent on
| the US.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2026-04-05 23:01 UTC)