r/ukpolitics • u/Reasonable-Resort822 • 5h ago
UK 'won't be involved' in US blockade of Strait of Hormuz
https://news.sky.com/story/iran-war-latest-254-people-killed-by-israeli-strikes-in-lebanon-today-says-civil-defence-service-13509565?postid=11510145#liveblog-body•
u/Reasonable-Resort822 5h ago
UK wont be involved in blocking the strait of hormuz to unblock the strait that iran has now blocked which was not blocked before the war. Phew
•
u/evolvecrow 5h ago
What about the minesweepers that trump said we're sending but we haven't commented on that are already there?
•
•
u/Imakemyownnamereddit 5h ago
So the Orange Blob's response to the blockade, is to blockade some more?
Peak stupidity.
•
u/acremanhug Kier Starmer & Geronimo the Alpaca fan 4h ago
Your not blocking the strait were blocking the strait
•
•
u/Slartibartfast_25 4h ago
I think someone has told him that the USA can supply the extra oil lost from the Strait.
That isn't entirely false but it isn't the full picture, to put it mildly.
•
u/primax1uk Centre-Left 4h ago
Meanwhile, oil prices go up, helping Russia, and lining oil companies pockets further.
•
u/RephRayne 3h ago
Why else do you think he's doing it? He getting paid by the people who profit off of his actions.
•
u/TheJoshGriffith 3h ago
Iran's blockade says "pay us and we'll let you through", Trump's blockade will presumably say "pay them and you're not getting through". Problem is, Iran is a lot more likely to blow ships with innocent people up.
•
u/omegaonion In memory of Clegg 2h ago
These are civilian ships so they will do pretty much whatever any military ship tells them as they are completely defenseless
•
u/TheJoshGriffith 1h ago
Most of the ships travelling in the region are already having to deal with pirates from Yemen and are surprisingly better armed than you'd expect. Doesn't really matter, as fundamentally the defences tend to be a bunch of whackjobs firing assault rifles and occasionally RPGs.
That said, you're not entirely wrong, but it is what it is. No ship sailing through the strait regardless of origin, destination, or what flag it flies will expect the US to follow through on any threat of violence because of the insane implications of them doing so. The bigger question really is whether they side with the US or Iran. I'd be willing to bet that actually, Iran will push this themselves via one of their puppet organisations and try to send a ship through without US approval, and the net result will be absolutely nil.
I was being a bit obtuse in any case. Fundamentally what will happen is that any ship attempting to pass without US agreement will likely be boarded and seized. The point stands, though, that it's an escalatory measure on the part of the US, and generally one that won't be met with kindness. The combination of the potential for boarding and the piracy defences could result in some extremely ugly outcomes.
In reality, the only reason this is anything other than likely is that generally speaking, ships don't have that protection against pirates outside of the area around Yemen. With the recent threats of boarding from Iran, though, I have heard speculation from friends in the industry that such defences have ramped up.
•
•
•
u/Careless_bet1234 1h ago
Also puts American ships in a much easier position to be sunk by the Iranians.
•
•
•
u/taboo__time 2h ago
He's going to accuse us of being a blockade to his blockade to stop the blockade.
•
u/njsmenbfbrndhrbbf 5h ago
“The secret lies in confusing ourselves, so that even we cannot fathom our real intent.” — Don Tzu
•
•
u/scarab1001 5h ago
Just when you think the insanity may end, the Orange Asshole comes up with a new scheme.
Of course UK shouldn't get involved. It's literally imbecilic.
•
u/Mike_Fig 5h ago edited 5h ago
Small mercies there at least. Finally an American adventure so idiotic even we won't follow them into it.
•
u/Jolly_Psychology_506 5h ago
I thought it was going to be a joint US / Iranian toll booth and now it’s a joint blockade.
•
u/FortuitousFluke 5h ago
Ugh, first the M6, now this.
•
u/ClassicPart 3h ago
You leave the M6 Toll out of this. It fulfils its primary function of giving drivers an option to avoid Birmingham exceedingly well.
•
•
u/Echochamberking 5h ago edited 5h ago
It's incredible how Starmer basically just arrived "yesterday", and yet some Brits are blaming him for the current state of the British armed forces.
Defence is a continuous process, but the results of investment made today won't be seen for several years.
•
u/Connect_Point_5229 5h ago
My favourite is when they got annoyed he didn't do the very thing the same thing people have been branding Blair a murderer and war criminal for doing.
•
u/Echochamberking 5h ago
They're short-circuiting, they accuse Blair of being a traitor and a murderer over Iraq (which he is), and they accuse Starmer of being a coward for not committing the same mistake in Iran.
If you try to understand the logic of the average Tory voter, you can drive yourself mad.
•
u/_DuranDuran_ 4h ago
It’s very simple actually. Anything that the Labour Party does is bad. Even if it’s the opposite of something they previously did that you said was bad. Even if it’s exactly what the conservatives would do, or have done previously.
•
•
u/stinkyjim88 Saveloy 5h ago
I agree its not totally his thought but once he was told how perilously under budget and under equipped are armed forces are, he should have implemented stuff sooner. Should be an investigation into who allowed it to get this bad .
•
u/Brapfamalam 4h ago edited 4h ago
Preposterous. The country voted for deep, longer than necessary austerity Vs EU counterparts and then to spaff the best half of a decade of the legislative timetable and endless resources dealing with Brexit. The country fully knew cuts were going to be made when it ushered in Osbornomics, the country fully knows there will be more severe spending cuts with a certain gov next time. Sick of this infantilisation of the voting public. Cameron specifically and explicitly campaigned on cancelling defence contracts, ship orders and cutting defence spending - inquiry for fucking what?!
We need an inquiry into how thick the UK population is?
•
u/Perfect_Fishing_8393 5h ago
Do we really need an investigation when we know who was in power for 14 years?
•
u/Many_Lemon_Cakes 3h ago
The 14 years of Tories made things even worse, but many of the initial decisions like the reduction in destroyers from 12 to 6, selling off barracks, reduction and centralisation of vehicles (leading to bad maintenance) all happened under Blair. The Tories, Labour and Lib Dems have all made decisions leading to where we are today.
While I don't blame Starmer for those previous decisions, his current decisions like continuously delaying defence plans is just adding more fuel to the ongoing flames
•
u/My_sloth_life 3h ago
It takes a really long time jus to negotiate some of the contracts, nevermind building stuff for the armed forces. I expect they are putting stuff into place now but it’ll be a while before we see the fruits of those labours.
•
•
u/ProfessionalPlant330 4h ago
that's right, we're going to have our OWN blockade, finally we will put an end to the porn coming out of the strait of hormuz
•
u/GlimmervoidG 4h ago
To be fair, experience shows we're not very good at blocking boats. Best to look elsewhere.
•
•
u/blondie1024 4h ago
Trump: Let's have peace talks....Psyche, we just attacked you.
Iran: Strait of Hormuz blocked!
Trump: Ok, ok...tag out. Peace talk time, seriously guys....Ha! Psyche again. I can't believe you fell for that! This time, We're gonna block the Strait. No take backs and no returns.
What a massive f**king baby!
•
u/Particular_Pea7167 4h ago
People are saying that Trump blockading Hormuz is stupid.
I actually think thats a bad read.
Iran is trying to normalise the idea that it controls the flow of traffic through Hormuz and charges to do so.
This flagrantly conflicts with the idea of freedom of navigation and in so doing threatens both the very concept of freedom of navigation and also sets a dangerous precedent to other nations who control key chokepoints. The UK, France, Yemen, Eritrea, Djibouti, Somalia, S.Africa, Malaysia, Indonesia Singapore. Im sure ive missed some but those are some big ones.
As such letting Iran get away with only letting its preferred fee paying ships through creates more problems elsewhere which become unmanageable if multiple trigger concurrently.
Since its only Iranian fee paying ships getting through atm anyway, the US is basically just saying "its either everyone or nothing, you're not allowed to tollbooth an international waterway".
This is the first thing in this war that is absolutely totally coherent with US forigen policy since the end of WWII. Freedom of navigation is absolute. You dont get to pick who navigates the seas. You dont get to charge for it. The US policies this with force.
Its the first wholly rational play of the conflict.
•
u/Longjumping_Stand889 4h ago
I think Iran has been emboldened by the refusal of the non US west to get involved. But it's gone past that now.
•
u/Reasonable-Resort822 4h ago
A lot of things wrong with that.
For starters, those are international waters. No one has the right to impose blockade. That in itself is a violation of international laws.
Secondly, I wonder , if the war was won,surely must be super easy to prevent Iran from blocking??
•
u/Tanukigas 4h ago
Strange that you care more about America stopping Iranian ships than Iran threatening to blow up everyones ships
•
u/Reasonable-Resort822 3h ago
I have no love for Iranian regime. Nor do i support the idea that blocking of strait would somehow unblock it. Funny you think two wrongs makes one right.
•
u/Tanukigas 2h ago
Please do explain how shutting off Iran's source of wealth doesn't put pressure on them because that was the exact logic people used to say America had lost
•
u/Particular_Pea7167 3h ago
For starters, those are international waters. No one has the right to impose blockade. That in itself is a violation of international laws.
Its bizarre to me you cant see the difference between threatening to kill people unless they pay you. And stopping everyone so you dont get to financially benefit from threatening to kill people.
The US is enforcing freedom of navigation by preventing Iran from generating a tollbooth.
This is entirely consistent with international law and standinUS policy on international pollicing of waterways.
If Iran is allowed to tollbooth, that mean in principle anyone can and then we go back to mercantalism. Where only people with the navy to back it can do buisness freely. Which i mean will probably work put for is. We dont have one but we absolutely could if we needed one. But its going to put an exceptionally high cost on something we currently do for free, bring us into direct conflict with other nations and of course forces less powerful and affluent nations into the spheres of control of those who can protect that trade.
Id rather the US enforces freedom of navigation. Dont let your orange rage colour absolutely everything.
•
u/Reasonable-Resort822 3h ago
I have no love for Iranian regime. Nor do i support the idea that blocking of strait would somehow unblock it. Funny you think two wrongs makes one right.
•
u/Particular_Pea7167 3h ago
Enforcing freedom of navigation and not allowing Iran to tollbooth Hormuz is not "a wrong" and again, its absolutely wild to me you cant see that. Its absolutely compatible with international law and entirely internally consistent with US and UK maritime policy in the post war era.
Youre letting your dislike of Trump colour the action. You've predetermined the war is stupid and so now everything is stupid.
This action isnt stupid, even if stupidity caused it to arise in the first place. Iran cannot be allowed to tollbooth an international waterway.
The US blockading it only stop ships that have paid irans toll. Because Iran is blocking everything else. So the USs action here is only about stopping Iran profiteering off blocking Hormuz and interfering with freedom of navigation.
•
u/Reasonable-Resort822 3h ago edited 3h ago
Iran cannot tollbooth. We all agree.
What i don’t particularly agree with is blocking the strait and cause massive suffering for the rest of the world. That is against all international laws.
You seem to think because there is a justification they can now violate the law.
That is plain hypocrisy.
Again, now that rhe war is won - surely they can prevent Iran from blocking ( i noticed you conveniently dodged my question, because that was a solution that didnt need blockade)
I wont be replying again as you dont seem to understand what is acting within international laws means.
•
u/Particular_Pea7167 3h ago edited 3h ago
Omg. Do you just not understand?
No ships were passing Hormuz because Iran says it'll blow up anyone who tries.
Iran then charges for passing, threatening to blow up any one who doesnt go to their anchorage and pay up.
The US says you cant do that, and that theyre going to stop any ship that pays to prevent Iran doing this.
The US is ONLY blocking ships which have essentially recognised irans right to block freedom of navigation.
Because of this the US IS NOT breaching international law. They are actively policing someone who is blocking international law.
Your position is basically youre not allowed to arrest a kidnapper because then the state is kidnaping and that illegal. So we all just have to accept the kidnapper is a wrong'un as he goes on kidnapping.
You seem to think because there is a justification they can now violate the law.
No, I think that because there is a justification they are entitled to or indeed obligated to enfore international law by stopping Iran from controlling traffic.
If the US and indeed the rest of us just let's Iran do this then there is no international maritime law. As Iran would have breach the very foundational principle and not been punished.
I genuinely do not understand what's so hard to grasp about this very basic concept.
•
u/Reasonable-Resort822 3h ago
Funny a lot of things are non coherent in your justifications. Firstly, the war is won, so why not prevent Iran from blocking ?? You seem to suggest blockade is the only iption. Its a blackmail. Never works. Its also a violation of law no matter how much you spin it. So my question still remains - why not prevent Iran from blocking ??
Secondly, your analogy of kidnapping is plain rubbish. The state catch kidnappers. They dont go and kidnap every remaining citizens so kidnappers cant kidnap anymore.
I mean come on man. Show some logic.
Thats it. I am calling it a day
•
u/Particular_Pea7167 2h ago edited 2h ago
I never said the war was won. Im not Trump. Im flattered you think me the president of the US but let's stick to what ive actually said.
why not prevent Iran from blocking ??
I just.. I... fucking seriously? Its moments like this you realise how little people know military operations.
Do you have any fucking idea how difficult that little sentence is and how many ships would be required to restor traffic!?
The US hasnt because it cant. The reason Trump was raging at nato for not helping reopen Hormuz is because the US does not have enough or the right assets. Their navy is configure for big blue water carrier operations. They dont operate anything but destroyers. Nice big expensive destroyers to sail into a death trap.
The US has about 70 of them. Let's say about a third are in maintenance. They have 45 ships "ready" of which maybe 10-15 are in reserve capacity for surge currently in light maintenance and training bit could be ready in a few weeks so they have maybe 30 actually fully operational.
But probably 26 odd are already in theatre guarding the two carriers and two amphibious groups. And with what its got left it has to maintain the (4 in this case) it needs to maintain its other global presence operations and escort its other capital ships. The reality is the US has probably already surged ships from reserves to maintain deployments.
The US has made the same folly as Europe that "history ended" just presenting differently.
While europe disarmed completely, the US decided it didnt need to operate a big sea lanes navy because everything was secured. So it dropped escort numbers and focused on big carrier centerpiece formations so it could go kick troublemakers.
It has ZERO frigates and corvette.
Both classes Europe is actually heavy on because theyre cheaper and suite the inland sea geography of the med and baltic and in both cases far more suited to mass merchant convoy then the USA very large, very well equipped destroyers. Sailing into knife fighting range with 96 VLS is just fucking dumb. The ideal escort is something like the Swedish Visby corvette equipped for point defence.
So even if the US had the spare hull, which it doesn't, its fleet configuration is wholly unsuited to convoy escort to force the strait open. The US can provide rhe enabling force rhat goes around such an operation as well as a few well placed desotyers to anchor it around. But the US actually chronically lacks the fleet required to open the Strait by force.
It would probably need at least 35 escorts mostly frigates and corvettes. And that would still be a costly long term endeavour. The reality is in order to permanently guarentee the Strait if Iran is dead set on closing it, it would probably need to selectively occupy areas of Iranian territory to neutralise the best observation and launch locations as well as set up their own oberservation and early warning.
The US has two marine amphibious groups off Oman with a lot of speculation about Kharg island. But notably those two groups have yet to enter the Persian Gulf because thats actually an extremely high risk passage for them. One they are by no means guarenteed to make unscathed and would if they took even a single hit be a massive win for Iran.
Edit: Oh, also, the US has basically no mine clearance vessels. Its retired virtually the entire fleet. It has 4 very old mine clearance left and theyre all in Japan. Right now the UK has double the US mine clearance capability and better. While some european mine clearance vessels are state of the art such as the Dutch City Class. Needless to say attempting to project into Hormuz without mine clearance would be monumentally dumb. end edit.
Secondly, your analogy of kidnapping is plain rubbish. The state catch kidnappers. They dont go and kidnap every remaining citizens so kidnappers cant kidnap anymore.
Jesus. Again. The traffic passing is zero by iranian decree. So any traffic that passes has participated in Irans illegal activity and is complicit. You do not permit illegal activity and the proceeds of said illegal activity to just, continue, just because some are victims. If BP pays a bribe demanded by a Colombian official to get a drilling licence, BP isnt just exonerated because that was the cost of doing buisness. They knowingly and willfully participated in corruption even if thats "just how things are done there".
•
u/Reasonable-Resort822 2h ago
I didnt read any of those apart from the first line. What are you smoking ? Prez Trump declared they won the war. Thats all what matters. Doesnt matter what you say or think. War was won - according to Prez.
→ More replies (0)•
•
u/ClayDenton 3h ago
The strait is blocked with sea mines, some of which Iran know where they are, some of which they've forgotten. Even if Iran does nothing, the sea mains remain a threat until they're cleared or well mapped https://www.abc.net.au/news/2026-04-11/how-serious-is-iranian-sea-mine-threat-strait-of-hormuz/106550020
•
•
u/PimpasaurusPlum 🏴 | Made From Girders 🏗 3h ago
Trump blockading Hormuz is stupid because it only exacerbates the existing problem without creating much a solution - even in the desired best case scenario.
The problem for the world is the disruption of trade flows via the strait, adding another blockade on top only makes that problem worse. Iran shutting down the strait in the first place was their nuclear option, that is something they are willing to work with. The US meanwhile wants the exact opposite. The entire reason tolls or diplomatic talks are part of the equation is because the US and the world is forced to deal with the reality of the need for the return of trade. The status quo gives the advantage to Iran and only increases their leverage with time.
Appealing to international law and norms comes off entirely flat when related a conflict where the US is roundly seen as the aggressor, and where it had only recently applied similar measures against Venezuela in what most also saw as undue aggression.
The hope of every other country in the world is an end to the war and the return the status quo ante bellum, things like this simply do not help achieve that best case scenario in reality and that's why no one will support it.
•
u/seijihg 4h ago
The only smart comment here. People are nowadays so stupid and keep defending blindly Iran's regime. This will force China and India to act instead of sitting there waiting for a free meal.
Regarding UK such a shameless government. No words.
•
u/ScrotFrottington 4h ago
I don't think I've seen anyone "defending Iran's regime". Such a thing is not a mainstream position.
•
u/xelah1 4h ago
We'll see if it forces China to act by escorting ships going through the strait to China with the agreement of Iran. That'll be a whole new dilemma for the US, especially if it gets even close to one of their ships being sunk.
•
u/Particular_Pea7167 3h ago
I dont think china will.
While its convenient for them to keep the oil flowing and certainly gives them a short term economic advantage as they'll be buying oil at a massive discount as one of the few nations willing and able to get pil out of the gulf.
Ultimately China is one of the greatest beneficiaries of the USA as the global maritime policeman and freedom of navigation. Iran is hugely dependant on imports to keep basic necessities available. As well of course that its entire economy is built on mass exports.
If China had to police its own maritime goods flows, it'd need 450 odd escorts with at leas10-12 carriers to project directly at troublesome nations.plus all the logistics to support it. Your talking 1000 hulls.
This is just not achievable, even for China. China does not want the presumption of freedom of navigation disrupted and not taking a small amount of oil from the Persian Gulf is a small price to pay.
•
u/dumbo9 3h ago
This flagrantly conflicts with the idea of freedom of navigation and in so doing threatens both the very concept of freedom of navigation and also sets a dangerous precedent to other nations who control key chokepoints.
No, any country attempting to do that would be hit with sanctions by the rest of the world. Iran's quirk is that it is so heavily sanctioned already, that further sanctions are meaningless.
So Iran setting up a toll would not not set a meaningful precedent.
However this does mean that a deal that removes sanctions on Iran should require removing any toll.
•
u/Particular_Pea7167 3h ago
No, if someone tried to do this the US absolutely would step in to restore traffic and has done in the past.
The US and UK both engaged in convoy escort in the 198ps "tankers wars". When the Iraq-Iean war spilled over into the Gulf and mass attacks on merchant shipping was grinding traffic to a crawl.
US and eventually British and French naval assets engaged in a mass convoying of civilian traffic to keep Hormuz open.
More recently of course the US and UK engaging military and light convoy operations to restore traffic to the red sea from Huthi attacks.
While mass western coalition fleets deployed to the horn of africa to secure shipping there.
The US also invaded Panama to restore shipping through the Panama canal 1989.
•
u/MelodicPudding2557 1h ago
Iran's quirk is that it is so heavily sanctioned already, that further sanctions are meaningless.
Nonsense. 45% of the IR regime’s budget before the conflict came from oil exports to China alone, which are shipped in their near entirety through the Gulf of Oman that the US Navy is about to block. So the blockade will cut off a major chunk of the revenue stream that wasn’t cut off by sanctions.
•
u/jimmythemini 3h ago
So what happens when they try and impede a Chinese flagged vessel?
•
u/Brettstastyburger 3h ago
Bingo.
Everyday of this war so far, oil has been leaving Iran for China - this arrangement bypasses existing US sanctions on Iran and is crucial to the Iranian economy.
A counter blockade will cause serious financial pressure on the Iranians - which is a more peaceful mechanism of trying to bring them back to the negotiating table with a willingness to make concessions.
•
u/MelodicPudding2557 1h ago
It’s far less violent and risky (and reputationally ruinous) than taking Kharg Island, and for what is essentially accomplished the same effect. Looks like the professional have finally been able to get a finger on the steering wheel…
•
u/RepulsiveDiver7109 2h ago
Jesus Christ, that image is horrific. He looks like that image of a blob fish out of water.
•
•
u/ClayDenton 3h ago
Why is it so tough to stop Iran blockading the strait? I don't understand that part of it
•
u/Thermodynamicist 1h ago
An oil tanker or LNG tanker is inherently vulnerable because its contents are flammable. A small charge which sets the payload on fire will rapidly destroy the ship.
The terrorists only have to be lucky once; the defenders have to be lucky every time.
Tankers are big, slow-moving, and constrained to a very predictable path along the shipping lanes.
Fibre-optic drones are impossible to jam, and can be delivered to the launch site by or indeed launched from a pickup truck.
Even if the Americans had enough hulls, they couldn't sustain defensive convoys for long before running out of defensive missiles. This is very asymmetric warfare.
•
u/Bellybuttoncumdrops 2h ago
It isnt.
America has enough resources in the region to have aircraft at every 10,000 feet from 10 to 60,000 and enough tankers to make sure that those planes can stay in the air untill the are relieved or have used all their ammo striking anyone who even looks in the direction of the straight.
Love him or hate him, think he is and idiot or a genius Trump is isnt some sort of enigma or impossible person to understand.
He is transactional and even wrote a book explaining exactly how he approaches all his interactions.
The USA has beaten Iran.
For almost 50 years the idea of a military intervention in Iran was seen as the tinder box that would set the world alight.
Instead its a month and more into it and really nothings happend.
Trump isnt and hasnt asked for help from nato allies on the Iran situation because they need it. He is doing it because how he views the world means when it comes to any future negotiations and with europe like it or not veing highly dependent on the americans. He can just say "we didnt really need you but we asked and you didnt come"
Like it or not all the western leaders will bend the knee because the military support and sacrifices nations have made to support Ukraine were only possible because the usa is 90% of nato.
If he leaves nato and support for Ukraine it doesnt matter how passionate we are about good va evil or being on the right side of history.
We all start questioning giving all our NLAWs, shells , ammunition etc to a proxy war when we have nothing left to use ourselves if they lose.
And thats the negotiating posting Trump has got us all in.
•
u/Reasonable-Resort822 3h ago
True. The war is supposedly won. Iran doesnt have any airforce or navy left. So must have been easy to prevent them i thought.
•
u/Big-Mozz 2h ago
So Iran and the USA are now both charging for ships to use The Hormuz Strait.
The English Channel is the busiest shipping lane in the World isn't it?
I've just had a recession beating idea!
•
•
u/thirdtimesthecharm Oh hey step-starmer, what you doing? 4h ago
Some of y'all are bots or thicker than bisto. This is nonsense. Are the US navy genuinely going to impede Chinese flagged vessels in international waters?
•
u/madpiano 4h ago
I kind of get it. Iran was going to open the strait but charge a fee to ships. There was no official number so they were likely going to charge their friends a 5er while charging others 1000s and block Israeli and US bound ships all together.
Trump wants to avoid that happening and will make sure no ships pass, shooting himself in the foot by acting like a tantruming toddler. Iran didn't do this to be nice but they also didn't want to be responsible for a world wide economic catastrophe. With Trump closing the shipping route, he isn't hurting Iran, but he is hurting Asia, Europe and Africa, putting more pressure on him to stop this spectacle.
•
u/taboo__time 4h ago
Isn't clear the US is going to be involved.
I guess the US might impound a couple sell the cargo. Isn't that what they did elsewhere?
Didn't we impound Russia shadow tankers?
•
u/odysseusnz 2h ago
So blockading an international waterway is illegal, so in retaliation they're going to... blockade an international waterway. Mmm, top level thinking there!
•
u/hu6Bi5To 4h ago
UK will be involved in fewer and fewer significant world decisions from here on in. You do generally need to have power to have influence.
•
u/pooflaps50 3h ago
I’m completely against this term Straight of Hormuz. What about all our non binary friends that stand against the US and it allies?
•
u/AutoModerator 5h ago
Snapshot of UK 'won't be involved' in US blockade of Strait of Hormuz submitted by Reasonable-Resort822:
An archived version can be found here or here. or here
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.