this post was submitted on 29 Mar 2026

156 points (98.1% liked)

World News

55101 readers

2504 users here now

A community for discussing events around the World

Rules:

Rule 1: posts have the following requirements:
- Post news articles only
- Video links are NOT articles and will be removed.
- Title must match the article headline
- Not United States Internal News
- Recent (Past 30 Days)
- Screenshots/links to other social media sites (Twitter/X/Facebook/Youtube/reddit, etc.) are explicitly forbidden, as are link shorteners.
Rule 2: Do not copy the entire article into your post. The key points in 1-2 paragraphs is allowed (even encouraged!), but large segments of articles posted in the body will result in the post being removed. If you have to stop and think "Is this fair use?", it probably isn't. Archive links, especially the ones created on link submission, are absolutely allowed but those that avoid paywalls are not.
Rule 3: Opinions articles, or Articles based on misinformation/propaganda may be removed.
Rule 4: Posts or comments that are homophobic, transphobic, racist, sexist, anti-religious, or ableist will be removed. “Ironic” prejudice is just prejudiced.
Posts and comments must abide by the lemmy.world terms of service UPDATED AS OF OCTOBER 19 2025
Rule 5: Keep it civil. It's OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It's NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.

Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.

Rule 6: Memes, spam, other low effort posting, reposts, misinformation, advocating violence, off-topic, trolling, offensive, regarding the moderators or meta in content may be removed at any time.
Rule 7: We didn't USED to need a rule about how many posts one could make in a day, then someone posted NINETEEN articles in a single day. Not comments, FULL ARTICLES. If you're posting more than say, 10 or so, consider going outside and touching grass. We reserve the right to limit over-posting so a single user does not dominate the front page.

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

Lemmy World Partners

News !news@lemmy.world

Politics !politics@lemmy.world

World Politics !globalpolitics@lemmy.world

Recommendations

How to spot Misinformation and Propaganda

For Firefox users, there is media bias / propaganda / fact check plugin.

https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/media-bias-fact-check/

Consider including the article’s mediabiasfactcheck.com/ link

founded 2 years ago

MODERATORS

NewsAutoMod@lemmy.world

Tenthrow@lemmy.world

little_cow@lemmy.world

lemmyAtom@lemmy.world

jordanlund@lemmy.world

156

Iran has a new demand to end the war – and it could bring in billions (edition.cnn.com)

submitted 1 day ago by MicroWave@lemmy.world to c/world@lemmy.world

36 comments fedilink hide all child comments

When an Iranian official this week laid out a list of demands to end the war started by the United States and Israel, he added an item that hadn’t been on Tehran’s list before: recognition of Iran’s sovereignty over the Strait of Hormuz.

The narrow waterway through which a fifth of the world’s oil and liquefied natural gas (LNG) ordinarily passes has emerged as the Islamic Republic’s most potent weapon. And it is now seeking to turn into both a source of potentially billions of dollars in annual revenue and a pressure point on the global economy.

Iran has long threatened to close the strait in case of an attack, but few expected it to follow through – or for it to prove so effective in disrupting global trade flows. The scale of the impact appears to have expanded Tehran’s ambitions, with the new demands suggesting it is seeking to turn that leverage into something more durable.

all 37 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old

[–] Clbull@lemmy.world 5 points 2 hours ago* (last edited 2 hours ago)

Yeah, I'm sure Iraq, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Bahrain, the UAE and Oman would be thrilled to see Trump and Netanyahu effectively cede control of the entire Strait over to their rival. Especially when they've wanted zero part to play in this conflict.

And it's so blindingly obvious that Trump started this whole spat in the first place to skyrocket oil prices and give an excuse to buy Russian oil and prop up Putin's failing war machine.

Trump at this point is like a giant fat fucking toddler and we're here to clean up his mess.

[–] Uranus_Hz@lemmy.zip 83 points 1 day ago (4 children)

Iran should include demanding the release of all Epstein documents.

[–] atcorebcor@sh.itjust.works 5 points 4 hours ago (1 children)

They would just do the whole “we don’t negotiate with terrorists spiel”

[–] ILikeBoobies@lemmy.ca 3 points 3 hours ago

Iran is a UN recognized state. They aren't terrorists.

[–] Aceticon@lemmy.dbzer0.com 4 points 5 hours ago* (last edited 3 hours ago)

That might ultimatelly be good for America and Americans, so why would Iran ever do something like that?

I mean, if America was a society with humanitarian values were what's happenned now with Trump was an exception, it would make sense, but historically the US has been in war most of its existence, of late most of it being in the Middle East causing the deaths of millions of civilians, and very few people in the US were actually against it as a question of principle and even now most are only against it because "American money", "American lives" or "Gas prices in America" so it's clearly not a society of good people who normally uphold good values and is just momentarilly under the control of evil people.

The US is not a society where most people think that innocent lives are sacred, be it at home or abroad.

[–] Geobloke@aussie.zone 4 points 9 hours ago

Trump would happily throw us all at killbots before that happened

[–] Steve@startrek.website 40 points 23 hours ago (1 children)

Iran should demand Trump himself be turned over to stand trial

[–] anomnom@sh.itjust.works 19 points 16 hours ago

Probably get better results taking Netanyahu, but they should really do both.

[–] MolochHorridus@piefed.social 41 points 1 day ago (4 children)

Seeing how well Iran did actually close and keep selectively closed the Strait of Hormuz it seems fair to give them the sovereignty.

[–] hildegarde@lemmy.blahaj.zone 42 points 20 hours ago* (last edited 20 hours ago) (2 children)

Iran is on one side of the strait, Oman is on the other. Giving Iran sovereignty would mean taking away sovereignty from Oman. Countries are supposed to be able to control their own coastlines and territorial waters.

The strait is narrow enough that there is no buffer of international waters in the middle at its narrowest. Giving one country sovereignty of the whole strait would mean violating the the sovereignty of another. Not a fair proposition.

[–] AdolfSchmitler@lemmy.world 1 points 2 hours ago

Oh man not Oman

[+] partofthevoice@lemmy.zip -5 points 20 hours ago (2 children)

[deleted]

[–] Aceticon@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 points 5 hours ago* (last edited 5 hours ago)

By international treaty, in a maritime border were one country is in one side and a different one in another, like that, the border sits right smack in the middle, equidistant of both sides, so soverignty over that Straight is divided.

What Iran has at the moment is the power to limit what passes there, but Oman could have the exact same thing if they so chose, since Oman too could do the same thing - for exactly the same reason Oman cannot stop Iran from attacking ships there (it's a lot harder to protect civilian ships in range of land-based artillery/drones than to attack them), Iran would not be able to stop Oman from doing exactly the same.

So if Iran tried to have actual sovereignty over the whole Straight (full control, not just the ability to stop traffic there), Oman could fuck them up by doing exactly the same thing that Iran is doing now - it's a game that two can play.

It's generally agreed to officially put the border (and assign sovereignty) right in the middle in a situation like that exactly because otherwise the country on the side which "lost" would start fucking things up in that channel for all users.

The only way for Iran to officially get sovereignty of the whole Straight would be to conquer and occupy the land on the other side, and I doubt Iran has the capability to do so.

[–] notastatist@feddit.org 9 points 19 hours ago (1 children)

How can sovereignity be shared?

[–] partofthevoice@lemmy.zip 2 points 17 hours ago* (last edited 17 hours ago)

It can’t, I thought. I was asking like, “Sovereignty can be shared?” Not like “Sovereignty can be shared?!”

[–] SlurpingPus@lemmy.world 5 points 15 hours ago (1 children)

There's this clunky thing standing in the way of that, called international law.

[–] Aqarius@lemmy.world 9 points 4 hours ago (1 children)

What, we suddenly give a shit about that again?

[–] rarsamx@lemmy.ca 1 points 2 hours ago (1 children)

Just when the "bad guys" are breaking it, when it's our guys, breaking stupid international law is OK.

[–] 8oow3291d@feddit.dk 1 points 2 hours ago

So both the US and Iran are breaking international law against each other.

But Iran is also breaking the right given by international law against neutral nations in this conflict. By restricting their right to shipping. Those nations have every moral and legal right to complain about Iran.

[–] frongt@lemmy.zip 13 points 1 day ago (1 children)

The UAE or Oman could probably do that as well if they wanted to.

[–] NoneOfUrBusiness@fedia.io 12 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Not really. You basically have to be either a superpower or a pariah state to do something like this and not be immediately pummeled into oblivion.

[–] Aceticon@lemmy.dbzer0.com 2 points 5 hours ago (1 children)

They could just target any ships from or to Iranian ports or of nations which support Iran with artillery or drones.

It's exactly because it's so stupidly easy to attack civilian ships in a space like that whilst it's very hard to defend against it that Iran is able to do so even whilst under attack by American and Israel, so the country on the other side could do the same thing and only target Iranian or Iran-related ships.

Two can play the "fuck the other side's ship" game there.

[–] 8oow3291d@feddit.dk 2 points 2 hours ago

Exactly. 90% of Iran's oil leave by sea, via Kharg island.

If Iran turns to piracy by threatening "pay or we sink your ships" at all other nations, then all other nations should just confiscate all Iran's ships in return.

Oil revenues are 35% of Iran's budget. This should not be a can of worms that Iran wants to open.

[+] panthera_@lemmy.today -11 points 1 day ago (3 children)

This is the proposal that should be offered to Iran. Iran will be permitted to pursue its nuclear program as long as it's for peaceful purposes. Iran will be strictly monitored for compliance. Any violation will result in invasion by the US, Europe, and any other nations willing to join in. If Iran agrees to the proposal, all sanctions will be immediately lifted. It's unnecessary for Iran to have sovereignty over the Strait of Hormuz. If sanctions are lifted, Iran will be making money from oil and other exports. Unlike Trump's 15-point peace plan, mine is simple.

[–] nova_ad_vitum@lemmy.ca 4 points 3 hours ago

This is basically just the Obama Iran deal. It was working pretty much exactly like this until Trump tore it up and began in multiple rounds attacking Iran.

After this war, Iran has no reason to sign such a deal especially since Trump and Israel will just tear it up whenever they want. Iran needs security guarantees which your deal doesn't provide.

[–] mlg@lemmy.world 13 points 22 hours ago (1 children)

I can't tell if you're taking the piss at the agreement made under Obama or if you're actually serious.

[–] panthera_@lemmy.today -3 points 22 hours ago (2 children)

If my proposal resembles Obama's that's fine. Accept his. My desire is for peace.

[–] Bazell@lemmy.zip 5 points 10 hours ago (1 children)

Who do you think attacked first and, more importantly, why do you think Iran tried to get nukes in first place?

[–] panthera_@lemmy.today 1 points 4 hours ago (1 children)

Iran has claimed that its nuclear program is for peaceful purposes. My proposal enables Iranian leaders to save face since they can claim their nuclear program has always been for peaceful purposes. It saves Trump's face because he can claim that he only wanted Iran not to have nuclear weapons.

[–] Bazell@lemmy.zip 1 points 3 hours ago* (last edited 3 hours ago)

Why do you even want to save Trump's face? The only thing that you may want to protect is the dignity of the whole USA nation, since many ordinary people don't support this war.

[–] mlg@lemmy.world 9 points 21 hours ago

[–] Brkdncr@lemmy.world 8 points 1 day ago (3 children)

I would prefer a UN-style nuclear agency that builds and maintains power-generating facilities independent of geo politics.

Their goal should be to provide power anywhere that isn’t completely unstable and the receiving country has to amend their constitution to acknowledge that the power gets turned off if they fuck around.

[–] SlurpingPus@lemmy.world 2 points 15 hours ago* (last edited 15 hours ago)

Iirc two largest manufacturers of reactors are China and Russia. Plus you need to buy the fuel, with post-Soviet countries, especially Kazakhstan, being the largest exporters. Good luck with the independence from geopolitics.

[–] Vex_Detrause@lemmy.ca 3 points 23 hours ago

Who decides who “fucks” around? If it’s for humanitarian purposes why not the power stays if there’s a human on the other end using it.

[–] panthera_@lemmy.today 2 points 22 hours ago (1 children)

Innovative idea but who would pay for the reactors and remove the radioactive waste?

[–] Brkdncr@lemmy.world 2 points 19 hours ago

We already do things like this for other areas such as defense, healthcare, etc.