Trump wants other countries to help reopen the Strait of Hormuz. That might not be so easy.
S E E D E D C O N T E N T
U.S. allies and rivals responded cautiously after President Donald Trump said they should police the Strait of Hormuz, as Iranian threats to strike shipping on the vital trade route continue to cause chaos in global markets.
"Many countries, especially those who are affected by Iran's attempted closure of the Hormuz Strait, will be sending War Ships" to secure the shipping route, he posted Saturday on Truth Social, listing China, France, Japan, South Korea, the U.K. and "others" among the nations he hoped would provide support.
"The U.S. will also coordinate with those Countries so that everything goes quickly, smoothly, and well. This should have always been a team effort, and now it will be," he added in a subsequent post.
The Strait of Hormuz, which links the Persian Gulf to the open ocean, is a key trade artery through which around a fifth of the world's oil passes, carried by about 3,000 ships sailing through the corridor each month. But numerous ships have come under attack in the area since the war began two weeks ago, all but bringing a halt to the trade and leading to a dramatic rise in oil prices.
In a phone interview with NBC News on Saturday, Trump said several countries would help secure the strait. "They've not only committed, but they think it's a great idea," he said. Energy Secretary Chris Wright told NBC News' "Meet the Press" on Sunday that he expects China to be a "constructive partner" in reopening the strait.
But the nations Trump listed in his original post, which have all been affected by the strait's closure, have so far responded tepidly to Trump's request for support.
Tokyo, a close ally of the U.S., has not officially responded to Trump's call. Its foreign ministry told Japanese outlet NHK that Japan would not immediately dispatch naval vessels at Trump's request, saying: "Japan decides its own response, and independent judgment is fundamental."
The French government did not immediately respond to the request. While it has already deployed ships to reassure allies in the wider region, and French President Emmanuel Macron has previously raised the prospect of escorting ships through the strait in the future, its foreign ministry said on X Saturday that its ships would remain in a "defensive" posture in the eastern Mediterranean.
A spokesperson for the Chinese Embassy in Washington told CNN that China is calling for an immediate cessation of hostilities, without any direct response to Trump's request.
British Energy Secretary Ed Miliband told NBC News' British broadcasting partner Sky News on Sunday that "the best and most conclusive way to get the Strait reopened is to get this conflict to come to an end," though he said the U.K. was "talking to our allies, including the U.S." on any help that could be provided.
He said there are "a range of things" being looked at, including the provision of "autonomous minehunting equipment."
South Korea's presidential office said Sunday that it would carefully review the request.
"We are taking note of President Trump's remarks on social media. South Korea and the United States will continue to communicate closely and carefully review the matter before making the decision," South Korea's presidential office told NBC News on Sunday.
While it remains to be seen what action these nations could eventually take in response to any looming economic crises, their lukewarm response appears to pour cold water on any hopes Trump may have had for a quick resolution to the blockade.
"The countries Trump named have all gone quiet, which is quite telling," H.A. Hellyer, a senior associate fellow at the Royal United Services Institute in London, told NBC News. France is "the closest thing to a yes," he said, though even Macron is talking about something "purely defensive."
"That's a long way from an actual mission, and I don't expect one to happen. More investment will go into de-escalation efforts in my opinion," he added.
Hellyer said that even if a coalition did form, "safe passage isn't guaranteed," with mines, drones, boats and anti-ship missiles all a threat, thoughts echoed by Michael A. Horowitz, a geopolitical and security analyst.
"Protecting ships is a very big gamble," he said. "On the operational side, you're putting military assets inside a very narrow corridor, giving Iran multiple opportunities to hit at short distance."
To suppress these threats, Horowitz told NBC News, "you need more than aerial and naval power: You'd need boots on the ground, along key areas of the coast."
In any case, Horowitz said he was skeptical that such a force could stabilize markets. "Just one attack is enough to suspend traffic," he said. "The bar is really high to create enough confidence to lift the de facto closure."
Some countries, meanwhile, appear to be attempting to negotiate safe passage with Iran.
Iran's Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi confirmed to CBS News on Sunday that "we have been approached by a number of countries who wants to have a safe passage for their vessels." He said: "This is up to our military to decide, and they have already decided to let, you know, a group of vessels belonging to different countries to pass."
Trump, who has previously been bullish about reopening the shipping route through military might as the U.S. bombs Iran, appeared to acknowledge Saturday that it would be more challenging to stop Tehran from attacking ships.
"We have already destroyed 100% of Iran's Military capability, but it's easy for them to send a drone or two, drop a mine, or deliver a close range missile somewhere along, or in, this Waterway, no matter how badly defeated they are," he wrote on Truth Social.
The acknowledgement came a day after Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth suggested that the blocked strategic waterway was not a major concern. "We have been dealing with it and don't need to worry about it," he told a press conference on Friday.
Trump's call on European allies for support in the war, meanwhile, comes a week after he told the U.K.'s Prime Minister Keir Starmer that British aircraft carriers were not needed in the region.
In a Truth Social post addressing Starmer last Saturday, Trump said: "We don't need them any longer — But we will remember. We don't need people that join Wars after we've already won!"
Tensions with European allies have been high amid the conflict, with Trump having earlier clashed with the U.K. and Spain over the use of their military bases.
"This is not Winston Churchill that we're dealing with," Trump said after Starmer refused to allow the U.S. to use British bases as part of its initial strikes, only later allowing the use of its bases for "defensive" actions.
A day later, after Spain barred U.S. military planes from using its jointly operated bases in Andalusia, Trump said the U.S. would seek to "cut off all trade with Spain," a member of the European Union's single market.
Tags
Who is online
120 visitors
Trump has lost control of the chaos and now he's begging for lifelines. A coalition of convenience, created after the fact, is nothing more than another gimmick to shift blame.
Not the first time those waters have been used as a political tool by surrounding nations and it won’t be the last. Not until a Mr Fusion is invented to power your car that is.
He needs the rest of the world to clean up the mess he is making. Typical.
I find this tacit support of Iran, because of hatred for Trump, to be an interesting development in a decades old problem.
Oh and you do know the single biggest reason countries like Iran haven’t been able to blackmail the rest of the world with the Straits of Hormuz whenever they want for six or so decades right?
About time others who rely on it pitch in.
It shows the hatred goes deeper than most rational people thought.
Yep, don’t believe most even recognize what they are doing. Essentially giving aid and comfort to an enemy.
It would be interesting if it were true, but it’s not. First of all, other than countries like Russia and China, no one is “supporting” Iran. Desiring peace over war is not “supporting” whatever enemy you might fight in war. Additionally, preferring peace has nothing to do with Trump.
If you think you can support your idea that there is support for Iran, or that the desire to not go to war with them is rooted in a hatred of a Trump, you should support that claim with evidence and a persuasive argument, rather than just declaring it as axiomatic.
Two things can be true without being related. People can dislike Trump and prefer to not go to war with Iran. In fact, you mention that it’s a decade’s old issue. I agree with that, which demonstrates that it’s not because of Trump.
”Others who rely on it” didn’t disrupt the traffic through Hormuz. Trump did that all by himself.
There are examples on how to do this right that Trump could have followed. Republican examples. Both Presidents Bush went to war with Iraq, and each time, they made the case to Congress, the American people, and international allies before going to war. Through this process, each was able to build coalitions of 40+ countries that helped in all facets of those wars.
But Trump, decides all on his own - ok, with Israel - to go to war with Iran, which has a much more formidable military than Iraq ever had and now he’s looking around for help. He’s an imbecile.
show me one person on here who is supporting Iran.
You can't. These lies need to stop
Sounds like an invitation for a ticket for META not to mention the fact I never specified here.
That being said using the logic by several here (no names) If people want the war to stop they are not only supporting Iran but making freedom for women there impossible to attain.
I was referring to the comment you quoted. I won't reply to him.
trmp is making freedom for women in the US harder and harder to RETAIN
Such a sophomoric analysis of the situation. First, if it was “only” Russia and China supporting Iran that would be formidable enough for most but it hardly stops there. You have other State supporters like North Korea, Syria and Venezuela. Trade partners like India and Turkey. Not to mention Lebanon, Gaza, Yemen. Hamas, Hezbollah, Houthi’s and other anti western militias supported by Iran. Most people desire peace. They don’t. Few can grasp the steps required to really secure it. And it ain’t always popcorn and cotton candy.
So true. Two things can be true without being related. Like preferring to not going to war and realizing there is a place and time for everything. Or that people can dislike Trump but still support his actions. I know that last one is real foreign territory for the triggered but there it is just the same.
Sure, for the most part they sleep well knowing that if the shit hits the fan in that region the US will be there to protect their interests. Hoping beyond hope that a suitcase Nuc finds some other city than their own. Fingers crossed now ya hear.
Oh yeah, that turned out top notch and prevented known State Sponsors of terror like Iran from developing Nuclear Weapons. Oh wait ……
[deleted][✘]
Why use quotes for something I didn’t say? I said “countries like Russia and China.” I didn’t say “only.” I mean, you can either discuss this honestly or you can’t.
The shit hitting the fan is not what happened here. Assign responsibility where it is deserved. The United States hit Iran. This wasn’t something done by someone else. The US is the one causing the current crisis. We aren’t protecting anyone’s interests. We are the ones jeopardizing them.
First of all, those wars were against IRAQ, not IRAN. Do you not see the difference between a Q and an N?
And then, you either missed or deliberately disregarded the point of my observation, which was that Presidents Bush did not have to go begging for help after starting a war, the way Trump is. The help was already in place. Trump is incompetent.
When it comes to Iran, the shit has been hitting the fan for nearly 50 years. To think otherwise is naive as hell.
Splat, right over your head. Look up the word geopolitics. For reference, there is no Q or N in that word. None of those actions slowed Irans support for anti western terrorist group’s or militias in Iraq or elsewhere. And you brought up those wars in Iraq not me.
Iran is culpable in countless attacks and deaths of Americans and others in those wars and elsewhere via material and psychological support. Now, they are close to fielding nuclear weapons. A fact no one but Iran and the terrorists they support thinks is a good idea. Trumps doing something about it while the TDS left and others continue to wail and gnash their teeth in sanctimonious outrage.
But perhaps you are right. Perhaps just one more year of trying to talk it out with Iran would have fixed everything after 50 years of trying. Just perhaps …./S
[✘]
It doesn’t seem like you actually want to have a conversation. You seem to be more in the mood to rant - in random directions. I will give it one last try.
Then I think you need to define what you think you mean by shit hitting the fan and why it’s relevant. It seems like it’s a pretty fluid term for you. I maintain that the United States started a war, and that is distinct from a traditional understanding of “shit hitting the fan” unless you acknowledge that it is the US doing the shit-throwing.
No. If you have a point to make, make it yourself. You took a reference to wars against Iraq - which had goals specific to that country - into a conclusion about Iran. And you continue to deliberately ignore my point about building a coalition. My stress on the value of that kind of diplomatic effort - particularly in the context of this seed - has nothing whatsoever to do with whether or not I think force against Iran is warranted.
I am right? I have not taken the position that we should be negotiating with Iran. Again, you are reacting to something I did not say. You know who did have that position? The Trump administration. They have been negotiating with Iran. Or they were until we attacked Iran in the midst of negotiations. So if you want to attack someone for advocating negotiations, maybe attack Trump.
Morning Sparts..
Why would other countries support the war when the US has done the dirty on so many Allies economic wise and more of less said, up yours?
Why doesn't the US ask the other countries attacked by Iran why they aren't retaliating?
Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Bahrain, UAE etc?? I wouldn't ask Kuwait they are to busy shooting US planes down by mistake.. almost makes you think it could have been deliberate...
Allied countries around the world aren't rushing anywhere...the general attitude is give Trump enough rope and he will hang himself..
The days of follow the leader rushing into War are long gone..you started it, you finish it.. because these days governments tend to get voted out with extremely unpopular decisions going to war and the pollies are to busy with their snouts in the trough.. it's called self preservation..
And no I don't support Iran, Russia, North Korea, China or any other tin pot regime country that suppresses it's people....
I make up my own mind and my own conclusions..do I support Israel yes, do I support the US yes, but with the leader you have at the moment that makes it extremely hard..
We are certainly counting the days down as are many other people around the world to your next election...
Oy Shona,
Tough to make up your own mind with the media bias the last ten years or so but what I do know, that doesn’t get reported regularly. Saudi Arabia, UAE and Bahrain have directly supported the actions in Iran. This is because Iran has long support opposition forces in those countries. Not unlike their support of insurgents during the Iraq, Syrian and Afghanistan wars. Much of the IED’s tech blowing our people up there had an Iranian source. Much coalition blood on their hands to be sure.
Support has also come from the U.K., France and Greece. Mainly logistical support.
Trump is certainly his own worst enemy with his mouth but I believe the mission to be righteous. Iran has been the largest state sponsor of terror in world for decades with no end in sight and as they get closer to developing Nucs, what’s everyone else’s solution. More stern words?
So yeah, I hear what you’re saying but I have seen little to no success in the past trying to reign in Iran tyrannical nature. Funny thing is (not funny ha ha) is if Iran pops a Nuc somewhere who do you think will get blamed? That’s right, the country and guy trying to actively stop it. The USA and Trump.
I think you will find most countries would offer their full support if you had any other leader than Trump..
He is somewhat unstable shoots his mouth off, treads on toes, treats allies with disdain, gloats we are the greatest and then when it starts going pear shaped..we want help from other allied countries..huh?
We are all very well aware of Iran, it's intentions and it's capabilities.. it's a country you don't underestimate nor ignore..the same applies to China, Russia, North Korea etc..
Trump has just said Iran has been decimated?? Yep that's why Iran is still sending drones and missiles up..and this could easily turn into another Afghanistan or to Russia's embarrassment an on going war with Ukraine..
Putin thought it would be a pushover, meanwhile 4 years later...he so miscalculated the Ukraine people..just like Trump maybe miscalculating the Iranian people..
‘Oh and you do know the single biggest reason countries like Iran haven’t been able to blackmail the rest of the world with the Straits of Hormuz whenever they want for six or so decades right?’
Ohh ohhh i know… my eight deployments to the Persian Gulf, ESPECIALLY on three aircraft carriers, can tell you.
‘trmp is making freedom for women in the US harder and harder to RETAIN’
examples?
I know, lol.
A beautifully cherry-picked comment. Outstanding!
I'm trying to look at this through the lens of another world leader.
If I'm the president of Norway or Portugal or even Italy, why would I get involved in this?
What do I possibly have to gain?
I don’t know. Maybe honoring your commitments to the EU and/or NATO.
NATO does not work like that. An attack on one is an attack on all. That’s the agreement. But if one member goes around starting wars, the rest are not obligated to take part.
Don't the commitments to NATO involve a member state being attacked?
How is the EU involved?
And yet, NATO is supporting Ukraine.
Portugal and Italy are EU nations. You brought them up. How many EU nations rely on goods traversing the Straits of Hormuz?
With troops?
The president is specifically calling for warships.
In some cases yes. For training and otherwise
Do Portugal and Italy rely on goods coming through those Straits?
Yes, I brought them up. Are we talking about "goods" or "oil"?
Most of the oil going through the Strait of Hormuz isn't headed to the EU anyway. Kuwait and UAE oil primarily goes to Asia.
Isn't the primary product coming through the strait oil?
Italy gets most of theirs from other Kazakhstan and Azerbaijan through pipelines. Portugal gets most of its oil from Brazil and Libya.
The primary pinch seems to be in China, which some people say is part of the global strategy behind overturning leadership in both Venezuela and Iran.
NATO is primarily working in defense of neighboring countries that ARE a part of NATO. NATO has not put boots on the ground in Ukraine, they've just sold Ukraine some stuff and trained them how to use it.
"What do I possibly have to gain?""
safety and prosperity
Most NATO countries already have that, Russia represents the more immediate threat, and the US should have more than enough firepower to handle Iran.
Yeah, that worked out great for them using Russian oil and Natural gas.
How what worked out, exactly?
Look, if I'm sitting in my office in Helsinki... closer to a dozen Russian military bases than I am to Stockholm, and you want me to send warships on an 8,000 mile cruise to help out with a conflict you've said you can end at any time, I'm gonna politely decline and keep my eye on Putin.
Google Nord Steam 2
Trump opposed that. Strongly and for good reason. I guess Putin must have lost the pee tapes.
Trump's approval.
If I'm the leader of Japan or South Korea, I'd be very concerned because most of the oil they depend on comes through the straight. It is true for many countries.
But, here is the thing: They know that it is the US, specifically President Trump that needs to wrap this up quickly, so why risk their militaries?
They can just sit back and let the US do it all for them.
I get that, but they're not in NATO.
If I'm the leader of Japan or South Korea, I'm going to be very sure not to piss off my largest oil supplier. If Trump decides this is dragging on too close to the midterm elections and decides to declare "victory" and withdraw without the Islamists being overthrown, I'll need to go back to buying oil from these people.
Exactly.
It looks to me like Trump acted on Israeli intelligence, and that they may have overestimated the willingness of the regular Iranians to rise up.
He trashes NATO, pulls out of various international agreements, trash talks other countries, hits many countries with harsh global tariffs based on his whims, pretends to be a leader when he isolates America with idiotic isolationist tough talk that backfires every time!
Why would any country fail their own people following the whims of a man who clearly cannot do the job at home, who is demanding other countries go and clean up his mess?
NATO no help, probably couldn’t if they wanted to. As some point you’d think they’d try and pull the pro weight out of pride but nope. They are dependents not allies,
NATO is supposed to come to the aid of other member countries whoare attacked.
But what started this current war was not because we were attacked! We started it this time-- we attacked Iran!
Ok, but two things can be true at once.
Yes, we attacked Iran and yes. NATO are more dependents than allies whose help would be limited anyway.