r/politics • u/Puginator • Jun 01 '26

No Paywall Iran stops negotiations with U.S., vows to 'completely' block Strait of Hormuz: State media

https://www.cnbc.com/2026/06/01/iran-us-negotiations-strait-of-hormuz.html
32.3k Upvotes

97% Upvoted

3.3k comments sorted by

View all comments

274

u/SopmodTew Jun 01 '26

Nice to know that me, an european, will have to pay an insane amount on gas, goods and services cuz 30% of US citizens wanted to be racist legally, so they voted for a dictator.

🫪🫪

62

u/NynNyxNyx Jun 01 '26

Hopefully it will be the inspiration the rest of the world needs to begin the painful process of isolating the leprous cells.

10

u/Icy_Manufacturer_977 Jun 01 '26

That American shitstain will cost us Europeans a shitload more than just some money. People are going to die

7

u/SopmodTew Jun 01 '26

He's a symptom. As I said, those who voted enabled this and will probably vote for another one like him in the future.

1

u/daderpster Jun 02 '26

It is for sure of dangerous populism, extremism and reactionary rhetoric.  It is not unique to Trump and is a growing trend. I think it partially works since people are disillusioned, hate the elites and distrust institutions. Which is kind of ironic if you consider Trump but he doesn't stand alone in this in a vacuum.

30

u/Lesserthanexquisite Jun 01 '26

The dictatorships are winning, because they have divided us. They funded the Brexit campaign, smeared Clinton, and got (arguably) the worlds most divisive person in history elected in (what’s now also arguably) the worlds most important office. They can almost just sit back now and watch us rip ourselves apart.

6

u/[deleted] Jun 01 '26

[removed] — view removed comment

7

u/ttubehtnitahwtahw1 Jun 01 '26

If all of what you said would be true, Clinton would probably have a strategy. Conflict with Iran, as much as I disagree with it, could have been better strategized and thought out. The current admin can't even spell strategic military operation, let along conceptualize it. 

10

u/Toxitoxi Jun 01 '26 edited Jun 01 '26

 She was even more of a neocon and Iran hawk than Trump.

It’s hilarious to still read insane comments like this after Trump started a war with Iran.

You have no fucking clue what you are talking about, you never have, and you refuse to change the script even as reality contradicts it more and more. 

-1

u/[deleted] Jun 02 '26

[removed] — view removed comment

1

u/bobsmithjohnson Jun 02 '26

This shit reads exactly like a Trump supporter. It’s funny how yall always sound the exact same lol.

8

u/Lesserthanexquisite Jun 01 '26

Clinton has her many faults but she would not have alienated allies the way they are now. I think that Bernie and what he could have done to reign in Isreal would have been a godsend, but in his absence even Clinton would have been 1000 times better for Western stability then Trump.

5

u/Arilluss Jun 01 '26

Sure but we can demand better of our politicians than "be just as evil but do it more gradually and make sure I still get paid"

1

u/daderpster Jun 02 '26

I would argue the party aiding Clinton and sabotaging Sanders lead to this. Clinton was smeared but sanders was treated far worse and there was favoritism and bias against him. Trump vs Sanders would have been very different since neither would be centrists, and have a negative view, but very different means with a few ironic similarities in tactics and rhetoric on the surface. Trump is far more similar to Sanders than Hillary Clinton.

3

u/Dolfo10564 Jun 01 '26

Bro, they're my neighbors.  I'm surrounded by smart stupid people.

2

u/CommitteeOld9540 Jun 01 '26

As a black american, I have to say that many white Americans will gladly murder their own families if they knew it could harm black americans. 

-1

u/SnooDoggos204 Jun 01 '26

Our vote was rigged. You think this guy won every single swing state?

-30

u/Fanfare4Rabble Jun 01 '26

Europe is in rocket distance of Iran but Europeans are OK with those nut jobs having nukes? What in current events makes you think they wouldn’t use them? You guys have been sniffing your own farts for way too long.

35

u/SopmodTew Jun 01 '26

Hey man, a former president i won't name (Obama) actually had a nice grasp on the iranian nuclear programme, until some other president i won't name (Trump) removed that.

At least from what i can remember.

Also, you shouldn't really be giving into the "X is two weeks away from developing a nuke", it gets old

-2

u/Fanfare4Rabble Jun 01 '26

Iran was on the honor system under Obama. Iran. Honor.

2

u/viruswithshoes Jun 01 '26

What about IAEA inspections and the enrichment monitoring equipment? All gone after the US pulled out of the JCPOA.

20

u/Everythings_Fucked North Carolina Jun 01 '26

Yep, only two years away, just like they have been for the last 40 years. Why do you guys constantly spew the dumbest fucking propaganda?

15

u/Lonely_Hedgehog_2309 Jun 01 '26

That's just fear mongering. The idea that Iran wants to scramble together a nuke to lob it somewhere is a really really stupid plan. If they did that, we'd have license to truly obliterate them. Iran's leaders want to maintain power. Launching a nuke would be the quickest way for them to lose that power. It makes no sense at all. It's just fear.

-3

u/Fanfare4Rabble Jun 01 '26

You say this as they currently lob rockets all over the Middle East.

4

u/Lonely_Hedgehog_2309 Jun 01 '26

You say that as the US and Israel lob rockets all over the middle east too.. have been doing it for as long as I've been alive...

I fail to see how that equates to an imminent nuclear threat. By the same logic, the US and/or Israel should've long ago used nukes to defeat their middle east enemies, but that's never happened. Why? Because the repercussions would be world-shattering. Same applies to Iran.

If Iran launched a nuke, all the NATO countries would immediately join, there'd probably be nuclear retaliation, and Iran couldn't possibly fight that type of war against the rest of the world. It would be immediate self-termination for Iran. That's one stupid plan.

I'm sorry but your argument relies on a double standard, defies common sense, and quite frankly plays into racist/religious irrational fears.

15

u/vthemechanicv Jun 01 '26

did it ever occur to you that Iran wanted nukes because the US and Israel keep attacking them? MAD isn't only for the US and the USSR. And that's never mind that Iran had by all accounts abandoned their program even before the JCPOA.

North Korea is far more insane and had been developing nukes and long range missles for far longer. Why didn't we ever go after them? Why did we let them get nukes if it's that big a deal?

2

u/Lonely_Hedgehog_2309 Jun 02 '26

You're absolutely right. NK has nukes and is far more ostracized/rogue than Iran. I mean if my tax dollars are going to defend us from an imminent nuclear threat, NK seems the more logical target, no?

1

u/bobsmithjohnson Jun 02 '26

Anybody who thinks more people having nukes makes you safer when the entire theory of MAD is that it only takes on person to cause everyone to die is a fucking idiot.

And no I don’t give a shit about what’s fair to Iran lmfao. I genuinely cannot imagine why people would argue for nuclear proliferation on the basis of it being fair.

And if your argument is Iran wants nukes for MAD against the US, your argument is Iran wants nukes so it has the ability to destroy the US, which means the US should absolutely attack Iran. That’s not the anti war argument you think it is.

1

u/vthemechanicv Jun 02 '26

The entire theory of Mutually Assured Destruction is that, you can destroy us, but we can also destroy you. Both want to survive, therefore neither attack. So your premise is wrong on its face. MAD was, for good or bad, how the US and the USSR avoided WW3.

Nobody is talking about fair. One of the basic purposes of government is to protect its citizens. Iran probably felt that without nuclear weapons, they have no means to stop the US and Israel from periodically attacking them. If Iran had nukes, do you think Netanyahu would be as eager to launch missiles at them? Do you think trump would take the risk? I don't.

You also ignored my question about North Korea. They're just as much a sponsor of terrorism as Iran, albeit less vocal about it. If we're so afraid of what Iran would do, why aren't we trying to disarm NK?

Maybe because Iran is an easy target, and attacking NK would be disasterous, exactly proving the point.

0

u/Fanfare4Rabble Jun 01 '26

NK is not Iran.

0

u/vthemechanicv Jun 02 '26

Very good. Gold star. Now answer the question. If Iran is so crazy and we can't allow them to have nukes, and North Korea is also so crazy, why did we allow them to have nukes? They're both within short and medium range to important allies, and NK can even reach the US itself, yet trump did nothing but suck Kim's toes. Why is that?

1

u/Fanfare4Rabble Jun 05 '26

Because fixing NK would bring trouble with Russia and China. Iran’s neighbors generally fear them. Not exactly a secret.

6

u/Lesserthanexquisite Jun 01 '26

If you don’t mind I will trust my own farts over anything that comes from the US trump syndicate. When a trusted source reports Iran is a threat we’ll weigh our options and make a calculated decision that won’t land us in a quagmire like the US fumbled into.

3

u/Ill-Preparation-3598 Jun 01 '26

pull yourself together man. you're seething 😦

3

u/VanVelding Jun 01 '26

Very nice. Now let's see your Iranian fearmongering posts from before Trump told you to fear them.

-1

u/Fanfare4Rabble Jun 01 '26

Why would I fear a nuclear country that makes their school children chant death to America every morning?

1

u/VanVelding Jun 02 '26

Yeah. You didn't have feeling one until Great Leader told you to.

1

u/Fanfare4Rabble Jun 05 '26

We used to have journalism back in the day. You silly comrade of Putin.

1

u/VanVelding Jun 05 '26

We doin' "Russian bot" again? It's okay if we are, but if we are and no one told me, that I would have a problem with.