US strikes Iran after cargo ship attack in Strait of Hormuz

https://apple.news/Al1zrdtZaSsK55sbcIKiZSw

7 minutes ago, 3NUMBAS said:

https://apple.news/Al1zrdtZaSsK55sbcIKiZSw

US strikes Iran after cargo ship attack in Strait of Hormuz

Who cares anymore....gas prices have dropped significantly. Isn't that what all the fuss was about a few months ago ?

I don't see anyone posting about that.

4 minutes ago, blaze master said:

Who cares anymore....gas prices have dropped significantly. Isn't that what all the fuss was about a few months ago ?

I don't see anyone posting about that.

Lots of people care, whether they realise it or not.

This isn't just about oil prices. Around 20% of the world's oil consumption and roughly 20% of global LNG exports pass through the Strait of Hormuz. It is arguably the most important maritime chokepoint on the planet.

Iran's objective has long been to use that position as leverage. Reports indicate the Omani side of the recognised shipping lanes has been mined, forcing vessels towards Iranian-controlled waters. If ships are effectively compelled to seek Iranian permission, pay "security fees", or face delays, the cost of moving goods rises immediately.

Those costs don't stop at the fuel pump. Every container ship, tanker and LNG carrier pays more for insurance, security, fuel, crew time and freight. Those increases ripple through the global economy.

That means higher prices for plastics, fertilisers, chemicals, food production, pharmaceuticals, medical gases such as helium, manufactured goods, and ultimately almost everything that has to be transported.

This is also why freedom of navigation matters. The Strait of Hormuz is an international waterway. Under international maritime law, it isn't supposed to become a geopolitical toll booth controlled by whichever state happens to border it. If that principle is allowed to disappear, the consequences extend far beyond the Middle East.

Imagine if Singapore or Malaysia suddenly decided every ship passing through the Strait of Malacca had to pay them $2 million simply because the ships passed their coastline.

Or Denmark decided to charge every vessel using the Danish Straits to enter or leave the Baltic Sea.

Or Indonesia decided to impose a toll on ships transiting the Lombok or Sunda Straits.

Or Spain and Morocco started charging vessels to pass through the Strait of Gibraltar.

Or The UK and France charged for shipping though the English Channel.

The world wouldn't tolerate it for five minutes. These are international waterways, not private toll roads. Countries bordering them don't get to monetise them simply because geography put them there.

The Strait of Hormuz is no different. If nations were allowed to charge whatever they liked, or threaten to close strategic waterways whenever they wanted political leverage, global trade would become a hostage to geography.

That's precisely why international maritime law protects freedom of navigation through these straits and why Iran 'needs' to be controlled and stopped - its precisely why they were prevented from leveraging their position with nuclear capability in the first place.

8 minutes ago, richard_smith237 said:

Imagine if Singapore or Malaysia suddenly decided every ship passing through the Strait of Malacca had to pay them $2 million simply because the ships passed their coastline.

Or Denmark decided to charge every vessel using the Danish Straits to enter or leave the Baltic Sea.

Or Indonesia decided to impose a toll on ships transiting the Lombok or Sunda Straits.

Or Spain and Morocco started charging vessels to pass through the Strait of Gibraltar.

Or The UK and France charged for shipping though the English Channel.

Why are you trying to compare any of these nations to what has happened with the Iran situation?

9 minutes ago, richard_smith237 said:

That's precisely why international maritime law protects freedom of navigation through these straits and why Iran 'needs' to be controlled and stopped - its precisely why they were prevented from leveraging their position with nuclear capability in the first place

Was Iran blocking the strait before the US bombed them ?

17 minutes ago, blaze master said:

29 minutes ago, richard_smith237 said:

Imagine if Singapore or Malaysia suddenly decided every ship passing through the Strait of Malacca had to pay them $2 million simply because the ships passed their coastline.

Or Denmark decided to charge every vessel using the Danish Straits to enter or leave the Baltic Sea.

Or Indonesia decided to impose a toll on ships transiting the Lombok or Sunda Straits.

Or Spain and Morocco started charging vessels to pass through the Strait of Gibraltar.

Or The UK and France charged for shipping though the English Channel.

Why are you trying to compare any of these nations to what has happened with the Iran situation?

Because the geography is directly comparable. These are natural maritime chokepoints through which a significant proportion of global trade passes. The difference is that no other nation has seriously sought to assert unilateral control over an international waterway in order to extract political or economic concessions.

For decades Iran has used the Strait of Hormuz as leverage, repeatedly threatening to restrict or close it whenever sanctions or military pressure intensified. Until the recent conflict, the discussion centred almost entirely on disruption rather than monetisation. The idea of charging for passage was rarely discussed publicly, but the strategic concern has always been the same: if Iran could establish effective control over the Strait, it could dictate the terms of access.

Recent events simply represent that strategy evolving from threatening to deny passage to attempting to regulate, and potentially profit from, passage itself.

The sanctions that prompted many of these threats were not imposed in isolation. They stemmed from Iran's nuclear programme, ballistic missile activities, and its support for armed proxy groups across the region, including the Hezbollah, Hamas, Palestinian Islamic Jihad (PIJ), Houthis / Ansar Allah, Kata'ib Hezbollah, Asa'ib Ahl al-Haq, Harakat Hezbollah al-Nujaba.... Iran has repeatedly used the Strait as one of its principal strategic bargaining chips in response.

17 minutes ago, blaze master said:

29 minutes ago, richard_smith237 said:

That's precisely why international maritime law protects freedom of navigation through these straits and why Iran 'needs' to be controlled and stopped - its precisely why they were prevented from leveraging their position with nuclear capability in the first place

Was Iran blocking the strait before the US bombed them ?

Yes. Iran has spent decades using the Strait of Hormuz as a strategic bargaining chip. While it did not maintain a continuous blockade before the US strikes, it repeatedly threatened to close the Strait whenever sanctions or military pressure increased, and regularly interfered with international shipping.

During the 1980-88 Tanker War, Iran attacked commercial shipping and laid naval mines. More recently, similar threats and acts of coercion occurred in 2008, 2011-12 (following Western oil sanctions), 2018 (after the US withdrew from the nuclear agreement), 2019 (during the tanker crisis), and repeatedly between 2023 and 2025.

Iran's methods included seizing commercial tankers, boarding vessels accused of sanctions violations, temporarily detaining ships, conducting aggressive inspections, harassing merchant vessels with IRGC fast attack craft, laying mines, and using GPS jamming and electronic interference. While these actions fell short of a complete closure, they were designed to disrupt shipping, raise insurance costs, and demonstrate Iran's ability to threaten one of the world's most important maritime chokepoints.

One of the best-known examples occurred in July 2019, when Iran seized the British-flagged tanker Stena Impero as it transited the Strait of Hormuz. The seizure was viewed as retaliation for the UK's detention of the Iranian supertanker Grace 1 off Gibraltar two weeks earlier, which British authorities suspected was carrying oil to Syria in breach of EU sanctions.

So, while Iran was not physically blocking every vessel before the US bombing campaign, it had a long-established pattern of threatening to close the Strait and using selective coercion against international shipping whenever geopolitical tensions escalated. That strategy long predates the recent conflict.

7 minutes ago, richard_smith237 said:

Because the geography is directly comparable. These are natural maritime chokepoints through which a significant proportion of global trade passes. The difference is that no other nation has seriously sought to assert unilateral control over an international waterway in order to extract political or economic concessions

You're trying to use scenarios that are ludicrous.

45 minutes ago, richard_smith237 said:

For decades Iran has used the Strait of Hormuz as leverage

Exactly. Completely different than any of the crazy scenarios you put forth.

2 minutes ago, blaze master said:

You're trying to use scenarios that are ludicrous.

Exactly. Completely different than any of the crazy scenarios you put forth.

This isn't even one of those "I can explain it to you, but I can't understand it for you" situations. It's much simpler than that.

You're dismissing a comparison because you don't understand what is actually being compared. The comparison isn't between countries, it's between geographically strategic maritime chokepoints and the consequences of one state attempting to leverage control over an international waterway.

Since the 1979 Islamic Revolution, Iran has repeatedly used the Strait of Hormuz as a strategic bargaining chip, threatening to close it, seizing tankers, harassing commercial shipping and using access to one of the world's most important trade routes as political leverage. That isn't a hypothetical, it's decades of documented behaviour.

As for Iran itself, the tragedy is that the Iranian people have endured over four decades of rule by a theocratic regime that has prioritised exporting its revolutionary ideology and funding proxy groups across the region over the prosperity of its own citizens. They deserved, and still deserve, far better than the leadership imposed on them after 1979.

Meanwhile, myopic reflex might simply be anti-American (anti-republican / trump) and appears to have become a substitute for historical context. If this is the case - then once you view every event through that single lens, everything that happened beforehand conveniently disappears and further discussion is pointless.

1 hour ago, richard_smith237 said:

Because the geography is directly comparable. These are natural maritime chokepoints through which a significant proportion of global trade passes. The difference is that no other nation has seriously sought to assert unilateral control over an international waterway in order to extract political or economic concessions

Nor would they. Hence why the scenarios are useless when discussing the Iran US situation.

4 minutes ago, blaze master said:

1 hour ago, richard_smith237 said:

Because the geography is directly comparable. These are natural maritime chokepoints through which a significant proportion of global trade passes. The difference is that no other nation has seriously sought to assert unilateral control over an international waterway in order to extract political or economic concessions

Nor would they. Hence why the scenarios are useless when discussing the Iran US situation.

That's precisely the point, and you've somehow managed to miss it.

The comparison isn't suggesting Singapore, Malaysia or Denmark would do what Iran has done. It's highlighting that despite having similarly strategic maritime chokepoints, they don't. They don't threaten to close international waterways, seize commercial shipping, or attempt to leverage freedom of navigation for political or economic gain.

That is exactly what makes the Iranian regime exceptional. The comparison exists to highlight the contrast, not the similarity.

If every nation bordering a major natural chokepoint behaved as Iran has repeatedly threatened to, global trade would be held hostage. The fact that virtually none do is precisely why Iran's conduct stands out and why the comparison is entirely relevant.

2 hours ago, blaze master said:

Who cares anymore....gas prices have dropped significantly. Isn't that what all the fuss was about a few months ago ?

You for real? Broken ceasefire, contested waterways, tit-for-tat strikes, civilians at risk in the crossfire. These are what actually decide whether gas stays cheap or not and why most people would care.

2 hours ago, blaze master said:

Who cares anymore....gas prices have dropped significantly. Isn't that what all the fuss was about a few months ago ?

I don't see anyone posting about that.

Their complaints are a moving target.

51 minutes ago, richard_smith237 said:

The comparison isn't suggesting Singapore, Malaysia or Denmark would do what Iran has done. It's highlighting that despite having similarly strategic maritime chokepoints, they don't

If Iran does get away with it then why should others not try it?

4 minutes ago, Why bother said:

If Iran does get away with it then why should others not try it?

US might try it with the strait of Malacca to try and isolate China

never underestimate the hubris of the 'worlds policeman' and greatest hypocrite !!!

6 minutes ago, Why bother said:

If Iran does get away with it then why should others not try it?

Theoretically they could. In reality, they won't.

Firstly, because they are not governed by a fundamentalist and revolutionary theocratic regime whose foreign policy has, for decades, sought to export the ideals of the Islamic Revolution, expand Iranian influence through Shi'a-aligned proxy groups and allied militant organisations, and exploit regional instability as a strategic tool rather than promote long-term regional stability. States such as Singapore, Malaysia, Spain and Morocco derive their prosperity from secure trade and predictable shipping lanes, not from turning international waterways into geopolitical bargaining chips.

Secondly, because they recognise that international straits exist for freedom of navigation, not as opportunities for extortion. Attempting to impose unilateral transit charges or restrict lawful passage through an international waterway would undermine international maritime law, damage their own economies and invite sanctions.

13 minutes ago, johng said:

US might try it with the strait of Malacca to try and isolate China

never underestimate the hubris of the 'worlds policeman' and greatest hypocrite !!!

That wouldn't isolate China - it would simply add 600-1000 kms (1-1.5 days) if using the Sunda Strait or 1000-1600 kms (1.5-1.5 days) if using the Lombok Straight....

Regardless - it wouldn't happen - but interesting how you managed to levy the accusation at the US of being the worlds greatest hypocrite with an imaginary scenario.

7 hours ago, blaze master said:

Who cares anymore....gas prices have dropped significantly. Isn't that what all the fuss was about a few months ago ?

I don't see anyone posting about that.

To find out how serious this matter is, we must await the opening of trading for crude oil futures after the weekend.

1 hour ago, swissie said:

To find out how serious this matter is, we must await the opening of trading for crude oil futures after the weekend.

Why ? Whats one weekend going to do.

33 minutes ago, blaze master said:

Why ? Whats one weekend going to do.

Because over the weekend the markets are closed. Only after resumption of trading, the markets will asses what it all means. In form of "price adjustement" concerning the price of oil.

8 minutes ago, swissie said:

Because over the weekend the markets are closed. Only after resumption of trading, the markets will asses what it all means. In form of "price adjustement" concerning the price of oil.

Yes I know that. Thanks. But one day of trading is not that important for the long term.

https://apple.news/Ag0yYZiejQGmEJrOCkmnHyg

its started again iran wantts to charge fees and control the straights

Time for Donald to go biblical again, appeal to the religious side of the Iranian regime.

28 minutes ago, bannork said:

Time for Donald to go biblical again, appeal to the religious side of the Iranian regime.

He needs to practice a bit more on his act, but to be honest, he seems to make some advances already.

Regarding "International Law". International Law is not forever. UNCLOS was negotiated in the early 1980s. While the US and Iran signed, both countries refuse to ratify it. Republicans since the 1990s, argue that ratification would transfer elements of U.S. sovereignty to international bodies. They object to binding dispute resolution and to international institutions having any authority over American maritime activities.

The Straits of Malacca was mentioned. No toll levied, or ever will be, but in April, Indonesia proposed collection transit fees. The justification is that the littoral countries do spend a lot of money maintaining navigational safety, operating traffic separation schemes, combating piracy, responding to pollution incidents, and maintaining aids to navigation. The Montreux Convention governs ships passing through the Bosphorous. Its not some ancient agreement; it dates back to the 1930s. Turkey doesn't charge a toll, but its Department of Transport does collect transit fees, to pay for health inspections, lighthouse services, and rescue/salvage services.

It doesn't charge a flat fee per ship, but charges based on tonnage Currently they charge $6.70 per ton. Super tankers are 200-500,000 DWT, so the fee collected by Turkey is about $1.7m to $3.5m per big tanker. Its not really clear how Iran is determining the toll/fee its charging, but it seems to be charging $1.5-2.5m; remarkably similar to Turkey, but no one is getting butt hurt about how much Turkey is raking in. Does anyone seriously believe that the Turkish formula is seriously related to the actual costs incurred by Ankara?

Turkey won't seize ships that don't pay; they can pursue through the courts, or, if the ship is already in the straits, not grant it transit. What that means it allows the Turkish Coastguard, under international law, to intervene, order ships to heave to and drop anchor. A ship not cleared for transit is a danger to other shipping. The Convention does not prevent freedom of passage, it does not exempt them from complying with reasonable navigation and safety regulations.

There are strong arguments to say UNCLOS is no longer fit for purpose. The Straits of Mallacca cost an enormous amount to keep clear, in a way that wasn't envisaged then. Sea mining wasn;t a thing. No one had any expectation that the Northwest Passage will be come navigable (the real reason for tensions over Greenland).

UNCLOS isn't etched in stone. It was an agreement from the Cold War, written by the then dominant trading states, with many of the 150+ littoral states not really able to object.

Negotiators should have been trying to apply Game Theory; Iran wants to keep the straits open because Iran wants to earn lots of money doing so, rather than forcing it through very expensive bombing.

Game theory is fundamentally about how rational actors make decisions when the outcome depends on what others do. The key question is not "Can Iran close the strait?" but "What payoff does Iran receive from opening versus closing it under different circumstances?"

I've said before, a Straits Transit authority should be established, with the objective of collecting fees, ensuring the straits are clear for shipping, with proceeds to be shared with Iran and Oman. You have that authority run by a neutral party, or even the United States. It would encourage Iran to maintain good relations with the US, in order to receive its cut. The US (or other) would be responsible for establishing the bureaucracy and payment collection processes (as well as debt recovery), charging a percentage of the transit fee. The US could even subcontract out the actual physical services needed, such as shipping lane maintenance, oceanographics etc to Iran, or Oman.

The US has more global litigious reach than Iran, and has bigger clout to seize shipping assets for companies who are delinquent. The US has a lot of lawyers, probably more lawyers than Iran and Oman put together, and lawyers who are particularly skilled at negotiating different legal systems, and also advanced capabilities, through financial instruments, to identify hidden company assets.

In the May Senate Armed Service Committee meetings, much was said, how, as the US disengages, China, and to a lesser extent, Russia, are taking over, in a manner that the Committee described as "Coercion ". The scheme takes no coercion. Actually quite the contrary, it will be met with reward., Iran would be financially rewarded through cooperation (paraphrasing Oberst Hans Landa's famous monologue). It would retain the international nature of the waterway, while acknowledging the concerns of the two littoral states concerned.

0

8 hours ago, 3NUMBAS said:

https://apple.news/Ag0yYZiejQGmEJrOCkmnHyg

its started again iran wantts to charge fees and control the straights

And Iran is legally entitled to charge fees. It can't charge tolls. There is a difference.

15 minutes ago, Roadsternut said:

Regarding "International Law". International Law is not forever. UNCLOS was negotiated in the early 1980s. While the US and Iran signed, both countries refuse to ratify it. Republicans since the 1990s, argue that ratification would transfer elements of U.S. sovereignty to international bodies. They object to binding dispute resolution and to international institutions having any authority over American maritime activities.

The Straits of Malacca was mentioned. No toll levied, or ever will be, but in April, Indonesia proposed collection transit fees. The justification is that the littoral countries do spend a lot of money maintaining navigational safety, operating traffic separation schemes, combating piracy, responding to pollution incidents, and maintaining aids to navigation. The Montreux Convention governs ships passing through the Bosphorous. Its not some ancient agreement; it dates back to the 1930s. Turkey doesn't charge a toll, but its Department of Transport does collect transit fees, to pay for health inspections, lighthouse services, and rescue/salvage services.

It doesn't charge a flat fee per ship, but charges based on tonnage Currently they charge $6.70 per ton. Super tankers are 200-500,000 DWT, so the fee collected by Turkey is about $1.7m to $3.5m per big tanker. Its not really clear how Iran is determining the toll/fee its charging, but it seems to be charging $1.5-2.5m; remarkably similar to Turkey, but no one is getting butt hurt about how much Turkey is raking in. Does anyone seriously believe that the Turkish formula is seriously related to the actual costs incurred by Ankara?

Turkey won't seize ships that don't pay; they can pursue through the courts, or, if the ship is already in the straits, not grant it transit. What that means it allows the Turkish Coastguard, under international law, to intervene, order ships to heave to and drop anchor. A ship not cleared for transit is a danger to other shipping. The Convention does not prevent freedom of passage, it does not exempt them from complying with reasonable navigation and safety regulations.

There are strong arguments to say UNCLOS is no longer fit for purpose. The Straits of Mallacca cost an enormous amount to keep clear, in a way that wasn't envisaged then. Sea mining wasn;t a thing. No one had any expectation that the Northwest Passage will be come navigable (the real reason for tensions over Greenland).

UNCLOS isn't etched in stone. It was an agreement from the Cold War, written by the then dominant trading states, with many of the 150+ littoral states not really able to object.

Negotiators should have been trying to apply Game Theory; Iran wants to keep the straits open because Iran wants to earn lots of money doing so, rather than forcing it through very expensive bombing.

Game theory is fundamentally about how rational actors make decisions when the outcome depends on what others do. The key question is not "Can Iran close the strait?" but "What payoff does Iran receive from opening versus closing it under different circumstances?"

I've said before, a Straits Transit authority should be established, with the objective of collecting fees, ensuring the straits are clear for shipping, with proceeds to be shared with Iran and Oman. You have that authority run by a neutral party, or even the United States. It would encourage Iran to maintain good relations with the US, in order to receive its cut. The US (or other) would be responsible for establishing the bureaucracy and payment collection processes (as well as debt recovery), charging a percentage of the transit fee. The US could even subcontract out the actual physical services needed, such as shipping lane maintenance, oceanographics etc to Iran, or Oman.

The US has more global litigious reach than Iran, and has bigger clout to seize shipping assets for companies who are delinquent. The US has a lot of lawyers, probably more lawyers than Iran and Oman put together, and lawyers who are particularly skilled at negotiating different legal systems, and also advanced capabilities, through financial instruments, to identify hidden company assets.

In the May Senate Armed Service Committee meetings, much was said, how, as the US disengages, China, and to a lesser extent, Russia, are taking over, in a manner that the Committee described as "Coercion ". The scheme takes no coercion. Actually quite the contrary, it will be met with reward., Iran would be financially rewarded through cooperation (paraphrasing Oberst Hans Landa's famous monologue). It would retain the international nature of the waterway, while acknowledging the concerns of the two littoral states concerned.

0

+1 from me - very interesting input.

One correction worth making on the Bosphorus comparison though. The $1.7m-$3.5m per tanker figure doesn't hold up because supertankers in the 200-500,000 DWT range simply don't transit the Bosphorus. The Montreux Convention and Turkish physical constraints effectively bar the largest tankers from using the straits at all. Apply the $6.70/ton rate to vessels that never actually show up, and you get a meaningless number. Per-vessel fees for ships that do transit reportedly average $15,000-$30,000 - a very different picture.

That said, the broader point stands and I think it's a fair comment based one which I have chanced my viewpoint to some extent - There is clear scope to charge maintenance fees to cover navigational safety, traffic separation schemes, piracy response, pollution incidents, and aids to navigation. The Malacca littoral states make exactly this argument, and it's hard to dispute - those services cost real money and somebody has to pay for them.

The critical qualifier is that any such regime has to be implemented transparently and consistently, and cannot be used as a lever. The moment fees become discretionary tools of political pressure rather than cost-recovery mechanisms, the framework's legitimacy is destroyed. That's the line between Turkey's model - whatever its imperfections - and what Iran is currently doing.

So.. could it be argued that shipping could route through Omani waters to avoid Iran ??? the reality is they already do. The internationally designated traffic separation scheme runs entirely through Omani waters - or it did until those waters were mined.

Originally, the inbound and outbound lanes both sit on Oman's side of the strait. That hasn't insulated anyone from Iranian pressure, because the IRGC operates throughout the strait regardless of which side of the line a vessel is on, and has a long record of intercepting ships well within what others would consider Omani waters / jurisdiction.

There's also another diplomatic reality: Oman and Iran maintain pragmatic, historically warm relations. Muscat has repeatedly served as a back-channel between Tehran and Washington. So, the idea that Oman could position itself as a mechanism for circumventing Iranian fees or interdiction assumes a level of antagonism toward Tehran that doesn't 'yet' exist.

Someone (in this or another thread) mentioned that the straits could be monetised between Oman and Iran - So, if the purpose is purely cost recovery for operational services, there's no fundamental objection. Navigational safety, traffic separation, pollution response, search and rescue - these are legitimate expenses and the two littoral states bear most of that burden. A transparent, jointly administered fee structure to cover those costs is defensible.

The problem is getting from here to there. Any bilateral arrangement between Tehran and Muscat would need broad international buy-in to function - the major flag states and cargo interests aren't going to accept a fee regime they had no hand in shaping, particularly one that includes Iran as an administrator given the current climate. And once Iran is a revenue recipient, the temptation to use fee-setting or compliance enforcement as political leverage doesn't disappear - it just gets institutionalised.

This is actually the argument for a neutral third-party authority running the collection and distribution, with Iran and Oman as beneficiaries rather than operators. Same money, far less scope for mischief - would Tehran go for that ?

Edited June 28Jun 28 by richard_smith237

On 6/27/2026 at 6:58 PM, richard_smith237 said:

During the 1980-88 Tanker War, Iran attacked commercial shipping and laid naval mines. More recently, similar threats and acts of coercion occurred in 2008, 2011-12 (following Western oil sanctions), 2018 (after the US withdrew from the nuclear agreement), 2019 (during the tanker crisis), and repeatedly between 2023 and 2025.

I'm guessing that 'King' Donald and his 'God of War' Pete were both rubbish at history in school.

Hormuz has always been perceived as the largely unspoken Iranian bargaining chip. Then someone who loves chintz and gilt, chooses to try and annihilate an entire culture and civilisation and turned the threat into a reality.

Edited June 28Jun 28 by NanLaew

On 6/27/2026 at 8:07 PM, richard_smith237 said:

The comparison isn't suggesting Singapore, Malaysia or Denmark would do what Iran has done. It's highlighting that despite having similarly strategic maritime chokepoints, they don't. They don't threaten to close international waterways, seize commercial shipping, or attempt to leverage freedom of navigation for political or economic gain.

Nor do they use international trade tariffs for political or economic gain as a weapon of war.

1 hour ago, MAGA88 said:

Iran must-and will be-destroyed-with cuba,north korea and russia!

That's a really cool story. Thanks for sharing.

A post with multiple quotes has been removed:

• Do not quote more than three multiple nested quotes.

The USA, always draws first blood. Anything to support the vast wealthy US military-industrial-technology complex