145
European countries reject Trump’s call for help to reopen strait of Hormuz
(www.theguardian.com)
this post was submitted on 16 Mar 2026
145 points (99.3% liked)
News
36599 readers
1482 users here now
Welcome to the News community!
Rules:
1. Be civil
Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. 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. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.
2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.
Obvious biased sources will be removed at the mods’ discretion. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted separately but not to the post body. Sources may be checked for reliability using Wikipedia, MBFC, AdFontes, GroundNews, etc.
3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.
Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.
4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source. Clickbait titles may be removed.
Posts which titles don’t match the source may be removed. If the site changed their headline, we may ask you to update the post title. Clickbait titles use hyperbolic language and do not accurately describe the article content. When necessary, post titles may be edited, clearly marked with [brackets], but may never be used to editorialize or comment on the content.
5. Only recent news is allowed.
Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.
6. All posts must be news articles.
No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials, videos, blogs, press releases, or celebrity gossip will be allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis. Mods may use discretion to pre-approve videos or press releases from highly credible sources that provide unique, newsworthy content not available or possible in another format.
7. No duplicate posts.
If an article has already been posted, it will be removed. Different articles reporting on the same subject are permitted. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.
8. Misinformation is prohibited.
Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.
9. No link shorteners or news aggregators.
All posts must link to original article sources. You may include archival links in the post description. News aggregators such as Yahoo, Google, Hacker News, etc. should be avoided in favor of the original source link. Newswire services such as AP, Reuters, or AFP, are frequently republished and may be shared from other credible sources.
10. Don't copy entire article in your post body
For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Europe is correct. It was never consulted by Trump before he bombed Iran. This is the proposal that Europe should offer Iran. Iran will be allowed to continue its nuclear program as long as it's for peaceful purposes. Iran must agree to be strictly monitored for compliance. If Iran agrees to the proposal, all sanctions would be immediately lifted. Any violation would result in invasion by Europe and any other countries willing to participate. The proposal would seem pointless if the US doesn't approve. No, because at least the world would know that Iran is willing to accept some type of deal. Also, Europe would lift its sanctions against Iran. The proposal should be brought before the UN. If many countries approve, it will put pressure on the US and Israel to approve.
Neither America nor Israel can be trusted to uphold any agreement and Europe has shown it will always bend over to America and Israel rather than leverage it's power and push back for the sake of saving an agreement - even one of this importance - with a 3rd party.
Europe has to demonstrate having a spine and some fucking honor when it comes to America before it's trusted as a counterparty to such an agreement and, at the moment, at least the EU Commission has repeatedly shown that they're little more than boot-lickers when comes to America.
The conditions that made such an agreement a great idea have been destroyed by America's betray and Europe's half-hearted pushback.
The US and Israel don't have to agree. Europe could independently make the deal with Iran. This would show what type of deal Iran is willing to accept. Europe would end its sanctions meaning it could start purchasing items including oil from Iran. Other countries could agree with the deal putting pressure on the US and Israel to accept it.
Trust is a lot easier to lose than it is to gain and Europe has lost a lot of trust when it sided with the US when Trump unilaterally exited the last agreement and imposed sanctions.
Further, continued submissive compliance behaviors from Europe towards the US in all manner of things (for example, Tariffs) aren't exactly helping building in others the trust that in the future Europe will stand fast in such tri-party agreements when America unilaterally tears then down: if Europe won't even play hardball towards America when an American Administration goes back on bilateral agreements with Europe itself, it will certainly not do so in the interest of a third party in a trilateral agreement involving it and America.
America can't be trusted because it's a ultra-nationalist and imperialist country with a growing Fascist side and Europe can't be trusted because it acts as a spinless coward that won't even stand-up for itself, much less for others.
If Europe makes the deal I proposed independent of the US and consequently, incurring the wrath of Trump, Iran will see that Europe is growing a spine. Europe could tell Iranian leaders that it is willing to go out on a limb for them.
I don't think anything short of making the US lose face will work.
So, it depends on the details of the deal and the reaction of Europe to any push-back from America - Europe has to treat the expressed wishes of America as irrelevant and if America actually pushes back (such as with Tariffs, as has become Trump's default mode of pressure) it cannot bend.
So everything pre-us invasion? The EU sanctions have very little to do with nuclear and more with human rights and Irans involvement with Russia as far as I know.
Maybe they should have nukes now, just to stop Israel and us from invading. Dont get me wrong, I dont think anyone should have nuclear bombs, but the nations that have them are all land grabbing asshats and if that stops from invasions. Also how would you make Iran accept this offer? Whats in it for them?
Stuxnet was probably more effective in stopping Irans nuclear power.
The sanctions pre russia invasion was always about iran not being a western ally and an enemy to the usa proxy israel. It had nothing to do with human right abuses otherwise saudi arabia would be sanctionned too
Don't worry about human rights as long as Iran isn't committing genocide like Nazi Germany. The important thing is to stop Iran from developing a nuclear weapon. Iran will accept the deal because it saves its leaders face. They can just say that they always only wanted nuclear power for peaceful purposes. Europe would end its sanctions. If other countries agree with the deal, it will put pressure on the US and Israel to agree.
The day the current nulcear powers get rid of their nukes i will support Iran not having a nuke
The fewer countries having nuclear weapons means the less likely one will be used.
The mosy likely to use one is Israel. How about if israel do not get rid of it's nukes. All countries should invade Israel?
The problem is that Israel already has nuclear weapons.
then if israel use a nuke , nuke them back
No country will agree to that. Make proposals that have a chance of succeeding.
As if your first proposal was realistic lol. Israel can't nuke countries that have more nukes then Israel even if they invade Israel
Yes, my proposal is realistic. It is a way for Iranian leaders to remain in power while saving face because they can simply claim that their nuclear program was always for peaceful purposes.
In light of the Holocaust, do you think any countries would use nuclear weapons on Israel? Do you think the US would ever abandon Israel?
Isrsel is nazi germany not Iran and the whole world will not invade Iran lol. You are an idiotic zionazi
Their program was always peaceful zionazi and no your proposal is not realistic. The whole world will not sacrifice their soldiers for the united snakes and the terrorist state of Israel. Iranians leaders will prefer to get all assasinated then let israel commit genocide in Iran
To the contrary, I said Europe should strike a deal with Iran independent of the US if necessary. Trump wants regime change, but Europe's goal should simply be to prevent Iran from building nuclear weapons.
you said your dumb deal should include Europe invading Iran if they don't accept an impossible deal since Iran never tried to acquire a nuke . You are so dumb.
Why is the deal impossible? Are you now saying that Iran wants to build nuclear weapons? If Europe's goal is the same as the US, why isn't Europe heeding Trump's request to send ships to the strait of Hormuz?
Europe is not even invading Russia for the invasion of Ukraine and your dumb brain tell you they will invade Iran. How dumb you be
Iran is not as strong as Russia. But rejecting Trump will incur his wrath. If Europe has the same goal as Trump, why not send a several ships to appease him? A better explanation is that Europe doesn't share Trump's views on Iran.