news

Trump identified China, France, Japan, South Korea, and the United Kingdom as countries that should join the coalition.

Australia, Japan, Poland and Sweden and Spain saying they had no intentions of sending military ships.

German Defence Minister Boris Pistorius saying that there would be “no military participation”

South Korea and the UK have said they were reviewing the situation. The UK’s Prime Minister Keir Starmer said it was discussing the possibility of offering its mine-hunting drones in the region, but maintained the UK would “not be drawn into the wider war”.

France has indicated more willingness to help.

Without specifying a country, Trump pointed to one apparent rebuff.

“We have some countries where we have 45,000 soldiers … protecting them from harm’s way and we have done a great job,” he said. “And well, we want to know, do you ‌have any mine sweepers? ‘Well, would rather not get involved, sir.'”

European leaders reject military involvement in Strait of Hormuz | US-Israel war on Iran News | Al Jazeera

Dutch Prime Minister Rob Jetten told the country’s ANP news agency that it would be “very difficult to launch a successful mission there in the short term”.

Lithuania and Estonia said NATO countries should consider a US request for help, but cautioned over the need for greater clarity around various aspects of any potential mission.

Estonian Foreign Minister Margus Tsahkna also said that US allies in Europe want to understand Trump’s “strategic goals”. “What will be the plan?” he asked.

⁠Greek government spokesman ⁠Pavlos ⁠Marinakis said ⁠that Greece ⁠would not ⁠engage in ⁠any military operations ‌in the Strait of Hormuz.

Italian Foreign ⁠Minister Antonio ⁠Tajani said Italy was not involved in any naval missions that could be ‌extended to the area.

Danish Foreign Minister Lars Lokke Rasmussen said, however, that Europe should keep an open mind ⁠on helping to ensure freedom of navigation in the strait even if the continent did not support the ⁠US-Israeli decision to go to war with Iran.

“We must face the world as it is, not as we want it to be,” Rasmussen said, adding that the EU must decide on a plan “with a view towards de-escalation”.

Polish Foreign Minister Radek Sikorski invited the Trump administration to go through the proper channels.

“If there is a request via NATO, we will, of course, out of respect and sympathy for our American allies, consider it very carefully,” he said.

How countries are responding to Trump’s call to send ships to Strait of Hormuz | The Independent

Japan and Australia have said they currently have no plans to send naval ships to protect shipping in the Strait of Hormuz, despite pressure from Washington.

However, Japanese prime minister Sanae Takaichi said the US had yet to make any formal request for assistance.

“We have not made any decisions whatsoever about dispatching escort ships. We are continuing to examine what Japan can do independently and what can be done within the legal framework,” she said.

Australia has also rejected calls to provide naval support to secure shipping in the strait. “We’ve been very clear about what our contribution is to requests and so far that is to the UAE obviously providing aircraft to assist with defence particularly given the number of Australians that are in that area in particular,” transport minister Catherine King said.

“We won’t be sending a ship to the Strait of Hormuz,” Ms King said.

France has ruled out sending additional military forces, saying its current posture aims to maintain regional stability rather than escalate tensions.

South Korea has not committed either way, saying they’ll “continue to communicate closely with the US regarding this matter and make a decision after careful review”.

Trump’s call for allied deployment to strait of Hormuz meets muted response | Strait of Hormuz | The Guardian

“I’m very clear and firm on this topic; at this point, there is no question of sending any vessels to the strait of Hormuz,” said Vautrin. She said that France maintained a “purely defensive position” and there were no current plans to move the French navy’s flagship vessel, the Charles de Gaulle aircraft carrier, out of the eastern Mediterranean.

According to the Financial Times, EU foreign affairs ministers are also considering widening the scope of the EU’s Aspides naval mission, which provides protection to ships in Yemen from attacks by Houthi rebels, to extend to the strait of Hormuz. At present, the Aspides naval mission consists of three ships, from France, Italy and Greece.

The Chinese embassy in Washington said at the weekend in a statement given to CNN that Beijing would work to strengthen “communication with relevant parties” in the Middle East and “play a constructive role for deescalation and restoration of peace”.

Iran war: Trump urges China, other nations, to send warships to secure Hormuz | South China Morning Post

Liu Pengyu, a spokesperson from the Chinese embassy in Washington, called for an immediate stop to military operations in the area, adding that “keeping the region safe and stable serves the common interests of the international community”.

Mark Carney meets Keir Starmer in London amid Iran war

Bill Blair, Canada's high commissioner in the U.K., said ahead of the meeting that Canada supports efforts to prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon, but is not getting directly involved in the conflict

India says no talks with US on warship deployment in Hormuz after Trump's appeal - India Today

Responding to questions at a media briefing on whether the US had approached India to send its warships to the region and New Delhi’s stance on the issue, External Affairs Ministry spokesperson Randhir Jaiswal said India has not engaged in bilateral talks with Washington on the matter.

“We are aware of this particular matter being discussed by several countries. We have not yet discussed it in a bilateral setting,” Jaiswal said. He added that India will continue discussions with several stakeholders regarding the issue.

Separately, in an interview with the Financial Times, he warned that "if there's no response or if it's a negative response I think it will be very bad for the future of Nato."

North Korean shipyards have overtaken those of the United States in the construction of ocean-going surface combat ships, with the shipbuilding industry having launched two destroyers in 2025, and scheduled to launch two more every year for the next five years under the next Five Year Plan, bringing total numbers in the water to 12 by the end of 2030. The U.S., by contrast, has been building Arleigh Burke class destroyers at rates of just 1.6 per year.

While the contraction in U.S. production of surface warships has declined much more slowly than the contraction of the civilian shipbuilding industry, the fall in the number of surface combat ships, and in the total tonnage launched per year has nevertheless been tremendous. North Korea, by contrast, had negligible industry for producing modern service ships until the 2020s, with limited resources concentrated on the submarine fleet.

Although unfortunately the Korean People’s Navy likely doesn’t have as advanced systems as the usn does, it does show how unserious the us currently is about shipbuilding.

Repercussions from the war has already hit many countries across the globe where it especially hurts: energy and food. There has been longstanding arguments if Southeast Asia will fall into deindustrialization and "Latin Americanization", marked by intense class differentiation, extractivism and dependency.

Out of the main ASEAN-6 countries, the one that arguably fits the bill best would be the Phillipines; a Spanish colonial past with American intervention, prevalence of drug trafficking and rotational theatre of military dictatorships and political dynasties.

The current situation doesn't paint a pretty picture for the country. Heavy reliant on "service-based growth" through BPOs and out-migration for remittances, surface-level statistics like GDP growth showcase a relatively okay picture. Looking deeper, however, the country is an overwhelming net oil importer with more than 95% coming from the Persian Gulf (with 60days of reserve), and a net food importer, importing almost double what it exports. Increased logistical costs from risk premiums and higher fuel oil prices further adds to the perfect storm. Adding in a record low of nearly 60 pesos to a dollar, the 2nd most populous SEA country may face the most severe ramifications of the war in Asia.

Notably, the countries also hosts EDCA sites that are technically not US bases, but:

if these EDCA sites walk like military bases, then they function like military bases. Under EDCA, the U.S. gets dedicated access to “agreed locations,” including the ability to:

• Rotate U.S. troops in and out

• Preposition U.S. military equipment, assets, and supplies

• Build/upgrade facilities

• Use the site for military logistics and operations

You can call it a “shared facilities” all day, but OPERATIONALLY, in any eventuality, they become and are forward staging nodes for the U.S. That’s base-like behavior, base-like utility, and base-like consequences.

What had lead to this current conundrum?

Of course the reality is the sort of comprador capitalism further weakened by neoliberal reforms enacted at the behest of Western Financial Capital through the World Bank in the 1980s. Persistently weak institutions coupled with foreign-imposed restrictions on state capacity building and false growth models adds to a perfect storm that ultimately leaves the Philippine masses at the behest of a global market whose sole purpose is surplus extraction and accumulation. The nation is now scrambling and pleading that other countries "honor oil pacts amid export curbs", showcasing the subjugated nature of the State to foreign actors.

The other side of this story is also persistent ideological confusion and disunity within the Philippine left. As argued by Docena in their article "Is the Philippines a ‘semi-feudal’ or a ‘backward capitalist’ society?: A Review of Recent Data",

Instead of merely upholding orthodoxy and applying Marxist concepts mechanically, they used them creatively to build on the idea that social formations can actually be mongrel or `articulated.' By doing so, they helped us overcome the limits of existing Marxist conventions. As other scholars have pointed out, however, both Sison and Legman nonetheless appear to hold on to one orthodox assumption: that societies are to be considered hybrid or otherwise by judging them against those societies that first became capitalist. Indeed, both Sison's description of Philippine society as being some kind of 'bastard' offspring of the coupling of imperialism and feudalism, on one hand and bagman's statement that the country has been "afflicted by an abnormality in its fetal stage," on the other, seem to imply a teleological view of historical development Both scholars appear to assume that there are "normal" stages and outcomes of historical development: those followed and exemplified by the likes of England, France, or the United States. Both scholars could be read as implying that societies becoming capitalist will eventually reach a common destination: a society with modern industry and a fully proletarianized producing class.

...Closely linked to these theoretical questions are urgent strategic questions: If feudalism has all but been eroded in the country, does it still make sense to aim at overthrowing feudalism or its vestiges? If the bourgeoisie has waged a "passive revolution," should the still aim at waging a "bourgeois democratic" revolution or does it need to pursue a very different kind of revolution altogether? If the peasantry is disintegrating, does it still make sense to count on them as the "main force" of this revolution? If the Philippine state has become more hegemonic (while still being repressive), must the revolutionary road go through a "protracted people's war" or an urban insurrection—or is there another way? If guerilla warfare or simple "wars of maneuver" hold little promise of victory given the new defenses built up by the state, to what should we be enjoining the youth and the oppressed to devote their lives instead? What sort of revolutionary strategy is more appropriate for the kind of society the Philippines has become?

As the peoples lives worsen, and potentially revolutionary conditions emerge, these questions need to be answered and strategically carried forward into practice. Time will again tell the significance of West Asia in a global and fracturing capitalist system marked by cyclical crises.