Iran may have found the move Trump can never play
Original article:
https://www.nytimes.com/live/2026/03/22/world/iran-war-oil-trump
this post was submitted on 23 Mar 2026
357 points (98.4% liked)
Political Memes
11415 readers
1872 users here now
Welcome to politcal memes!
These are our rules:
1) Be civil
Jokes are okay, but don’t intentionally harass or disturb any member of our community. Sexism, racism and bigotry are not allowed. Good faith argumentation only. No posts discouraging people to vote or shaming people for voting.
2) No misinformation
Don’t post any intentional misinformation. When asked by mods, provide sources for any claims you make.
3) Posts should be memes
Random pictures do not qualify as memes. Relevance to politics is required.
4) No bots, spam or self-promotion
Follow instance rules, ask for your bot to be allowed on this community.
5) No AI generated content.
Content posted must not be created by AI with the intent to mimic the style of existing images
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
Strait of Hormuz is not international waters. They are fully allowed to close it, at least on their side of the strait. When people ignore laws, usually there is a penalty and enforcement. Closure here is enforced by missiles.
Whether Oman is a party in this war (given their harboring of US bases and military assets) is up to debate.
According to the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS), ships have a right to transit international straits like the Straight of Hormuz. Article 38 to be exact: https://www.un.org/depts/los/convention_agreements/texts/unclos/unclos_e.pdf
And as you say, their side. But it is quite clear that Iran has closed the whole thing, also the part Iran has no right to.
Has Oman allowed attacks from the bases (I don't actually know)? If not, then Oman is not party to the war. But it seems pretty clear that Iran would not restrain itself in either case, right?
And in any case, this is civilian ships, which are not valid targets even in a war.
The US bombed a fucking school and killed over 100 kids. The US and Israel started the attacks on civilians.
The attack on the school was not deliberate. While you obviously think so, nobody with a working understanding of ethics thinks that an accidental attack on civilians gives the other side the moral right to also attack civilians.
I dont know. Generally it gets a bit muddy at such a stage. Are they party to the war? Did they expressly forbid USA from using military bases to resupply from/attack Iran? Did Oman cushly stay silent and complicit playing both sides? Are trade ships that are trading with the enemy, not expressly and officially guaranteed by Oman not valid targets in a strait majorly controlled by Iran (even the Oman territorial waters are a bit silly once you take into account the geography)? (Not talking about people, but about infrastructure and supply chain)
If anything, Iran, in its desperation, is fighting well against the superest most bigliest ultra fascist state in the making.
To be clear: this war is Islamofascists vs Judeochristian fascists
I think international law is actually pretty clear, in general. You don't get to shoot at every ship that moves.
Iran is shooting all the ships. It is pretty clear that "legality" is not a concern Iran has.
This seems to be the root. You see that Trump/USA is evil here, which it is. And then somehow conclude that Iran must be good, if Iran is fighting against Trump.
Iran is evil too. Fucking evil. Killing innocent civilians deliberately and laughing at it evil.
There is a trend of ignoring how evil some of the Muslim groupings in the Middle East are. That has got to stop. It almost seem like "white man's burden" - as if people think Muslims don't have agency to know right from wrong.
There's this whole argument about World Policing being Bad (tm). But even besides that:
The US is also currently murdering, kidnapping and disappearing thousands of it's citizens, so it's not for the moral high ground they're bombing civilian infrastructure.
Besides, the war will almost certainly lead to more suffering, and probably also lives lost, as a consequence of the destruction, fear, oppression and power struggle following it. So it's not for humanitarian reasons they're disrupting international trade and relations.
The US has also made it very clear it only intends to follow international law and treaties when it benefits them, as evidenced with Greenland, Venezuela, Cuba, trade wars, trade and protection treaty violations. So it's not for any rules based order they're planlessly and goallessly staging a billion dollar/day terror campaign.
It seems the US is just exercising it's might and terrorising the world because it wants to. I wonder how long before someone gets fed up with it...
Like, I am absolutely not blanket defending the US under Trump. That shit is straight out fascism. Nowhere have I said the US is acting morally or legally with regards to Iran.
There are still some vestages of pre-fascist US in e.g. the US state department. So sometimes the US will actually justify their actions legally. So not literally every single thing the US does is illegal. But plenty of things are.
But you are apparently defending Iran's illegal behavior, by pointing to the US's illegal behavior. That is not how ethics works... two wrong does not make one right. And it is kinda wild that people like you often end up defending the blatantly evil fundamentalist undemocratic terrorist Iran.
What does international law say about assassinating heads of state
What does international law say about bombing industrial infrastructure
What does international law say about bombing hospitals and schools
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whataboutism
ITS NOT WHATABOUTISM TO TALK ABOUT THE MILITARY ACTIONS OF BOTH SIDES OF A WAR; SHUT THE FUCK UP THIS ISNT FORMALIZED DEBATE; AND EVEN IF IT WERE, YOU ARENT USING THE LOGICAL FALLACIES CORRECTLY ANYWAY
Yes I am using the fallacies correctly.
fallacy fallacy
International laws for thee but not for me is not whataboutism
Pathetic response
Why do you think I believe the US's actions are correct?
Why are you citing international law as if it matters? You're only applying it to Iranian actions.
I was about to post an actual reply to this shitpost, but the effort just isnt worth it.
As in the russian special military operation, the invading party is free to just take their ball and go home, but wont because "pride". Womp womp
I guess you're right about the international law. But then again, it's been out the window for a while.
I didn't write any conclusions about Iran regime being non evil. But looking at history, you'd be a fool not to see its instability rooted in US/Israel/UK domination goals.
The excerpts from UN assemblies I saw, Iran was quite repetitive, but spoke much more eloquently than the US. Make of that what you will, in the age of ai slop.
Yes the US has fucked up bigly in Iraq and Iran. There is a pattern - fuck Republicans.
But in many cases, the US has also created stability. The 1991 Gulf War was fundamentally a stability exercise - Iraq started that war by invading Kuwait. Likely Saddam would gladly have invaded Saudi Arabia, if the US had not enforced the status quo in the region.
The US was the world's policeman. Sometimes they did some shit, but sometimes they kept the peace. Over all, I think people were glad they were there. But keeping the peace involves force or the threat of force sometimes, and it seems to me that some people only see the violence or threat of violence, and not the peace created. As in the 1991 Gulf War, for example.
Iran's political leadership has shown far more competence than Trump's administration, no question. Trump apparently started this war without knowing that Iran would close the straight of Hormuz, which random people on the street would have known would happen. Trump's administration is literally idiots - not just people I disagree with.
You know when people said that, it was derisive right? The US wasn't elected to the role by some body at the UN. Americans decided themeselves it was their role, as history's great exception, to decide matters across the globe.
Also, hilarious to say the Gulf War was the good and just war and the Iraq war was a big fuck up, considering they were both the product of the same political dynasty. As if one did not inextricably lead to the other.
Derisive for some people. Not for some others.
What kind of bullshit argument is that? Bush I could have taken Baghdad but didn't, because he was not an idiot and knew it would destabilize the Middle East. Bush II undid the decision of his father - that was the act of overthrowing the actions of his father, not some long term dynastical plan.
Here is Cheney in 1994 describing everything that went wrong after taking Baghdad, which is why Bush I did not do so: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YENbElb5-xY
It didn't. Clinton did not go to Baghdad, and Gore would not have done so. Because they were not idiots, would have listened to the experts saying it was incredibly stupid.