“BREAKING NEWS: Iran considers Spain a country committed to international law, so ​it shows receptiveness to any request coming from Madrid.#StraitofHormuz,” the Iranian embassy said in a post ⁠on X.

  • Bloefz@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    62
    ·
    edit-2
    18 hours ago

    Totally agree with Sanchez here. Not for appeasement reasons but nobody needed this war nor the oil price fallout. There was no reason for it and no basis in any kind of international law.

    It’s pretty insane that not more countries are pushing back on this.

    • lennybird@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      8
      ·
      edit-2
      17 hours ago

      Iran kind of fucked up attacking British bases in retaliation, didn’t they? It seemed like UK would’ve sat back more were it’s forces not targeted. Puts a PM in a difficult spot in defending their people.

      • trougnouf@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        14
        ·
        edit-2
        14 hours ago

        Iran claim they didn’t target the UK and it was a false flag most likely by Israel.

        • lennybird@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          5
          ·
          edit-2
          10 hours ago

          Yeah it looks like the Cyprus attack was denied by Iran, and even the UK confirms the attack did not originate from Iran but likely Lebanon; what group there (be it Israeli false-flag or Hezbollah) seems unknown at the moment.

      • psx_crab@lemmy.zip
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        24
        ·
        edit-2
        17 hours ago

        Didn’t US use British base to launch their attack? For that end, i guess they deserve to get bombed. Starmer is a pushover when it come to their ties with the US, its their own fault to allow that.

        Edit: iran bomb UK allies, so UK allow airbase to be used to bomb iran. Starmer is still a pushover in that end.

        • then_three_more@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          9
          ·
          17 hours ago

          I thought the order of events was, Britain said no to the US, Iran struck shared US UK base, Britain said go on then to the US as there’s now the excuse what it’s defensive.

          • NoneOfUrBusiness@fedia.io
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            4
            ·
            12 hours ago

            Afaik there was a drone launched “in the direction of” Cyprus that never actually hit the island or the UK base. That was the UK’s excuse to help the US, and it was a whole nothingburger.

          • psx_crab@lemmy.zip
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            7
            ·
            15 hours ago

            You’re correct, there’s so much came after the first strike i keep having everything mixed up. The respond came after the strike on US/UK base 4000km away from iran, where they claim they’re incapable of shooting that far. But it also came after UK insist that they won’t be dragged into this war, yet they allow the use of their base to strike iran site used for the blockage. I don’t support Iran, i think the government can go eat shit, but UK respond is basically involving themselves with the war, because surely Iran will then attack that base used by US as retaliation.

  • Triumph@fedia.io
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    31
    ·
    18 hours ago

    Iran is trouncing the US in the international diplomacy game right now. They’re telling the world: “You’re going to have to pick sides. We are not the aggressor here. There’s a way you can get unlimited passage through Hormuz.”

    I’d bet that way is as simple as “Make a public pledge that you will not join the US in this aggression.”