Saturday 30th of May 2026
Home » Blogs » Gus Leonisky's blog

the US real game is NOT TO OPEN THE STRAIT OF HORMUZ...

Seventy years ago, France and the United Kingdom scorned the United States in the Middle East with disastrous results. Today, Paris and London, joined by Berlin and other NATO capitals, are repeating the folly—with far more severe consequences than the 1956 Suez Crisis. Deriding and even obstructing the United States in its war with Iran, Europe is sacrificing its immediate and long-term interests—in the Middle East and on the continent—for the performative act of “standing up” to President Donald Trump.

 

How the US and Europe Can Open the Strait of Hormuz and Empower Ukraine
May 6, 2026
By: Edward P. Joseph, and Wolfgang Pusztai

In exchange for European participation in opening the Strait of Hormuz, the Trump administration could send Tomahawk missiles to Ukraine.

 

Schadenfreude over President Trump’s Strait of Hormuz predicament has blinded Europe to the way forward: a Transatlantic bargain over Iran and Ukraine. Instead of self-defeating broadsides at the vindictive US president, European leaders should seize this rare moment of American need, boosting Washington’s clout with Tehran while receiving concrete, war-altering deliverables for Kyiv. 

The crux of the deal is as straightforward as it is transformative: with broad backing across the continent, states able and willing to join the planned European naval coalition would join the US blockade of Iranian ports. Accepting the administration’s repeated calls for Europe to “step up” in the effort to open the Strait of Hormuz, the E-3—France, Germany, and the United Kingdom —would extract an invaluable American concession: Tomahawk cruise missiles for Ukraine. The deal would also reverse the disastrous cancellation of US long-range missile deployment to Germany, sparked by Chancellor Friedrich Merz’s “humiliating” remarks on the Iran War.

With Transatlantic relations in free fall, further punitive actions on the horizon, and the Ankara NATO Summit only two months away, now is the moment for a bold, mutually beneficial offer to stem the crisis. Washington’s eagerness for partners in the strait creates rare leverage for Europe. Equally, by backing the United States at a pivotal moment in the maritime standoff—the mere announcement of European engagement would introduce new costs and complexity for Iran, as the regime hesitates from triggering renewed American strikes.

With frigates, destroyers, mine sweepers, aircraft, underwater and aerial drones, the European maritime contingent would improve blockade coverage, reducing the number of Iranian-linked vessels that slip through. European participation would advance the effort to demine the Strait of Hormuz, reassure commercial shipping and global markets, and, ultimately, achieve an agreed protocol for transiting vessels—all aims embedded in the French-British-proposed multinational naval mission. Mirroring the regime’s “eye-for-an-eye” strategy, no European state would join in kinetic operations against Iran—unless attacked by Tehran.

Sparked by Paris, London, and Berlin, other states would join the blockade, meeting the urgent administration priority on “collective action…to demonstrate unified resolve and impose meaningful costs on Iranian obstruction of transit through the Strait.” The E-3 could ask non-participating states like Spain to lift all restrictions on US operations, further unifying the Western bloc—and increasing Washington’s incentives to approve the deployment of Tomahawks to Ukraine.

The joint US-European effort would isolate Iran while buttressing the legitimacy and standing of the United States as Washington seeks to extract itself from its misadventure. Active European engagement would reinforce US efforts to leverage its influence on China to exert pressure on Iran, as Beijing did with the initial April 8 ceasefire. Already, Chinese Foreign Minister Wang Yi called for opening the strait in a meeting with Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi, as the Chinese and US presidents prepare to meet in Beijing next week. Contrary to early, sanguine reporting, the blockade in the Strait of Hormuz is inflicting acute pain on key Chinese industries, aggravating an already-shaky economic outlook.

Rather than mock the US struggle with Iran, European leaders like German Chancellor Friedrich Merz should explain to voters why Europe must join the blockade launched by the continent’s longtime American protector. He and his counterparts have a strong case to make:

First, allowing Iran to stifle and extort access to the world’s most critical energy waterway is a permanent threat to European security. However short-sighted Washington’s decision to launch the war, the US-led blockade is the best available means of countering Iranian control over the Strait of Hormuz.

Second, participation in the blockade rests on a reasonable legal footing. While Iran’s catastrophic closure of the strait is plainly illegal, according to the Secretary-General of the International Maritime Organization, the US blockade has support in international law. Approval by an international body such as the UN or the European Union, as Germany insists, is not required under international law.

Third, with the White House settling in for an “extended blockade,” the only sensible course for Europe is to maximize the chances for its success. Waiting passively for “a negotiated end to hostilities between the United States and Iran” as the condition to deploy the unsettled European naval mission leaves the status quo in Tehran’s hands. Better to deploy now and strengthen the American negotiating position than to carp at the United States.

Fourth, participation in the blockade can help protect Europe’s interests in curbing Iran’s nuclear program. In response to the US naval cordon, Tehran is angling to shelve the nuclear file in exchange for an opening of the Strait of Hormuz. This outcome would be a win for Iran: validation of its control over the strait (undercutting any agreed transit protocol) combined with a crippling loss of American leverage on the Iranian nuclear program. The only stabilizing outcome incorporates restrictions on Iran’s nuclear program, a deal on the strait with snap-back sanctions.

Fifth, the blockade is already a tactical success; European participation can help secure a strategic gain. With the loss of up to 80 percent of its oil exports, Tehran is rapidly running out of storage for the oil produced by its wells. The most conservative assessments, accounting for pre-war growth in Iran’s storage capacity, still foresee an inexorable, short-term shut-in. Shutting in the wells can damage older, low-pressure oil fields, which account for about half of Iran’s oil fields.

The sound of a ticking oil clock is discernible. Instead of internal calm, sharp divisions have opened within the political elite, with moderates intent on striking a deal with the United States. Extravagant proclamations of “unwavering unity… and complete allegiance to the Supreme Leader” belie the bitter power struggle.

An“alarming surge” in executions reveals the regime’s paranoia and shaky foundations. Instead of the predicted “rally around the flag” effect, the US-Israeli bombing campaign has seen Iranian citizens—including those fleeing the country—continue to wish for the collapse of the regime.

European participation in the blockade will intensify these trends, raising the prospects for Pakistani mediation and a near-term, stabilizing settlement.

Sixth, humiliation of the United States in the Gulf will solidify the Russo-Iranian strategic partnership while boosting the anti-Western revisionist cause globally.

 

https://nationalinterest.org/feature/how-the-us-and-europe-can-open-the-strait-of-hormuz-and-empower-ukraine

 

PLEASE VISIT:

YOURDEMOCRACY.NET RECORDS HISTORY AS IT SHOULD BE — NOT AS THE WESTERN MEDIA WRONGLY REPORTS IT — SINCE 2005.

         Gus Leonisky

         POLITICAL CARTOONIST SINCE 1951.

         RABID ATHEIST.

         WELCOME TO THIS INSANE WORLD….

 

SEE: 

why australia can't tax the robber gas barons....

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0nt1CgQsgpI

 

AS MENTIONED BEFORE ON THIS SITE, THE USA [UNDER ANY PRESIDENT, INCLUDING TRUMP] WANT TO GET THE URANIUM FROM IRAN AS WELL, AS PRESENTLY THE USA NEED TO BUY SOME FROM RUSSIA... A FACT WHICH CHAGRINES THE AMERICANS...

AS ONE OF THE CEO OF CHEVRON/SHELL/EXXON [CAN'T REMEMBER WHICH ONE] SAID THE PRICE OF OIL IS STILL TOO LOW...

 

GUSTHINK: ONE THING IRAN CAN DO: OPEN THE STRAIT FOR THREE DAYS — NO TOLL... LET 1400 SHIPS LOADED WITH OIL SCRAMBLE THROUGH... THEN CLOSE THE STRAIT AGAIN... THIS WOULD DISRUPT THE AMERICAN PIRATE FLEETS, UNABLE TO DEAL WITH ALL SHIPS, INCLUDING IRANIAN OIL TO CHINA [TO BE ESCORTD BY CHINESE NAVY SHIPS], AND WOULD COLLAPSE THE PRICE OF OIL, FEED EUROPE IN A FRENZY AWAY FROM US EXCLUSIVE SUPPLIES... WHO KNOWS...

IMEC...

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8oYOg9lCGLw


Why Israel Wants The Strait of Hormuz To Be Closed

 

Today (May 12), Dimitri Lascaris gained access to a private conference held in Athens, Greece for the purpose of promoting deeper ties between Israel, Greece and Cyprus.

The speakers included Israel's Deputy Foreign Minister, Israel's Ambassador to Greece, the Chairman of Israel Shipyards, Greece's Minister of Tourism and Greece's Deputy Minister of Foreign Affairs.

Their speeches left no doubt that the Israeli, Greek and Cypriot governments are strongly committed to the India-Middle East-Europe Economic Corridor (IMEC), and that they view the closure of the Strait of Hormuz as a splendid marketing opportunity for IMEC.

In this report, Dimitri discusses what happened at the conference and highlights the speech of Chen Herzog, the Chief Economist of BDO Consulting Israel. In his speech, Herzog argued that the oil and gas crisis is about to become "unmanageable" and that the closure of the Strait of Hormuz proves how essential IMEC has become.

 

======================

 

SEE ALSO:

in love with the genocidal maniac....

 

======================

 

READ FROM TOP.

PLEASE VISIT:

YOURDEMOCRACY.NET RECORDS HISTORY AS IT SHOULD BE — NOT AS THE WESTERN MEDIA WRONGLY REPORTS IT — SINCE 2005.

         Gus Leonisky

         POLITICAL CARTOONIST SINCE 1951.

         RABID ATHEIST.

         WELCOME TO THIS INSANE WORLD….

perspective persia....

Iran neither retaliates nor negotiates; it continues its global revolution

by Thierry Meyssan

We do not understand Iran’s position vis-à-vis the United States and its allies at all: the Iranian people are not surprised by the war. They expected it, given their anti-imperialist stance. They are not so much interested in negotiating an end to hostilities as in establishing a new international order. They are willing to suffer in order to advance their own agenda. Washington may win militarily, but it is Tehran that is making political progress.

 

President Donald Trump, and with him all Western political leaders and commentators, believes that Iranians should focus solely on escaping the Pentagon’s bombs and restoring an acceptable standard of living. They should therefore abandon their nuclear program and open the Strait of Hormuz.

However, this is clearly not their priority. Westerners completely misunderstand what the Iranians want, a people they know nothing about. They still haven’t grasped the messages of Mohammad Mossadegh and Ruhollah Khomeini: Iranians can liberate their country from Anglo-Saxon colonial exploitation and free the world from Western colonial domination by drawing on their religion for the strength necessary to accomplish this revolution.

Mohammad Mossadegh demonstrated that it was possible to reclaim the nation’s assets. He nationalized the oil industry and negotiated the share his country had granted to foreign companies. Certainly, he was overthrown by the CIA and MI6 with the Shah’s complicity, but what he had accomplished could never be undone. Mossadegh awakened an exploited nation.

For many years, Ruhollah Khomeini dreamed that every Muslim could follow the examples of the prophets Ali and Hussein and dedicate their life to justice. He imagined that Iran would break free from its doloristic interpretation of the golden legend of Islam; that it could liberate itself and liberate the rest of the world, which led to his excommunication by all the other ayatollahs… and to his being chosen by Zbigniew Brzezinski to replace the Shah.

Certainly, Khomeini, who was very proud, fought Mossadegh, but they never differed on their conception of Iranian sovereignty.

We have retained from the Islamic Revolution only its excesses and madness. Every revolution is bloody, but we do not condemn them all in the same way. We remember the death sentences of Iranians accused, rightly or wrongly, of being agents of the colonial powers or of Saddam Hussein’s Iraq, but not the war that these states imposed on the country. We have seen the brutality of the morality police toward women who refused to wear traditional dress, but not toward men who refused to grow beards.

In France, we experienced the same thing: our ancestors condemned to death those who supported the armies of the allied monarchies and sought to restore the divine right of kings, even going so far as to massacre the Vendéans. The sans-culottes imposed their uniform and martyred those who persisted in dressing as they had under the Ancien Régime. Yet, we know full well that these horrors were not the Revolution: they were the creation of a new order, founded on liberty and equality.

Contemporary Iran is aware that the decade of terrible war (1980-1988) waged against it by Iraq and the West was merely the prelude to the real confrontation. The goal was to prevent the establishment of the Islamic Republic. Now, the goal is to realize Khomeini’s dream.

Before our very eyes, the aging Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini did not seek to reclaim his property, confiscated by the Shah, but upon his arrival in Tehran, called upon the army to side with the people and the entire Iranian people to side with the oppressed.

This is precisely what Iran is doing today.

From the outset, Iran was aware that it could not shoot down the Israeli-American air force. Its armed forces did indeed destroy some bombers in flight, but Iran chose instead to demonstrate to its Arab Gulf allies that the colonial powers were exploiting them. It attacked US military bases in Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, the United Arab Emirates, Jordan, Kuwait, and Qatar. It explained to each of these states that they were complicit in the US aggression since they had ceded parts of their territory to the Pentagon, which was using it for its aggression.

The case of the Sultanate of Oman is somewhat different. It is a neutral state that does not host any foreign military bases. However, on March 12 and 13, it allowed US bombers and drones to fly over its territory to attack Iran. After a heated exchange with Tehran, Muscat put an end to these incursions. In contrast, the other Gulf states were unable to change their position. They stubbornly clung to Security Council Resolution 2817, which violates international law and enshrines the superiority of the Western perspective.

At the time, no one understood what was happening. International commentators scoffed at the Iranians’ folly in attacking their own allies. But with time, each of these six states began to wonder if it hadn’t brought about its own misfortune; if the problem wasn’t that they had accepted US military bases for their defense, and that, in reality, these bases had transformed them into mercenaries for the West and targets for the Iranians.

To drive the point home, Tehran wrote to the German, British, Cypriot, Romanian, and Bulgarian governments, informing them, in turn, that by allowing the Pentagon to use their military bases to conduct its aggression, they were becoming complicit and exposing themselves to retaliation.

Then the Iranians brought up the complicity of most of the world’s states—except Russia, Belarus, and China—in the theft of Iranian assets abroad and the siege of Iranian banks, with which no one dares to establish any relationship anymore. At the time, no one paid any attention to these accusations. So no one understood when the Iranians mentioned an administrative procedure for crossing the Strait of Hormuz. International commentators even mocked the supposed stupidity of the Iranians, who wanted to impose a toll in a natural waterway.

The Iranians explained that they would only allow ships not involved in the aggression to cross the strait, and that they were simply asking for bank guarantees from the others, in case of an accident. Panic then gripped the shipping companies: how could they provide bank guarantees to the Iranian banking system, which had been excluded from the global banking system for thirty years by the US Treasury Department?

This time Iran is addressing us: we are complicit in a policy aimed at starving it, and we were unaware of it. Just as Germany, Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, Bulgaria, the United Arab Emirates, Jordan, Kuwait, Qatar, Romania, and the United Kingdom are complicit in the military aggression without ever having chosen to join it.

We will have to choose: either continue to starve the Iranians, pretending not to know, or break free from the United States.

Thierry Meyssan

Translation

Roger Lagassé

https://www.voltairenet.org/article224477.html

 

 

READ FROM TOP.

PLEASE VISIT:

YOURDEMOCRACY.NET RECORDS HISTORY AS IT SHOULD BE — NOT AS THE WESTERN MEDIA WRONGLY REPORTS IT — SINCE 2005.

         Gus Leonisky

         POLITICAL CARTOONIST SINCE 1951.

         RABID ATHEIST.

         WELCOME TO THIS INSANE WORLD….