Hacker News Reader

Comment by Jensson | Hacker News Reader

[flagged]

The only countries going to war with Iran are Israel and USA. The other countries are negotiating with Iran and reportedly paying the toll. Also, the strait has been open to Spanish tankers since two weeks ago.

> Also, the strait has been open to Spanish tankers since two weeks ago.

But no Spanish tankers have gone through so that doesn't seem to be accurate. An Iranian diplomat saying that publicly doesn't matter when the irgc continues to shoot them. The only known European aligned tanker to have gone through is this French one we are reading about here.

While there are reports that Iran has been charging a toll on some ships from "hostile" countries, there is no such report suggesting that the French, Japanese and Omani ships cited in this news report did so too.

In this particular case, it is a diplomatic and reciprocal gesture of goodwill from Iran - the French have publicly said that joint military operations to open the Strait is a bad a idea and diplomatic options need to be pursued for the same while the Japanese have confirmed that they won't be sending any minesweepers to the Strait (Japan Isn’t Sending Minesweepers to Middle East, Takaichi Says - https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2026-03-12/japan-isn... ). Oman, of course, has been the mediator in the early US-Iran negotiations, and has publicly said Iran cannot be blamed for the US-Israel attacks ('This war is not of their making,' Omani foreign minister says of Iran - https://www.middleeasteye.net/news/war-not-their-making-oman... ) as it had accepted a new nuclear deal with the Trump administration during the negotiations (Peace ‘within reach’ as Iran agrees no nuclear material stockpile: Oman FM - https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2026/2/28/peace-within-reach-... ). He has blamed the Trump administration for undermining negotiations and implied that they acted in bad faith.

France has distanced itself from Israel recently; Israel is refusing to buy more French military equipment

This is just a culmination of the last two years of tension. The most recent friction is around Lebanon where France sees itself as the protector of its former colony.

Interesting take from Le Monde: "Israel turns its back on France as Paris struggles to maintain dialogue"

https://www.lemonde.fr/en/international/article/2026/04/01/i...

If the French could give Lebanon the support it needs to remove Hezbollah, relations would improve.

Yes, France did: It went with Russia and China in the revised and postponed UN resolution that does not mention use of force to reopen Hormuz.

Maybe do some research before just dispatching random thoughts

https://www.thenationalnews.com/news/europe/2026/04/03/franc...

What are on about now? France explicitely and vocally refused to enter the war. That is why their tanker passed.

France also joined China and Russia in blocking Bahreini resolution that would authorise "all defensive means necessary" to protect commercial shipping in the strait. That is why their tanker passed.

All defensive means can mean anything. Like a military escort that would shoot back at Iran in case of an attack, which amounts to further escalation.

Not arguing about what that can mean; all I'm saying is that France and Iran exchanged favours.

I wouldn't call non escalation a favour. It should be standard practice.

I wouldn't call "letting a tanker pass in international waters without blowing it up" a favour either.

If that was true many more tankers would have passed from other countries that were more against the war.

France is one of few countries with large military presence in the area, that is the only thing they do more than most other countries.

Edit: And France even directly threatened to use force here. If you only read American news you wouldn't know since they want it to seem like the world is on Irans side here. What we are seeing is that Iran has started buckling to these threats, not that they are giving passage to those who didn't threaten.

> France is advising Bahrain on a draft United Nations Security Council resolution that would authorize the use of force to reopen the Strait of Hormuz and restore global energy flows, according to three diplomats informed of the process.

https://www.politico.eu/article/france-advising-bahrain-un-s...

Spanish tankers are going through. Filipinian and Indian too.

Again, what are you on about.

France was one of 3 countries that literally blocked UN resolution about opening straight by force. And president repeatedly called it "impossible".

You read weird news if you thing "a threat" of anything is making iran to let ships pass. Money and noninvolvement do.

> Spanish tankers are going through

No they are not, this French ship was the first European tanker going through.

The Spanish tankers aren't going through because there aren't any Spanish tankers that operate in that region.

Spain has permission from Iran to send through tankers if it indeed had some.

"X is doing B" and "Y was the first to do B" can both be true at the same time.

Nobody is on Iran's side. The world is not black and white.

Most countries want STABILITY not WAR. Yes Iranian regime is evil. Yes they kill people. And no that's not worth bombing them over.

There are politicians who actually THINK and do CALCULATIONS. This war has probably already cost the global economy a trillion USD.

Certain people in power dont care about global trillions lost, rather billions they earned for themselves in insider trading. Quite a few articles in recent weeks pointing out billion+ moves just before some potus announcement.

Also, US is certainly gaining here from high oil prices since its not an optional luxury rather a necessity for entire economies.

Many people don't think Ukraine is worth resisting Russia over either. But as you just said, the world is not black and white. Your decree of what is and is not worthwhile to do, is nothing more than that.

France also has a problem with Israel waging war in Lebanon, a former French administered teritory. As long as Israel sticks to eliminating Hezbollah only, they'll shut up about it, but anything beyond that, like that bridge bombing or displacing and killing civilians it's bound to have a negative reaction from France.

Given French companies' past activities, a sizeable under the table payment from CMA CGM wouldn't surprise me.

> France and Japan never distanced themselves from USA here.

Trump sure seems to think France did.

https://www.cnbc.com/2026/03/31/trump-attacks-uk-france-x-po...

"President Donald Trump on Tuesday warned the U.K. and France that the U.S. “won’t be there to help you anymore,” as he vented his frustration over the close allies’ refusal to join military action against Iran."

Which is strange given a lot of US airpower is flying out of UK airbases.

Complete nonsense, easily debunked. You should be embarrassed to post this.

> The current Japanese leader is also a war mongerer, so I'd bet they also threatened to enter the war on USA's side if their ships weren't allowed to pass.

The amount of misinformation foreign people have about Takaichi-san is staggering. She is by no means a "war mongerer" and the Japanese constitution has clear limits that prevent Japan from doing virtually anything. The reason why Japan can get a pass is because they specifically have diplomatic relations with Iran, and when she met with Trump, she promised absolutely nothing due to constitutional limits.

The most an average person in the west knows about Takaichi is that she "said" Japan would go to war with China for Taiwan. That's of course not true, but the person you're replying to also thinks Spain is on Iran's side. They are clearly misinformed or lying to fit their narrative.

Why would she promise anything to Trump? She just wants Iran to let them through, USA isn't blocking anyone here, USA isn't a part of that conversation.

why are you adding japanese honorifics when the rest of your post is in english?

In non-English texts it is not unusual to see English honorifics like Sir, Lord, Lady, Duke etc. or even Dr., Mr., Mrs.

Similarly, in English texts it is not unusual to see foreign honorifics besides the actual names.

It is quite frequent for someone who otherwise does not speak another language to address foreigners as they would be addressed in their own language in formal situations where politeness is expected, e.g. using Herr or Frau for a German, and so on, or using Takaichi-san or Takaichi-sama (more formal) instead of translating that to Mrs. Takaichi.

I think that when speaking about a prime minister, formal language is not inappropriate.

Trump is probably the most obvious chief of state whose name would look completely inappropriate in the context of using formal polite language, but this should have been an exception.

supplementing your points: Japanese seem to prefer dropping the honorifics when in English:

https://archive.ph/OI3S2

I've also heard that it's still common to address one's peers with -kun in parliament.

In GP's case it sounds rather quaint, but also endearing (like referring to a neighbor or a long lost schoolmate in the third person)

Pedantry: Takaichi is her father's surname. (I had to look that up, tbh)

Reply on news.ycombinator.com