No one is likely to help America. It is now a pariah nation

[Mahmoud Ahmadinejad]

Some say the likelihood of America's Asian allies aiding the U.S.-initiated war against Iran and subsequent seizure of Chinese ships is currently very low.

Current geopolitical developments from late 2025 and early 2026 indicate that most major Asian allies, including Japan, South Korea, and Australia have explicitly issued statements distancing themselves from direct military involvement in the cowardly sneak attack on Iran.

They are also understandably considered to be very reluctant to offer any support to the aggressor Americans in any potential conflict with China.

America has apparently forfeited the goodwill of even their closest allies around the world by the vicious unprovoked nature of their brazen attack on Iran.

In March, after the U.S. and Israel had launched surprise attacks on Iran on February 28, the Trump administration requested that Japan and South Korea send ships into the war zone. Both nations declined. Likewise, Australia has expressed no interest in aiding the American thugs, either.

The scenario of the US Navy seizing Chinese ships at sea further complicates any possibility of allied support due to regional security fears. This means no port facilities for the piratical American navy, no access to air bases, (and no overflights) for the bullies in bombers.

Allies fear that aiding and abetting American aggression could trigger a nightmare scenario of a protracted conflict that forces them to choose between the U.S. and their largest trading partner (China).

Mutual defense treaties (like ANZUS or the U.S.-Japan Security Treaty are designed for defensive actions within the Pacific.

They do not legally obligate these nations to support offensive U.S. operations started in the Middle East or against commercial Chinese shipping.

In short, the U.S. currently lacks a "coalition of the willing" in Asia for this specific scenario. Most allies view a U.S.-led war in the Middle East as a strategic error that undermines their own safety against a rising China.

 

[Mahmoud Ahmadinejad]

Most of America's NATO allies have declined to assist in military actions against Iran, expressing concerns about involvement in the conflict. Many
have made it clear that they do not wish to engage in military operations related to the conflict.

• NATO has no standing obligation to let the U.S. use allies’ ports/airfields for offensive operations against a non‑NATO state; access requires individual host‑nation consent and often parliamentary or executive approval.
• Recent public statements and reporting show many European and other allies are reluctant to be drawn into distant offensive actions (they’ve declined similar requests in recent crises).
• Legal/political constraints: domestic laws, parliament approvals, alliance political considerations, and concern about escalation/retaliation make broad, rapid permission seems unlikely.
• Practical reality: the U.S. already has extensive bilateral basing and rotational access in some states (e.g., UK, Germany historically, Japan, South Korea, NATO logistics hubs), so limited logistics/support could be possible from willing partners, but full use for an offensive seizure of Chinese ships would be politically fraught and not guaranteed.

 

[Into the Night]

Some say the likelihood of America's Asian allies aiding the U.S.-initiated war against Iran and subsequent seizure of Chinese ships is currently very low.

Current geopolitical developments from late 2025 and early 2026 indicate that most major Asian allies, including Japan, South Korea, and Australia have explicitly issued statements distancing themselves from direct military involvement in the cowardly sneak attack on Iran.

They are also understandably considered to be very reluctant to offer any support to the aggressor Americans in any potential conflict with China.

America has apparently forfeited the goodwill of even their closest allies around the world by the vicious unprovoked nature of their brazen attack on Iran.

In March, after the U.S. and Israel had launched surprise attacks on Iran on February 28, the Trump administration requested that Japan and South Korea send ships into the war zone. Both nations declined. Likewise, Australia has expressed no interest in aiding the American thugs, either.

The scenario of the US Navy seizing Chinese ships at sea further complicates any possibility of allied support due to regional security fears. This means no port facilities for the piratical American navy, no access to air bases, (and no overflights) for the bullies in bombers.

Allies fear that aiding and abetting American aggression could trigger a nightmare scenario of a protracted conflict that forces them to choose between the U.S. and their largest trading partner (China).

Mutual defense treaties (like ANZUS or the U.S.-Japan Security Treaty are designed for defensive actions within the Pacific.

They do not legally obligate these nations to support offensive U.S. operations started in the Middle East or against commercial Chinese shipping.

In short, the U.S. currently lacks a "coalition of the willing" in Asia for this specific scenario. Most allies view a U.S.-led war in the Middle East as a strategic error that undermines their own safety against a rising China.

China isn't rising.

 

[Mahmoud Ahmadinejad]

China isn't rising.

That's news to me. What gave you that idea?

 

[Into the Night]

Most of America's NATO allies have declined to assist in military actions against Iran, expressing concerns about involvement in the conflict. Many
have made it clear that they do not wish to engage in military operations related to the conflict.

• NATO has no standing obligation to let the U.S. use allies’ ports/airfields for offensive operations against a non‑NATO state; access requires individual host‑nation consent and often parliamentary or executive approval.
• Recent public statements and reporting show many European and other allies are reluctant to be drawn into distant offensive actions (they’ve declined similar requests in recent crises).
• Legal/political constraints: domestic laws, parliament approvals, alliance political considerations, and concern about escalation/retaliation make broad, rapid permission seems unlikely.
• Practical reality: the U.S. already has extensive bilateral basing and rotational access in some states (e.g., UK, Germany historically, Japan, South Korea, NATO logistics hubs), so limited logistics/support could be possible from willing partners, but full use for an offensive seizure of Chinese ships would be politically fraught and not guaranteed.

America doesn't have NATO allies, dope. It is leaving NATO because the NATO treaty is not being honored by signatories.
What 'seizure of Chinese ships'??

 

[Into the Night]

That's news to me. What gave you that idea?

Try getting your head out from under the rock.

 

[Mahmoud Ahmadinejad]

America doesn't have NATO allies, dope. It is leaving NATO because the NATO treaty is not being honored by signatories.

It hasn't, so it still has NATO allies.

What 'seizure of Chinese ships'??

"Effective immediately, the United States Navy, the Finest in the World, will begin the process of BLOCKADING any and all ships trying to enter or leave the Strait of Hormuz," Trump posted on Truth Social. "At some point, we will reach an ‘ALL BEING ALLOWED TO GO IN, ALL BEING ALLOWED TO GO OUT’ basis, but Iran has not allowed that to happen… THIS IS WORLD EXTORTION."

He said the U.S. would deny safe passage to vessels that paid the toll and begin clearing mines.

"I have also instructed our Navy to seek and interdict every vessel in international waters that has paid a toll to Iran," he wrote. "No one who pays an illegal toll will have safe passage… We will also begin destroying the mines… Any Iranian who fires at us… will be BLOWN TO HELL!"

 

[Mahmoud Ahmadinejad]

Try getting your head out from under the rock.

Try backing up your statements.

 

[serendipity]

Why are there so many nasty cunts out there, now Trump.is by no means perfect or even close to it. However compared to nasty fuckers aligned against him he's a saint.

 

[serenity]

Some say the likelihood of America's Asian allies aiding the U.S.-initiated war against Iran and subsequent seizure of Chinese ships is currently very low.

Current geopolitical developments from late 2025 and early 2026 indicate that most major Asian allies, including Japan, South Korea, and Australia have explicitly issued statements distancing themselves from direct military involvement in the cowardly sneak attack on Iran.

They are also understandably considered to be very reluctant to offer any support to the aggressor Americans in any potential conflict with China.

America has apparently forfeited the goodwill of even their closest allies around the world by the vicious unprovoked nature of their brazen attack on Iran.

In March, after the U.S. and Israel had launched surprise attacks on Iran on February 28, the Trump administration requested that Japan and South Korea send ships into the war zone. Both nations declined. Likewise, Australia has expressed no interest in aiding the American thugs, either.

The scenario of the US Navy seizing Chinese ships at sea further complicates any possibility of allied support due to regional security fears. This means no port facilities for the piratical American navy, no access to air bases, (and no overflights) for the bullies in bombers.

Allies fear that aiding and abetting American aggression could trigger a nightmare scenario of a protracted conflict that forces them to choose between the U.S. and their largest trading partner (China).

Mutual defense treaties (like ANZUS or the U.S.-Japan Security Treaty are designed for defensive actions within the Pacific.

They do not legally obligate these nations to support offensive U.S. operations started in the Middle East or against commercial Chinese shipping.

In short, the U.S. currently lacks a "coalition of the willing" in Asia for this specific scenario. Most allies view a U.S.-led war in the Middle East as a strategic error that undermines their own safety against a rising China.

What is the separation of evolving in plain sight and evolution in plane language? Rule of law defending vernacular tribalism until extinction of this species destroying itself each generation gap since dawn of civilization.

Follow it takes a village to raise each great great grandchild born one at a time in series parallel space inhabiting the moment here so far each rotation of the planet specifically one person at a time 7days a week conception to decomposed corpse.

Your body fits between your two parents and their grandchildren you helped reproduced, if you reproduced any at all. Life evolves one at a time daily here. Specificity of existing now living as an ever changing form never same total sum details achieved since arriving a fertilized cell.

 

[Into the Night]

It hasn't, so it still has NATO allies.



"Effective immediately, the United States Navy, the Finest in the World, will begin the process of BLOCKADING any and all ships trying to enter or leave the Strait of Hormuz," Trump posted on Truth Social. "At some point, we will reach an ‘ALL BEING ALLOWED TO GO IN, ALL BEING ALLOWED TO GO OUT’ basis, but Iran has not allowed that to happen… THIS IS WORLD EXTORTION."

He said the U.S. would deny safe passage to vessels that paid the toll and begin clearing mines.

"I have also instructed our Navy to seek and interdict every vessel in international waters that has paid a toll to Iran," he wrote. "No one who pays an illegal toll will have safe passage… We will also begin destroying the mines… Any Iranian who fires at us… will be BLOWN TO HELL!"

What 'seizure of Chinese ships'??

 

[Into the Night]

Most of America's NATO allies have declined to assist in military actions against Iran, expressing concerns about involvement in the conflict. Many
have made it clear that they do not wish to engage in military operations related to the conflict.

• NATO has no standing obligation to let the U.S. use allies’ ports/airfields for offensive operations against a non‑NATO state; access requires individual host‑nation consent and often parliamentary or executive approval.
• Recent public statements and reporting show many European and other allies are reluctant to be drawn into distant offensive actions (they’ve declined similar requests in recent crises).
• Legal/political constraints: domestic laws, parliament approvals, alliance political considerations, and concern about escalation/retaliation make broad, rapid permission seems unlikely.
• Practical reality: the U.S. already has extensive bilateral basing and rotational access in some states (e.g., UK, Germany historically, Japan, South Korea, NATO logistics hubs), so limited logistics/support could be possible from willing partners, but full use for an offensive seizure of Chinese ships would be politically fraught and not guaranteed.

What 'NATO allies'?

 

[Into the Night]

Try backing up your statements.

RQAA. Go back and read it instead of repeating the same question over and over mindlessly.

 

[zymurgy]

pretending Iran isn't universally hated is hilarious terrorist boy

North Korea is the only nation more despised

 

[Nordberg]

The only reason the other nations are not in super hate mode is we have a system that replaces the leader every 4 years, and often takes much of his power in 2, America is not hated. Trump is.

 

[Mahmoud Ahmadinejad]

The only reason the other nations are not in super hate mode is we have a system that replaces the leader every 4 years, and often takes much of his power in 2, America is not hated. Trump is.

Can you truly believe that? Can you know no history?

America is the focus of much hatred worldwide, and has been for many decades.

In order to obtain the power America possesses today, the United States performed a countless number of covert and unjust operations against other countries.

The United States used force to take possession of the land surrounding the interoceanic Panama Canal in 1903. Panama was part of the Republic of Colombia, and when Colombia rejected the American demands, the United States sent its military to crush opposition. At gunpoint, Panama was declared an independent nation, with a puppet government in power. In order to establish an "American zone" on both sides of the waterway, Panama was forced to leave Colombia and serve the United States. In November 1903, the Americans concluded the Hay–Bunau-Varilla Treaty "on behalf of" their new puppet state with the United States without the presence of a single Panamanian.

This one hits close to home. "Operation Ajax" was a coup organized by petro-colonialists in London and the CIA against the elected Prime Minister of Iran, Mohammad Mosaddegh. The Anglo-Persian Oil Company was a British company that controlled the oil fields in Iran. When PM Mosaddegh and our Parliament wanted to audit the exploiters of Iranian oil, the petro-colonialists refused to allow the audit. Our elected leaders nationalized our oil fields in response, and the robber barons in London ginned up a worldwide boycott of our oil (sounds familiar?)

The United States CIA then launched a coup to cover up the corruption of the Anglo-Iranian Oil Company and get rid of our elected leaders.

Despite their insincere purported "love for democracy", the Americans installed a puppet military general and gave vast powers to the hereditary monarch in Iran, an incompetent and westernized individual who disrespected the will of the Iranian people and used secret police to suppress dissent. Now some have the effrontery to criticize our Revolutionary government.

Mossadegh's National Front was accordingly suppressed in the undemocratically manipulated 1954 general election and he was subsequently charged with treason, imprisoned for three years, then put under house arrest until his death and was buried in his own home in order to prevent a political furor.

In 2013, during the presidency of Barack Obama, the United States government formally acknowledged its role in the coup as being a part of its foreign policy initiatives, including paying protesters and bribing officials.

Do you wonder why so many Iranians wish death to America?

Back to the Western Hemisphere for another example of Yankee skullduggery. The agri-colonialist United Fruit Company was a multinational corporation in Guatemala owned by the United States.

In 1951, the new Guatemalan democratically-elected president, Jacobo Árbenz, wondered why the Guatemalans themselves couldn't possess their own land (similar to Iran's situation.) In his inaugural address, Árbenz promised to convert Guatemala from "a backward country with a predominantly feudal economy into a modern capitalist state"

As a result, Árbenz said that Guatemala would buy the land from the UFC and redistribute it to the Guatemala peasants. The Americans, who claim to support the autonomy of democratic nations, accused Guatemala of communism (this was false propaganda created by the United States as a reason to eliminate the elected Guatemalan government.)

The CIA overthrew Árbenz in a covert operation that replaced him with a military dictator. Consequently, Guatemala was plunged into a maelstrom of CIA-backed civil wars until the late 1990s.

Now, to southeast Asia. In Vietnam, the United States claimed their aim was to preserve democracy. But America did not preserve Vietnam or democracy by any means.

The backstory is that during the decolonization of Indochina, the French colonialist empire refused to leave Vietnam because they saw it as a way to expropriate the natural resources of the native population for the benefit of rich men in Paris.

In 1954, the United States, an ally of France, joined the battle against the Vietnamese people who resisted colonial rule. When it became clear that the Vietnamese people would win the war, the French fled but America kept fighting a war that wasn't even theirs.

"South Vietnam" was created by the U.S., while the resistance to to America's armed oppression was led by the revolutionary leader, Ho Chi Minh - the George Washington of his era.

I certainly hope that you at least know and acknowledge the shameful history of that brutal 20-year suppression of an indigenous people who yearned to ruled their own land as they saw fit.

Let's add the genocide of the Native Americans and the exploitation of Negro slaves to America;s long list of "accomplishments", too.

Throughout history, all American governments have supposedly upheld a right to life, liberty and pursuit of happiness", but only for Americans.

Consequently, the United States has steadily forfeited any claim to legitimacy and gained immense international disdain.

America talks out of both sides of its mouth. Do you doubt that there are ample reasons to despise your habitual bullying of developing nations and your hypocrisy regarding "human rights", "democracy", etc, which spans over a century of abuse, corruption, and greed.

 

[zymurgy]

Can you truly believe that? Can you know no history?

America is the focus of much hatred worldwide, and has been for many decades.

In order to obtain the power America possesses today, the United States performed a countless number of covert and unjust operations against other countries.

The United States used force to take possession of the land surrounding the interoceanic Panama Canal in 1903. Panama was part of the Republic of Colombia, and when Colombia rejected the American demands, the United States sent its military to crush opposition. At gunpoint, Panama was declared an independent nation, with a puppet government in power. In order to establish an "American zone" on both sides of the waterway, Panama was forced to leave Colombia and serve the United States. In November 1903, the Americans concluded the Hay–Bunau-Varilla Treaty "on behalf of" their new puppet state with the United States without the presence of a single Panamanian.

This one hits close to home. "Operation Ajax" was a coup organized by petro-colonialists in London and the CIA against the elected Prime Minister of Iran, Mohammad Mosaddegh. The Anglo-Persian Oil Company was a British company that controlled the oil fields in Iran. When PM Mosaddegh and our Parliament wanted to audit the exploiters of Iranian oil, the petro-colonialists refused to allow the audit. Our elected leaders nationalized our oil fields in response, and the robber barons in London ginned up a worldwide boycott of our oil (sounds familiar?)

The United States CIA then launched a coup to cover up the corruption of the Anglo-Iranian Oil Company and get rid of our elected leaders.

Despite their insincere purported "love for democracy", the Americans installed a puppet military general and gave vast powers to the hereditary monarch in Iran, an incompetent and westernized individual who disrespected the will of the Iranian people and used secret police to suppress dissent. Now some have the effrontery to criticize our Revolutionary government.

Mossadegh's National Front was accordingly suppressed in the undemocratically manipulated 1954 general election and he was subsequently charged with treason, imprisoned for three years, then put under house arrest until his death and was buried in his own home in order to prevent a political furor.

In 2013, during the presidency of Barack Obama, the United States government formally acknowledged its role in the coup as being a part of its foreign policy initiatives, including paying protesters and bribing officials.

Do you wonder why so many Iranians wish death to America?

Back to the Western Hemisphere for another example of Yankee skullduggery. The agri-colonialist United Fruit Company was a multinational corporation in Guatemala owned by the United States.

In 1951, the new Guatemalan democratically-elected president, Jacobo Árbenz, wondered why the Guatemalans themselves couldn't possess their own land (similar to Iran's situation.) In his inaugural address, Árbenz promised to convert Guatemala from "a backward country with a predominantly feudal economy into a modern capitalist state"

As a result, Árbenz said that Guatemala would buy the land from the UFC and redistribute it to the Guatemala peasants. The Americans, who claim to support the autonomy of democratic nations, accused Guatemala of communism (this was false propaganda created by the United States as a reason to eliminate the elected Guatemalan government.)

The CIA overthrew Árbenz in a covert operation that replaced him with a military dictator. Consequently, Guatemala was plunged into a maelstrom of CIA-backed civil wars until the late 1990s.

Now, to southeast Asia. In Vietnam, the United States claimed their aim was to preserve democracy. But America did not preserve Vietnam or democracy by any means.

The backstory is that during the decolonization of Indochina, the French colonialist empire refused to leave Vietnam because they saw it as a way to expropriate the natural resources of the native population for the benefit of rich men in Paris.

In 1954, the United States, an ally of France, joined the battle against the Vietnamese people who resisted colonial rule. When it became clear that the Vietnamese people would win the war, the French fled but America kept fighting a war that wasn't even theirs.

"South Vietnam" was created by the U.S., while the resistance to to America's armed oppression was led by the revolutionary leader, Ho Chi Minh - the George Washington of his era.

I certainly hope that you at least know and acknowledge the shameful history of that brutal 20-year suppression of an indigenous people who yearned to ruled their own land as they saw fit.

Let's add the genocide of the Native Americans and the exploitation of Negro slaves to America;s long list of "accomplishments", too.

Throughout history, all American governments have supposedly upheld a right to life, liberty and pursuit of happiness", but only for Americans.

Consequently, the United States has steadily forfeited any claim to legitimacy and gained immense international disdain.

America talks out of both sides of its mouth. Do you doubt that there are ample reasons to despise your habitual bullying of developing nations and your hypocrisy regarding "human rights", "democracy", etc, which spans over a century of abuse, corruption, and greed.

You are padding a real argument with a cartoon version of history. Yes, the United States has a long record of intervention, hypocrisy, and support for ugly things abroad. Nobody serious denies that. But your post pretends that this makes anti-American hatred uniquely rational, as though other powers have clean hands and America alone invented empire, coups, conquest, propaganda, and exploitation. That is not history. That is selective indictment.

You also keep smuggling in a fake distinction between “America” and its leaders, as though governments act in a vacuum but nations somehow do not bear the consequences of state power. Other countries do not spend decades reacting only to one president’s personality. They react to American power, American policy, American alliances, American wars, American markets, and American cultural dominance. Trump did not create that. He may intensify it, symbolize it, or personalize it, but he did not invent it.

And once you go down the road of historical grievance as a license for present hatred, you start a slippery slope. Every major state has blood on its hands. If the standard is “your ancestors or prior governments did evil things, therefore hatred of your nation is justified,” then the whole world gets to live in permanent vendetta.


Your examples prove America is not innocent. They do not prove that hatred of America is morally serious, analytically precise, or politically useful. Usually it just becomes a lazy substitute for judging actual policies in the present.

 

[Mahmoud Ahmadinejad]

You are padding a real argument with a cartoon version of history. Yes, the United States has a long record of intervention, hypocrisy, and support for ugly things abroad. Nobody serious denies that. But your post pretends that this makes anti-American hatred uniquely rational, as though other powers have clean hands and America alone invented empire, coups, conquest, propaganda, and exploitation. That is not history. That is selective indictment.

I made no such "pretense". Your perceptions are yours alone.

You also keep smuggling in a fake distinction between “America” and its leaders, as though governments act in a vacuum but nations somehow do not bear the consequences of state power. Other countries do not spend decades reacting only to one president’s personality. They react to American power, American policy, American alliances, American wars, American markets, and American cultural dominance. Trump did not create that. He may intensify it, symbolize it, or personalize it, but he did not invent it.

It does not matter who inhabits elected office. In a representative republic, the citizens choose the leaders they prefer in elections. That means they own the subsequent actions those elected leaders undertake. During the Nuremberg trials, the principle of collective guilt was solidly established.

There is no distinction between a state and its leaders. The head of state acts for the state, which by definition, includes the populace.

If any nation wants to stop their government from doing things they don't wish it to do, the remedy is obvious. The thirteen colonies did it in 1776. We of Iran did it in 1979.

If you choose not to employ the obvious corrective, you are complicit in whatever is done by your nation.

And once you go down the road of historical grievance as a license for present hatred, you start a slippery slope. Every major state has blood on its hands. If the standard is “your ancestors or prior governments did evil things, therefore hatred of your nation is justified,” then the whole world gets to live in permanent vendetta.

I made no such argument.

Your examples prove America is not innocent. They do not prove that hatred of America is morally serious, analytically precise, or politically useful. Usually it just becomes a lazy substitute for judging actual policies in the present.

Again, the conclusions you prefer to draw are not of my making.

The hatred of America is longstanding, justifiable, and widespread.

Do you deny this?

 

[Noking]

Most of America's NATO allies have declined to assist in military actions against Iran, expressing concerns about involvement in the conflict. Many
have made it clear that they do not wish to engage in military operations related to the conflict.

• NATO has no standing obligation to let the U.S. use allies’ ports/airfields for offensive operations against a non‑NATO state; access requires individual host‑nation consent and often parliamentary or executive approval.
• Recent public statements and reporting show many European and other allies are reluctant to be drawn into distant offensive actions (they’ve declined similar requests in recent crises).
• Legal/political constraints: domestic laws, parliament approvals, alliance political considerations, and concern about escalation/retaliation make broad, rapid permission seems unlikely.
• Practical reality: the U.S. already has extensive bilateral basing and rotational access in some states (e.g., UK, Germany historically, Japan, South Korea, NATO logistics hubs), so limited logistics/support could be possible from willing partners, but full use for an offensive seizure of Chinese ships would be politically fraught and not guaranteed.

A nation that sponsors terrorism like Iran is a pariah nation

 

[Mahmoud Ahmadinejad]

A nation that sponsors terrorism like Iran is a pariah nation

One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter, I have heard.