Skip to main content

Explore Discussions

Join conversations that matter to you

Start a Discussion
Geopolitics

What are the possible effects of the U.S. destroying vessels in the Strait of Hormuz on international relations and safety in the region?

The U.S. military destroyed ten Iranian mine-laying naval vessels on Tuesday amid concerns that Iran is preparing to deploy mines in the Strait of Hormuz, President Trump said. Why it matters: A senior U.S. official told Axios the strike on the inactive ships was a preemptive measure that was a result of intelligence about Iran's operational plans. Iran's deployment of mines would create an extreme threat for commercial shipping in the region and prevent any oil from leaving through the Strait. Approximately one-fifth of the world's oil passes through the waterway. What they're saying: Trump threatened Iran in a Truth Social post with "military consequences" at a level "never seen before" if they were to place mines in the Strait. "If, on the other hand, they remove what may have been placed, it will be a giant step in the right direction," the president wrote, though he clarified that the U.S. has no reports that mines were placed in the waterway. "Additionally, we are using the same Technology and Missile capabilities deployed against Drug Traffickers to permanently eliminate any boat or ship attempting to mine the Hormuz Strait. They will be dealt with quickly and violently," he added. In a separate post, Trump said ten vessels were destroyed in a strike "with more to follow." Zoom out: CNN reported on Tuesday that Iran has started laying mines in the Strait of Hormuz, but that it was not extensive. "We thought the Iranians were planning to start laying the mines, so we took out many of the ships," the U.S. official told Axios

United States
Geopolitics

How has Brexit changed the UK's role in the world and its government services?

Brexit at 10: UK foreign policy melissa.ittoo Wed, 17/06/2026 - 15:56 The geopolitical shifts of the mid-2010s have only intensified in the decade since Brexit. 5 Comment Rt Hon Sir David Lidington KCB Institute for Government Yes Where Brexit made things harder was in removing UK officials and ministers from the conversations in Brussels and the gatherings of EU member state ministers. Brexit International relations Foreign affairs Defence and security European Union Conservative Labour Foreign secretary Cameron government May government Johnson government Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office Ministry of Defence No In 2014, Russia's invasion of Crimea and Donbas removed any doubt still lingering after the 2008 attack on Georgia about President Putin’s desire to smash the post-Cold War settlement in Europe. Then, in 2015, the Chinese government published Made in China 2025, setting out its strategy to achieve domination of the global supply chains in every one of the key 21st century technologies by the centenary of the People's Republic in 2049. And in 2016 the election of Donald Trump heralded the end of a 70-year period in which European democracies could rely on America’s commitment to their defence. It was in this context that the UK voted, on 23 June 2016, to leave the EU. Related content Brexit at 10 Global Britain stays close to home For all the excited talk about “Global Britain”, in practice even the most enthusiastic supporters of leaving the EU ended up largely aligning British policy with that of our European neighbours because that was what the national interest required. The E3 meetings of British, French and German political directors and foreign ministers continued, for instance, even while EU exit negotiations were at their most fraught. Despite pressure from Washington, Boris Johnson’s policies on Russia, Israel/Palestine, Iran, China and climate change stayed close to those of the other Europeans, and Liz Truss (a fervent convert to Brexi

European Union