363

Unclear if threat has been carried out or if move will jeopardise talks with US scheduled for Sunday

Iran has said it is closing the strait of Hormuz after waves of Israeli strikes in Lebanon in a move that threatens to derail the fragile interim peace deal with the US, signed just days ago.

The Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps warned ships not to approach the strategic waterway, which before the war carried a fifth of global oil and liquid gas supplies, citing what it called Israeli crimes in Lebanon and a US violation of commitments to establish a ceasefire there.

It was unclear if the threat had been carried out, or if it would jeopardise talks in Switzerland scheduled for Sunday that were supposed to start the process of turning the current interim agreement between the US and Iran signed this week into a more detailed deal covering Iran’s nuclear programme.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] Aatube@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago)

i have just scrolled through ten days without finding a trace. search results, the recent one is about the news item itself without any objections to the wording. the rest are from months ago and mostly do the same or are using guardian as a counterexample or pointing out the common use of passive voice in news headlines. the exceptions i didn’t find convincing

[-] Aceticon@lemmy.dbzer0.com 8 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago)

Every time The Guardian says "the Iranian Regime" but not "the Israeli Regime", they're framing both sides differently, which they do all the time time.

Ditto when they say that Iran "claims" but US/Israeli sources "say", again countless times - in one of those for example within a single paragraph (the 3rd) you have "Iran claims" and "US officials said".

I bet you're so used to them using differently charged words for different sides you just accept it as natural without spotting that they're using differently charged words and implying different levels of trustworthiness for each side, which is exactly how Manufacturing Consent techniques work on people who don't try and spot such forms of manipulation.

[-] Aatube@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 points 1 day ago
  1. as bad as Israel is, it is not an authoritarian state oppressive of its “own” people, even though that doesn’t justify invading Iran. it is trending that way but it’s somewhat far from having an IRGC
  2. you’re not comparing “Iran claims” to “US said”; you’re comparing “Iranian claims” to “US said” instead of “US statements”. here, “claims” is just shorter. in your example the word “claims” is used at the same frequency for trump and iran. google results suggest “US statements” is used at about the same percentage as “Iranian statements”
[-] Aceticon@lemmy.dbzer0.com 5 points 18 hours ago* (last edited 17 hours ago)
  1. You must have somehow missed the 1/3 of people who live in Israel and don't have the right of voting there even if the lived there all their lives, their parents lived there all their lives and their grandparents lived there all their lives. Or how only a Jewish person can be an Israeli National and non-Jews can only be Israeli Citizens which is different in Israel and has less rights.
  2. Mate, it's literally there: "Iranian claims" and "US officials said". Same paragraf, talking about exactly the same subject of did the US bombs damage an Iranian nuclear facility or not - per The Guardian the US Officials said they did damage it whilst Iran claimed they didn't. Your slimy misdirection attempt about "statements" doesn't change what's actually there.

I take back my bet that you're just used to seeing Manufactutring Consent framing and think it's normal - per your point 2 it's clear that you yourself are purposefully trying to spread misinformation.

[-] Aatube@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 points 10 hours ago* (last edited 10 hours ago)
  1. That’s true. It doesn’t change that Iran is more oppressive, unfortunately. I hold that oppressing everyone (and especially a certain nearly 1/2 of the population) is worse than apartheid oppression.
  2. My entire argument is that “Iranian claims” is different from “Iran claims” and The Guardian uses the noun phrase for everyone at the same rate. You might argue about the latter, but the former is what The Guardian uses to refer to “the things that X said” and not “X said”, because there is no such thing as “Iranian saids”, and the closest alternative “statements” is just longer and rare.
    Your reply does not address that, or that I did also argue the latter. From looking across their articles, including the one you sent and not just that paragraph, The Guardian uses “claims” the verb for Iran at about the same rate it does for the US. In fact, the same goes for the noun phrase in that article. (listing both: Trump claims, Iran has claimed, Trump was quick to claim, Mohammad Eslami[ ]claimed, Iranian claims, Trump’s claims.)
this post was submitted on 21 Jun 2026
363 points (100.0% liked)

News

38056 readers
1348 users here now

Welcome to the News community!

Rules:

1. Be civil


Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.


2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.


Obvious biased sources will be removed at the mods’ discretion. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted separately but not to the post body. Sources may be checked for reliability using Wikipedia, MBFC, AdFontes, GroundNews, etc.


3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.


Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.


4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source. Clickbait titles may be removed.


Posts which titles don’t match the source may be removed. If the site changed their headline, we may ask you to update the post title. Clickbait titles use hyperbolic language and do not accurately describe the article content. When necessary, post titles may be edited, clearly marked with [brackets], but may never be used to editorialize or comment on the content.


5. Only recent news is allowed.


Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.


6. All posts must be news articles.


No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials, videos, blogs, press releases, or celebrity gossip will be allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis. Mods may use discretion to pre-approve videos or press releases from highly credible sources that provide unique, newsworthy content not available or possible in another format.


7. No duplicate posts.


If an article has already been posted, it will be removed. Different articles reporting on the same subject are permitted. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.


8. Misinformation is prohibited.


Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.


9. No link shorteners or news aggregators.


All posts must link to original article sources. You may include archival links in the post description. News aggregators such as Yahoo, Google, Hacker News, etc. should be avoided in favor of the original source link. Newswire services such as AP, Reuters, or AFP, are frequently republished and may be shared from other credible sources.


10. Don't copy entire article in your post body


For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.

founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS