Senator Ed Markey, a Democratic senator from Massachusetts, in response to the US President's insulting threats regarding the Strait of Hormuz, emphasized that this strategic passage cannot be managed with swearing and threats of war crimes, and that the only effective solution is negotiation and engagement with Iran.
Publish dateMonday 6 April 2026 - 10:21
Story Code : 350028
Afghan Voice Agency (AVA): Senator Ed Markey reacted to Donald Trump's insulting language in his recent message on the social network Truth Social.
In this message, he wrote to Trump: "A crazy, swear-filled tweet that threatens to commit a war crime will not open the Strait of Hormuz."
The Massachusetts senator went on to suggest negotiating with Iran instead of threatening, writing: "The only way is to negotiate with Iran. Start from where you are eventually going to end up, Donald. So that Americans don't have to pay more for gas and our soldiers don't lose their lives for it."
The Democratic senator's response came after the US President warned Iran yesterday (Sunday) in very inappropriate terms that if it does not open the Strait of Hormuz, he will target bridges and power plants throughout Iran.
On Sunday, April 5, 2026, Donald Trump wrote in a post on the Truth Social Network in an offensive tone and containing obscene language: "Tuesday will be Power Plants and Bridges Day... Open that damn Strait, you crazy bastards, or you will live in hell." Trump had threatened that if the Strait of Hormuz is not opened by Tuesday, he will target Iranian power plants and bridges.
Senator Ed Markey, in his direct response, emphasized that such threats not only do not open the Strait of Hormuz, but are also war crimes, and that Trump has no real plan to resolve the crisis. Global oil prices have increased after these threats, and concerns have risen about further disruptions to global energy supplies. Iran has rejected these threats, calling them incitement to war crimes.
It seems that the intensification of the threatening tone and the use of offensive language in diplomacy, rather than providing a solution, increases the risk of spreading tension and harming the economic interests of the parties. Analyses indicate that the continuation of this approach could lead to an increase in global energy prices, threaten the security of American forces, and exacerbate the humanitarian crisis in the region, while the path of negotiation and engagement remains a realistic option to avoid further costs.
In this message, he wrote to Trump: "A crazy, swear-filled tweet that threatens to commit a war crime will not open the Strait of Hormuz."
The Massachusetts senator went on to suggest negotiating with Iran instead of threatening, writing: "The only way is to negotiate with Iran. Start from where you are eventually going to end up, Donald. So that Americans don't have to pay more for gas and our soldiers don't lose their lives for it."
The Democratic senator's response came after the US President warned Iran yesterday (Sunday) in very inappropriate terms that if it does not open the Strait of Hormuz, he will target bridges and power plants throughout Iran.
On Sunday, April 5, 2026, Donald Trump wrote in a post on the Truth Social Network in an offensive tone and containing obscene language: "Tuesday will be Power Plants and Bridges Day... Open that damn Strait, you crazy bastards, or you will live in hell." Trump had threatened that if the Strait of Hormuz is not opened by Tuesday, he will target Iranian power plants and bridges.
Senator Ed Markey, in his direct response, emphasized that such threats not only do not open the Strait of Hormuz, but are also war crimes, and that Trump has no real plan to resolve the crisis. Global oil prices have increased after these threats, and concerns have risen about further disruptions to global energy supplies. Iran has rejected these threats, calling them incitement to war crimes.
It seems that the intensification of the threatening tone and the use of offensive language in diplomacy, rather than providing a solution, increases the risk of spreading tension and harming the economic interests of the parties. Analyses indicate that the continuation of this approach could lead to an increase in global energy prices, threaten the security of American forces, and exacerbate the humanitarian crisis in the region, while the path of negotiation and engagement remains a realistic option to avoid further costs.
avapress.net/vdchivnx623nmvd.01t2.html
Top hits
