'If they had done this Iran would have been 100% in the wrong and the United States would have been justified in using its navy to reopen the strait.'

There is no implicit right to use a particular trade corridor. You are entirely biased in your world view. If the US wanted to stop the import of components non-nuclear missiles into Cuba, this too would be justified by you because it is so clearly in the US national interest.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transit_passage

that was explaining why you are wrong Orath btw.

orathiac, you are entirely biased by not knowing at all what you're talking about. As SantaClausowitz said, it is a transit passage, or international waterway. Every state, even landlocked ones, have the right to use it, just as they have a right to use the high seas. In addition to choking off the flow of oil out of the Gulf, it prevents Qatar, the UAE, Kuwait, and Iraq from accessing international waters. You can't do that. If it were permissible for a state to shut down these choke-points without repercussions then Spain and Egypt could turn the Mediterranean into a lake on a whim.

"that fact that a country allows international trade to go through their exclusive economic zone is like having a the US allow Mexicans to trade with Canadians without paying trade tariffs."

You simply don't know what an EEZ is. They give a state control of the resources in those waters, not control over what goes through them. For example, a state can lay claim to the fish and oil in its EEZ, but it cannot say that any ship passing through those waters on its way to another state has to pay taxes or ask permission to enter. Think for a minute how unworkable such a system would be. EEZs extend 200 miles offshore, for goodness sakes.

"Comparisons with the Israeli blockade of the Gaza strip spring to mind. This is considered legal under international law. (even if it causes suffering and starvation among the population of Gaza)"

It's no comparison at all. Israel is an occupying power in Gaza. As an occupying power it can legally impose a blockade. And at any rate, preventing direct shipments into Gaza is in no way comparable to Iran's cockamamie behavior here. That's no endorsement of Israel's actions, just a statement that we're dealing with issues which are similar only in that both involve boats.

"Meanwhile the only suffering that will be caused if oil shipments through the straits stop is some price rises that will hit wealthy consumers who already have enough to eat."

You can't be that stupid. Shutting down the strait could lead to a huge increase in oil prices, which means higher transportation costs, which mean higher prices for everything. Unless you live in a Unabomber hut in the mountains or are some Tuareg in the desert this would affect you, and affect you significantly. That's to say nothing about how it very well could spark a general war in the Middle East, leading to thousands of deaths at the very least.

"If the US wanted to stop the import of components non-nuclear missiles into Cuba, this too would be justified by you because it is so clearly in the US national interest."

It may be justified in a national security sense, but I've been talking about international law this whole time. Strictly speaking, no the United States would not be justified as a matter of international law in redoing Kennedy's quarantine just because we don't want Cuba to have missiles.


You're just wrong, orathiac. America has often been ham-fisted when it comes to Iran and has been far from saintly (we're almost certainly behind the recent bombings and assassinations there), but in this particular case where it comes to Iran threatening to close the strait, we are completely in the right and they are completely in the wrong. Freedom of the seas needs to be protected, and if they try something they'll get their asses handed to them like in Operation Praying Mantis in 1988. I hope nothing happens since it would almost certainly explode into a bigger war, but a provocation like that can't go unanswered.

Neither the US nor Iran ratified UNCLOS III, so this business about transit passages is irrelevant.

The Strait is not in Iran's EEZ, it is in its (and Oman's) territorial waters.

" And at any rate, preventing direct shipments into Gaza is in no way comparable to Iran's cockamamie behavior here."

No, I'd say blockading humanitarian aid is much worse than threatening a retaliatory closure of the Strait. I don't get you Invictus, you even admit Iran is under siege from the sanctions, assassinations and terror plots, yet Iran has no right to defend itself? What would you do if you were in control of Iran?

The United States accepts the Law of the Sea as customary international law. There are real questions about how some provisions interfere with sovereignty and other issues, but the overwhelming majority of provisions are already adhered to by the United States. It is followed basically as if it were ratified by the United States, and since we signed it we are bound to not work against it. For the record, I think we should ratify it, but I also don't think it's that big of a deal.

At any rate, the issues at work here are older than the Law of the Sea and go back to centuries of development of customary international law. Iran can't close the Strait of Hormuz anymore than Spain can close the Straits of Gibraltar or Chile can close the Straits of Magellan or Indonesia the Strait of Malacca.

I never said the Gaza blockade was better or worse than Iran's threatened behavior. I said they were similar only in that both involved boats.

As for what I would do if I were in control of Iran, I certainly would not close the Strait and risk a fight in the one military area where I could inflict zero damage on the United States. Why would I attempt to provoke a naval clash with the United States? My navy would be destroyed and I would look the like the aggressor. I doubt there would be much sympathy at the UN, even from Russia and China, if Supreme Leader Invictus decided to hold the world economy hostage and illegally close an international waterway.

I think this half-baked crisis shows that there really isn't one person running Iran. Or, more precisely, one center of power. The Ayatollah and Ahmalad;fjlaskgjla;skjg and God knows who else are jockeying with one another, and this is probably the result of that. Why else press just about the only issue where they look unambiguously bad?

Considering the US deploys warships in and around Iranian territorial waters, they don't have a leg to stand on with regard to the customary law of the sea or anything else. Nor do I think the UN thinks very highly of western warmongering in the region, and have grown tired of the double standards when it comes to their conduct. Countries have a right to defend themselves, period. And I highly doubt you'd just capitulate to the west if you were being surrounded by military vessels and economically blockade, not to mention internally subverted.

Aggressor? For defending yourself in your own territorial waters from countries who frequently deploy warships? Baloney. The only way to hurt the west, as has been shown from the OPEC oil embargo in the 1970s, is to hit them economically. Neither Russia nor China are going to allow the issue to get to that point, nor are they going to allow Iran to be "wiped off the map" as Secretary Clinton has previously said she would do.

All this stuff about legality and international waters is all very well, but can you imagine any navy standing at 12.1 miles off the coast of New York or San Francisco?

or they are trying to drive up oil prices

"Aggressor? For defending yourself in your own territorial waters from countries who frequently deploy warships?"

I think you mean from cutting off trade from one area of international waters to another. China and Russia will not allow international waters to be unilaterally blockaded.

"All this stuff about legality and international waters is all very well, but can you imagine any navy standing at 12.1 miles off the coast of New York or San Francisco? "

How about Miami?

http://cnsnews.com/news/article/russia-confirms-naval-war-games-plan-america-s-backyard

Santa just curious but did you read the bit about Venezulan national waters in your reference?
-
''Russia will send the nuclear-powered cruiser Pyotr Velikiy (Peter the Great), anti-submarine vessel Admiral Chabanenko, aircraft and some 1,000 military personnel for joint exercises with Venezuelan forces in Venezuelan waters, officials announced.''

Not exactly 12.1 miles eh? But in any case I am sure that you will be glad to confirm that you would hold no objection to a rerun of the exercise 12.1 miles off the coast of Miami, a yes or no answer will do.

I have lost track are the USA currently a member of the International Criminal Court? I know that they were/might have been at one time, but things seem a little ambiguous now. What of the threat to withdraw all money for peacekeeping forces if the court was cheeky enough to charge any US citizens? International law eh, sounds more like a walk up buffet to me.

'I never said the Gaza blockade was better or worse than Iran's threatened behavior. I said they were similar only in that both involved boats.'

boats, and preventing goods travelling by sea from using an area of sea by using military threats.

The difference is the blockade is applied to a territory while the Iranian 'threat' is to international trade going through.

'Why would I attempt to provoke a naval clash with the United States? My navy would be destroyed and I would look the like the aggressor.'

Of course Iran would look like the aggressor to the biased western observer... That's going to be the case no matter what!

"Not exactly 12.1 miles eh? But in any case I am sure that you will be glad to confirm that you would hold no objection to a rerun of the exercise 12.1 miles off the coast of Miami, a yes or no answer will do."

No, and a provocation is a provocation.

"I have lost track are the USA currently a member of the International Criminal Court? I know that they were/might have been at one time, but things seem a little ambiguous now. What of the threat to withdraw all money for peacekeeping forces if the court was cheeky enough to charge any US citizens? International law eh, sounds more like a walk up buffet to me."

What does it matter, the question is whether the UN views the strait of Hormuz as international waters, the answer, resoundingly, is yes.

Orath did you even read my post.

I guess international waters is not the right word, territorial waters that must remain open to international shipping is correct.

JackKline or whatever his name is would probably be able to give the best answer to this

"China and Russia will not allow international waters to be unilaterally blockaded."

Good thing it's not international waters. People implementing blockades on others shouldn't whine about blockades, thanks.

"No, and a provocation is a provocation."

And naturally, sending in warships to Iranian territorial waters isn't a "provocation", because America is doing it.

I never said that, and they are allowed to send ships into Iranian Territorial waters under the convention on the laws of the sea.

* into the waters of the Strait of Hormuz that is

Warships? No they are not. Only ships which fall under the criteria of 'innocent passage', which warships do not.

Putin33, you're really wrong here. This isn't even the normal way you're wrong, where it's often just that you interpret an allegedly gray area in a different way than almost the rest of humanity. The facts of international law state that Iran can't close the Strait of Hormuz like its threatened to. Ships of every state have the right to pass through whenever they want.

Warships can and do meet the criteria of innocent passage. Get your facts straight.

"Warships? No they are not. Only ships which fall under the criteria of 'innocent passage', which warships do not. "

Yes, in fact they are

"Transit passage exists throughout the entire strait and not just the area overlapped by the territorial sea of the coastal nations. The ships and aircraft of all nations, including warships, auxiliaries, and military aircraft, enjoy the right of unimpeded transit passage in such straits and their approaches. Submarines are free to transit international straits submerged, since that is their normal mode of operation. The legal regime of transit passage exists in the most important straits for the international trade exchange and security (Strait of Gibraltar, Dover Strait, Strait of Hormuz, Bab-el-Mandeb, Strait of Malacca).[4]"

Apologies for the wikipedia reference.

"Get your facts straight."

Warships require prior authorization.