| So you agree with TFA, which says: "The legal position is weak. Transit passage under UNCLOS Part III guarantees free, continuous, and unobstructed passage for all ships. This is customary international law, binding even on non-parties. Iran signed UNCLOS but never ratified it. The selective nature of the blockade, permitting some flag states while denying others, violates the principle of non-discrimination between flag states." But then which is your opinion about the authority of USA to block the traffic through international waters? Before attacking Iran, in February, USA has instituted a blockade of Cuba, intercepting the oil tankers headed to Cuba and causing thus a severe shortage of fuel in Cuba, which has caused a lot of problems to the ordinary Cuban citizens. Thus it is quite shameless today for USA to criticize Iran for the selective blockade of the Strait of Hormuz, when USA was the first to provide an example for this kind of action. Moreover, unlike Iran, USA has started the blockade totally unprovoked and not against an attacker and its allies. Since USA has been the first country demonstrating that they will break any international laws and treaties whenever they please, now any other country has the right to do the same thing, when this is directed against USA or its allies. |