[bawolff]

To clarify, i meant shipping to neutral ports (article 99 of San Remo: "A blockade must not bar access to the ports and coasts of neutral States" https://ihl-databases.icrc.org/en/ihl-treaties/san-remo-manu... ). Oman seems neutral in all this but nonetheless affected.

They would be allowed to blockade neutral ships going to enemy ports (e.g. Israel) subject to a bunch of rules but that doesn't seem to be what they are doing.

I dont even think Iran is claiming this is a blockade. They are claiming its part of its territorial waters, and they are claiming that they dont recognize the UNCLOS which would give vessels transit rights (but at the same time they are claiming they recognize the part of UNCLOS that allows claiming 12 miles out as territorial waters). At least that is what i got from https://www.ejiltalk.org/the-legality-of-irans-closure-of-th...

[ceejayoz]

There are no neutral ports there. Every other country past the strait is a US ally with US military bases hosted on their territory.

Oman is before the strait begins.

[bawolff]

> There are no neutral ports there. Every other country past the strait is a US ally with US military bases hosted on their territory.

I dont think hosting a US base would necessarily make them non neutral unless that base was used offensively. According to international law, Iran would also have to justify their exercise of self-defense rights was porportional, which even if you accept hosting a us base made that state non neutral, i think it would be difficult to justify their response against states simply hosting a us base met the porportionality requirements of int law.

However even if they were enemy states, Iran would have to declare all of these countries as being under blockade, which they haven't as far as i am aware.

> Oman is before the strait begins.

How is the Oman port of Khasab before the strait begins?

[bawolff]

As a late thought - i would also add that the idea that this is an aggressive war against Iran relies on the idea that iran and hamas are separate enough that israel striking iran is not self-defense from when hamas struck Israel. But the relationship between Hamas and Iran is a lot closer than usa and the gulf countries. So i think its difficult to say that Iran striking gulf countries that host USA bases but are otherwise uninvolved is legitament self-defense without also saying that Israel striking iran was legitament self-defense from the proxies they fund. I feel like logically you cant have it both ways. Either both are valid self defense or neither are.