[AnonC]

> United States using its military to keep international waters open

Being a little pedantic, as per my knowledge, the Strait of Hormuz is not “international waters”. It’s territorial waters belonging to Iran and Oman. AFAIK, Iran hasn’t ratified UNCLOS either, and claims it is not subject to it.

[Majromax]

> It’s territorial waters belonging to Iran and Oman.

The trick is that it's still an 'international strait', or a segment of water that forms the only connection between two areas of high seas -- in this case the Persian Gulf and the Gulf of Oman. The principle of freedom of navigation establishes that innocent traffic (civilian traffic, and even warships in peacetime) have a right to use the strait to go from one body of international water to the other.

Iran may claim that it doesn't have to abide by that right, but international law is never self-executing. One question to be resolved by this war is whether Iran will ultimately recognize the right to navigation in any settlement (and then choose to abide by said settlement).

[anigbrowl]

As the nation that was attacked first, They have an unimpeachable argument for wanting to defend the rest of their territorial waters. The ludicrously escalatory rhetoric from the US President has turned this into an existential conflict. I can't take finger-wagging against Iran seriously to be honest, the idea that western powers would scrupulously adhere to international mores if subjected to a full-on kinetic attack by another nation state is absurd on its face.

[belorn]

One can argue that they have a "good reason" for ignoring international rules, but I would voice a risk here. Other nations that control important straits are watching what is happening and many of them could benefit more by taxing their straits than allowing free passage, and as more do it, the benefit only increase. It is a kind of prisoner dilemma in that defecting becomes the best strategy as soon anyone else start defecting.

As with other recent trade wars, the value of this kind of behavior goes down when other nations start to retaliate. A ship might be able to pay the insurance from Iran, but can they afford to pay the same fee for each time they pass some other nations territorial waters? At some point the US blockade won't matter and the profitability of the venture will be zero.

[Jensson]

> They have an unimpeachable argument for wanting to defend the rest of their territorial waters

They are shooting down neutral tankers outside of their territorial water, so stop with the bullshit. If they only shot ships in their own waters traffic in Hormuz would already have returned to normal.

> the idea that western powers would scrupulously adhere to international mores if subjected to a full-on kinetic attack by another nation state is absurd on its face.

We know they are, we have Ukraine as an example they don't start attacking neutral nations civilian vessels just because Russia attacked them. Only evil regimes do that, you don't "defend yourself" by committing terrorism against innocent neutral country ships that aren't shipping anything related to the country you are fighting.

There is no reason at all for Iran to start shooting ad Indian ships just because USA attacked Iran, no western nation would defend themselves that way, many western nations has been attacked and conquered in history so we know how they act.

[anigbrowl]

Ukraine doesn't have a strategic choke point that gives them asymmetric economic leverage. Imagine that Brazil's and the world's economy was intrinsically linked to exports from the Mediterranean region, and China decided to launch a full-on war against Spain in concert with Belgium. What do you think Spain would do, sit there and suffer or make use of its geography? How do you think Spain came to be a powerful nation in the first place?

> evil GMAFB, the US launched this war in a joint effort with Israel and smoked a school full of children on the very first day. Iran is pursuing its strategic interests by exploiting its geography and inflicting pain on countries on the other side of the Persian gulf who chose to ally themselves with the US and allow the US to bases from which to launch war.

[ebbi]

International Law now has no value when the America-Israel alliance has been skirting said laws to commit mass atrocities in recent history.

[AuthAuth]

international law is an agreement between both parties.

[ebbi]

I think that agreement broke when the US illegally bombed Iran, including a girls' school, and killed their leader.

[AuthAuth]

I'm not making the case they should follow international law you are.

[ebbi]

I'm not, either.

[lesuorac]

> The principle of freedom of navigation establishes that innocent traffic

"freedom of navigation" seems to be from UNCLUS no? So why should a country (Iran) that didn't ratify UNCLUS care about the terms it binds it's signatories to?

[irishcoffee]

International law isn’t worth the time someone spent to write the words. It means approximately nothing. OPEC is a cartel, for example.

[watwut]

OPEC is not against international law.

[nradov]

If Iran doesn't want to observe the terms of the UNCLOS (regardless of whether they have ratified it or not) then their territorial waters claims revert to the older 3NM limit. They can't have it both ways. Of course, in practice those legalisms don't matter without a means of enforcement.

[justinator]

It's prohibited under international law to attack a sovereign nation, like the US has done to Iran, so the point of Iran closing the Strait in response to this is very much moot.

[adrr]

> Iran hasn’t ratified UNCLOS either, and claims it is not subject to it.

Which isn't unique. Bunch of countries haven't ratified it and aren't legally bound by it but do follow it in spirit. US, Turkey, UAE, Israel etc.

[anigbrowl]

Do you really think the US wouldn't abandon it in a heartbeat if it became a matter of strategic necessity?

[adrr]

Countries that haven't signed do violate it. Israel prevents ships free transit to the Gaza strip. US does naval blockades and blows up boats.

[Jensson]

Naval blockades of enemy ports during war are legal, that is what USA and Israel argue they are doing. That is not what Iran is doing, they are blocking fully neutral ships from going in other countries waterways.

[3eb7988a1663]

Are we at war with Cuba? US navy had been blockading the island from receiving fuel.

[Jensson]

If you perform acts of war then you are at war even if nobody uses that word.

[adrr]

US at war? We are past the 60 days for a military operation. From US law perspective, it’s illegal. From the constitutional perspective only congress can declare war which they haven’t.

[Jensson]

> From US law perspective, it’s illegal

But US law is not international law. Internationally you are at war, whatever you call it internally doesn't matter to me.

[potatototoo99]

And Iran is blocking a strategic chokepoint during a war of defense, pressuring their enemies due to the war being illegal and unprovoked. See how easy it is to argue?

[bpodgursky]

All straits other than the Bosporus (which has some additional rights to Turkey given the proximity to a major city) are international waters for the purposes of free transit, under the Montreux Convention.

[WorkerBee28474]

The Montreux Convention only covers the Bosporus and Dardanelles straits. Not all straits in the world.

[codedokode]

It is ridiculous that countries like Australia (a party to a convention) have a say in whether Turkey should or should not pass ships through the strait. This looks like a legacy of colonization era. This convention should be repelled, and the new agreement should be made by Russia and Turkey and other Black sea countries ignoring the interests of colonizers.

[throw9394048]

Why is US blocking hormuz straits then?

[nradov]

The US is is not blocking the Strait of Hormuz. There don't appear to be any US warships even in the Strait at the moment. What the US is doing is enforcing a partial blockade against Iran, largely in waters southeast of the Strait. We can argue about whether this is a good policy but let's not make things up.

https://www.centcom.mil/MEDIA/PRESS-RELEASES/Press-Release-V...

[potatototoo99]

The US is not blocking the strait because they'd be at the bottom of the sea if they got closer lol

[Pay08]

No, the Strait is international waters and always have been.

[jbxntuehineoh]

Wikipedia says it's been Iranian/Omani territorial waters for quite a while:

> In 1959, Iran altered the legal status of the strait by expanding its territorial sea to 12 nmi (22 km) and declaring it would recognize only transit by innocent passage through the newly expanded area. In 1972, Oman also expanded its territorial sea to 12 nmi (22 km) by decree. Thus, by 1972, the Strait of Hormuz was completely "closed" by the combined territorial waters of Iran and Oman.

[nwallin]

Wikipedia does not say that the Strait is Iranian/Omani territorial waters. Wikipedia says that Iran and Oman claim that the Strait is Iranian/Omani territorial waters.

Claiming it does not make it so.

[FireBeyond]

The Strait may well have some, but the traffic separation scheme for shipping is absolutely in Omani territorial waters, and another part of traversing the Strait includes passing through Iranian territorial waters.

[throwaway27448]

Ok, so just de facto iranian.

However, I believe Oman also collects fees. So in practice the distinction wrt shipping is moot

[Jensson]

Oman doesn't collect fees...

> Ok, so just de facto iranian.

No, the route is entirely outside of Iranian waters. They attacked ships that were in Oman waters and put mines in Oman waters and now shoot at anyone trying to removing those mines in Oman waters. Nobody, not even the Iranian government, claims that is their water.

[throwaway27448]

ok, I guess the strait is just straight iranian