[einpoklum]

So, Trump claimed the closure and the attack "was a “foolish violation” of the ceasefire". However - that is not the case. The first and foremost item of the Iran-US MOU is the following:

1 — The United States of America and the Islamic Republic of Iran and their allies in the current war are signing this MOU to declare the immediate and permanent termination of military operations on all fronts, including in Lebanon, and undertake from now on not to initiate any war or any military operation against each other, and to refrain from the threat or use of force against each other, and ensuring the territorial integrity and sovereignty of Lebanon.

But Israel has continued to attack intensively in Lebanon, killing dozens (if not over 100 since the MOU was signed, not sure), and continues to have a sizeable invasion force in Lebanese territory. Lebanon was explicitly and specifically mentioned to stress its significance - it is the country suffering the most right now, with hundreds of thousands of internally displaced due to threats from the Israeli forces against the civilian population of the south.

With that being the case since day 1, the MOU cannot be said to have even gone into effect. Certainly, the closure of the straights should be seen in this light, rather than a violation.

[nradov]

Iran never had the right to close the strait or attack neutral merchant ships exercising their right of innocent passage in the first place, regardless of anything that Israel or Lebanon does. The MOU doesn't change that.

[gizzlon]

The US and Israel never had the right to attack Iran in the first place

[nradov]

That's a non sequitur. What's your point?

[fc417fc802]

It's not at all. Who is dictating who has what rights? Each side took action against the other's interests. Each claims the other is in the wrong.

Claiming that a country can't exercise military control over its territorial waters seems like a legal or political fiction to me. Granted they share part of the waterway with their neighbors but expecting a country at war to honor such things also seems like wild fantasy to me. They've been bombing those same neighbors.

[nradov]

You appear to be confused about maritime law. Iran hasn't ratified the UNCLOS or agreed to follow its terms so their territorial waters extend only 3 NM from their shores. Iran has been attacking neutral vessels well outside that limit.

Of course in the real world law takes a back seat to force.

[fc417fc802]

Was the swipe suggesting that I'm confused (I'm not) really necessary?

> their territorial waters extend only 3 NM from their shores

Do you suppose their current government would agree with that statement? Personally I rather doubt they would.

But even if they did, as you say law often takes a back seat to force in these matters meaning that they could just as well say "yeah you're right but we're at war so get bent".

[einpoklum]

That is likely indeed the case (although it's more complicated, because even the "closure" has had the exception in the form of transit in coordination with Iran etc.) - but how does that have any bearing on what I wrote?

[thisislife2]

The terms of the recent US-Lebanon-Israel agreement guarantees a future civil war in Lebanon that will further destabilise it for the benefit of Israel. Apparently, Israel has to vacate the Lebanese territories it recently captured and occupies only when the Lebanese army manages to fully "disarm" and "demilitarise" Hezbollah (with some support from the Israel military).

[einpoklum]

That is quite true. Or rather - it's true unless the recently-signed agreement will remain as words on paper (which may well be the case). It should also be mentioned that the Lebanese army did not lift a finger to try to keep Israel from invading (more parts of) Lebanon this year, and over the past several years. It is as though that is not a concern to them.

[drnick1]

> But Israel has continued to attack intensively in Lebanon

Israel is not part of the deal, wasn't directly involved in discussions, and did not sign anything.

[einpoklum]

Israel and the USA attacked Iran jointly; and the obligation for ensuring Israel ceases fire was undertaken by the US. If the US were to adopt your position, then there never was any cease fire, because the basic tenant of the MOU is everyone ceasing fire, including Israel.

[microgpt]

Good for them. However, the USA signed a deal with Iran that is only valid if Israel stops attacking Lebanon, otherwise the USA is in violation of that deal. It's the USA's problem how to enforce this.

The USA controls Israel's purse strings btw and if it just stopped sending it money the war would be over in a few months - and there probably wouldn't be an Israel any more, so Netanyahu would do well to prevent the USA from choosing this option, by following any terms imposed by the USA, like to stop attacking Lebanon.

[timmg]

As I understand it, this has nothing to do with Lebanon.

It has to do with ships moving through the Oman side of the strait. Iran is unhappy with that, because the want to control all the movement through it.

[microgpt]

what are you talking about? Iran destroys errant ships on both sides of the strait. Otherwise the strait would've been "open" this whole time.

[thisislife2]

@timming is right. This particular incident was triggered because Oman announced a parallel route in Strait, and some ships were lead to believe that you don't need to talk / coordinate with Iran to use this new route. See this thread for more details - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48692620

[dgellow]

At this point you can take any Trump claim as a lie until proven otherwise, it’s by far the best heuristic