Gulf War No.37: Iranistan

[UglyWithaSidePart]

Iran have again closed the Strait anyway due to Israel doing Israel things.

 

[BoldonLad]

It does seem suboptimal.

But 'phew', at least for now.

View attachment 14410

"suboptimal" for who? Certainly is for Trump, Islamic Regime still in power, Iran still capable of firing back, Straits of Hormuz still under Iranian control (ie, THEY decide which ships go through), Houthis, etc still have weapons and ability to use them, Iran's Nuclear situation who knows?Additionally, Iran have shown that despite the expensive toys, knocking them (Iran) out is not a given.

Personally, I would think that "a farking expensive disaster" would be a more accurate summary. 😂

 

[BoldonLad]

If Iran does get $2m per tanker of oil, maybe I'm a bit perverse in seeing that is a 'reasonable' cost, given the relatively low per-gallon cost and its effect of helping rebuild all the stuff the US has destroyed. Also, it's a continuing incentive both for Iran to facilitate transit and as an incentive for renewables.

The US destroyed it, why should WE (or anyone else, except the US, and Israel) pay to fix it?

 

[spen666]

The US destroyed it, why should WE (or anyone else, except the US, and Israel) pay to fix it?

Why should Iran be getting anything for ships travelling in International waters?
it has as much right to any payment for each ship as I do OR cHINA, rUSSIA, nORTH kOREA ETC DOES

Its basically demanding money with menaces

 

[C R]

Why should Iran be getting anything for ships travelling in International waters?
it has as much right to any payment for each ship as I do OR cHINA, rUSSIA, nORTH kOREA ETC DOES

Its basically demanding money with menaces

The straight is too narrow to be international waters. There are two shipping lanes, one in and one out of the Persian Gulf. One of the lanes is in Omani territorial waters, the other in Iranian territorial waters. Traffic has always depended on the good will of both Oman and Iran. It's been reported that there's an agreement between Iran and Oman to share the revenue from "managing" the traffic through the straight.

 

[Rusty Nails]

The straight is too narrow to be international waters. There are two shipping lanes, one in and one out of the Persian Gulf. One of the lanes is in Omani territorial waters, the other in Iranian territorial waters. Traffic has always depended on the good will of both Oman and Iran. It's been reported that there's an agreement between Iran and Oman to share the revenue from "managing" the traffic through the straight.

You and your pernickety nature wrt legalities.

 

[spen666]

The straight is too narrow to be international waters. There are two shipping lanes, one in and one out of the Persian Gulf. One of the lanes is in Omani territorial waters, the other in Iranian territorial waters. Traffic has always depended on the good will of both Oman and Iran. It's been reported that there's an agreement between Iran and Oman to share the revenue from "managing" the traffic through the straight.

You may want to read Article 37 of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS)

 

[icowden]

You may want to read Article 37 of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS)

It's a nice piece of paper. Pretty useless though if Oman and Iran disagree with it (which they do). Iran and Oman didn't ratify UNCLOS until 1982 and 1989 respectively. Since 1959 Oman and Iran have claimed territorial rights to their 12 nautical miles. In 1993 Iran passed legislation which conflicts with UNCLOS, so it's really not worth that nice piece of paper it's printed on.

 

[Rusty Nails]

If only there was a way of getting countries to stop breaking international laws and conventions banning the destruction of civilian infrastructure, such as those of the UN, the Geneva Convention and the ICC.

 

[spen666]

It's a nice piece of paper. Pretty useless though if Oman and Iran disagree with it (which they do). Iran and Oman didn't ratify UNCLOS until 1982 and 1989 respectively. Since 1959 Oman and Iran have claimed territorial rights to their 12 nautical miles. In 1993 Iran passed legislation which conflicts with UNCLOS, so it's really not worth that nice piece of paper it's printed on.

So what you are saying is if a country chooses to say it doesn't like international law, it's not bound by it.... interesting. So Israel and UN are not committing war crimes then....


Interesting

 

[Rusty Nails]

So what you are saying is if a country chooses to say it doesn't like international law, it's not bound by it.... interesting. So Israel and US are not committing war crimes then....


Interesting

This whole US/Israel/Iran shitshow shows that international conventions mean nothing if you are powerful enough and lack any respect for them.

 

[Pblakeney]

So what you are saying is if a country chooses to say it doesn't like international law, it's not bound by it.... interesting. So Israel and UN are not committing war crimes then....


Interesting

Well, Donnie got that ball rolling a while ago.

 

[Beebo]

It's a nice piece of paper. Pretty useless though if Oman and Iran disagree with it (which they do). Iran and Oman didn't ratify UNCLOS until 1982 and 1989 respectively. Since 1959 Oman and Iran have claimed territorial rights to their 12 nautical miles. In 1993 Iran passed legislation which conflicts with UNCLOS, so it's really not worth that nice piece of paper it's printed on.

Don’t give Farage ideas about the Channel. We could start charging vessels for access through the Straits of Dover.

 

[dutchguylivingintheuk]

This whole US/Israel/Iran shitshow shows that international conventions mean nothing if you are powerful enough and lack any respect for them.

Nothing new, but think it's more like if one ignores the laws and gets away with this other wil follow, Iran ignored it since 1993 now they found out what happens if other ignore them too. Couldn't have happened to an nicer country

 

[Psamathe]

It's a nice piece of paper. Pretty useless though if Oman and Iran disagree with it (which they do). Iran and Oman didn't ratify UNCLOS until 1982 and 1989 respectively. Since 1959 Oman and Iran have claimed territorial rights to their 12 nautical miles. In 1993 Iran passed legislation which conflicts with UNCLOS, so it's really not worth that nice piece of paper it's printed on.

So what you are saying is if a country chooses to say it doesn't like international law, it's not bound by it.... interesting. So Israel and UN are not committing war crimes then....

Even under that convention Iran can still make charges only not charges for passage eg being in Iranian territorial waters under the convention it can impose safety inspections to issue eg a "Safety Certificate" at which point it can legally charge for "services" the service being the inspection and issuing of the certificate.