It was incredibly stupid to start this war, but we're now fairly well stuck.
That's perfectly fine. Let freedom of navigation end. The United States uses its natural resources to wreak havoc on the world, why shouldn't countries gifted with Geography not push their advantage? Particularly when there is no world order and US bombs anyone it wishes whenever it wants? Why should Iran play nice when all it got in return is US aggression? Why should any State adhere to international law when the law is only applied when it's beneficial to the world powers?
Highly recommend if you like tech AND want some WW II forward context on Iran.
Edit: Countdown to Zero Day is the name of the book.
This war has shown everyone that it is just too easy to keep a major navigation route closed with drones and mines.
Interesting, you think it was the US Navy who shot at the container ship?
It seems many countries around the straits are now thinking "Hmm, we can charge ships to pass through...".
I don't think that would have happened without Trump.
Edit: Seeing a lot of whataboutism in the replies https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whataboutism . Whataboutism is the classic strategy that Soviet propagandists used to distract and avoid accountability. It doesn't answer or invalidate the point at hand.
Bot / propaganda account.
Do not engage.
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2026_United_States_naval_block... ("Ships sunk by the United States")
UKMTO uses deliberately neutral language, but OSINT analysts have reverse-engineered who has actually did the strike based on the phrasing. They use the same phrasing every time, and it's simple to match the wording with verified incidents.
"struck by an unknown/unidentified projectile" -> involved in an Iranian missile/drone attack
"an incident involving a tanker and military forces" or "subject to interaction as part of ongoing military activity" -> US military strike or blockade action
That was the case for the majority of the post-WW2 order, but is no longer. We're witnessing the birth of a new world order. Likely the new order will have an international law of a sort because it's good for trade, but it won't necessarily be the same as it was.
Underneath it all, only power decides.
Those crew members did that? The ship owners? No wonder the Iranians are attacking them /s
In any case, neutral ships are expected to comply with the blockade. Typically by staying out of the region or by approaching visibly and subjecting themselves to inspection. If they don't stop voluntarily and resist capture, they can be attacked.
What I mean is that this situation was very predictable and very avoidable by just not going all in in an air campaign with an open ended objective.
This kind of a 2nd order whataobutism: "What about when the Soviets engaged in whataboutism? Do we want to be like them?"
> It doesn't answer or invalidate the point at hand.
If the point is that they're committing war crimes, you're not wrong.
If the point is to hyperfocus on one thing and ignore the wider picture and context, you're also not wrong.
The US is a major party in this conflict, and it's totally fair game to point out their sins. Pointing out Iranian war crimes doesn't preclude talking about other issues in this war.
The US is accused of committing war crimes in the past for much smaller reasons than the Iranians have. If a country attacked the Pentagon, White House, and Congress, and killed the president, much of his cabinet, and many members of Congress, and is continuing to face such attacks, I assure you they will commit war crimes, and their citizens will be fully in support.
Most head of states of countries that are not military dictatorship are civilian, i.e. they are not military, but if they rule over the military (such as the American president who is commander in chief of the military) does that count as being treated as a civilian for the purposes of wartime policy?
A similar role was played by Khamenei who was commander in chief of the Iranian armed forces.
Netanyahu is also a civilian and nevertheless the ICC issued an arrest warrant for his responsibilities for the behaviour of the IDF in the war in Gaza.
The formal definition used by the ICC is "civilian superior".
Do you think people really assume that anyone of them USA, Iran, Iraq are 'normal' or 'nice' about all of this?
Nonetheless to address what you mentioned regarding the geneva convention: I never got it. There is no good or bad war. It doesn't matter in a war if some solders are raping or killing others or if these solders are getting killed or what type of weapons they use etc. A war is a war and it costs life because of a handful of people in a leadership position.
There is not a single solder who fights just for fun. They might be uneducated and got indoctrinated to fight for the vatercountry. They might need money whatever.
Everyone looses in a war.
And no it was not okay that USA takes the leader of another country just because (see venezuela) just because it went 'well' and 'fast' doesn't make it okay.
Was there any real conflict between countries which got solved properly through diplomacy only ever?
/s if it weren't obvious. Yes Iran is horrible, yes this is whataboutery, but they should be held to the same standard.
[0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_strikes_on_alleg...
You may call this whataboutism, but to be frank, it is not really. Iran is not targeting merchant ships in a vacuum, it is a direct response to actions done against it by the US-Israel axis.
> But when Iran does the same MAGAs suddenly remember that international law exists.
I looked again and the article doesn't quote any MAGAs. I doubt US will go and complain to UN about it? It will probably just shrug, let Singapore defends its ships and sailors.
You find, in fairly short order, that you come up against the raw realities of power.
And all 3 of these Perps have power they can exert that no one is really wanting to test right now.
Not optimal, just kind of how it is at the moment.
That was their choice.
At the beginning of the war, USA has boasted about sinking a large number of Iranian ships, including unarmed ships with a much bigger crew (e.g. 104 crew members were killed when the unarmed frigate Dena was torpedoed without warning near Sri Lanka while returning from India; USA not only did not attempt to rescue the survivors, but later it even attempted to prevent the repatriation of the dead bodies).
There is no doubt that Iran has sunk far less ships than USA in this war and with many times less human casualties.
After USA earlier this year, both in the Iran war and in the naval blockade of Cuba, has amply demonstrated that they do not care about any international laws or treaties, no American has the right to criticize Iran or any other country for illegal actions, because they do exactly what USA taught them to do.
When you do something bad and someone imitates you, you cannot condemn that action and claim that it is whataboutism when someone else reminds you that you did and continue to do the same.
With its Iran war, USA has not attacked only Iran, but it has attacked the majority of the countries of the World, where this has forced price increases in a large number of products, stealing money from the pockets of billions of citizens, which was a very predictable and obvious consequence of the US actions.
Article title is typical manipulation. "Something happened" as "something else also is happening". :) Very common technique. News website skimmers will conflate the two. Nobody who read the title will go back after 1-3 months to ask what was learned since about what happened, and that will be it.
News websites commonly use this for pumping up xenophobia against immigrants, too, where I live.
"To initiate a war of aggression, therefore, is not only an international crime; it is the supreme international crime differing only from other war crimes in that it contains within itself the accumulated evil of the whole."
There can be an innocent civilian and a civilian held responsible for ear crimes, when such civilian acts as civilian superior of the military
Words are complicated and interesting because of that.
You can push an advantage, but the whole "no world order" issue will result in severe repercussions if you start to mess with the wrong people. This is not unique to America.
> US bombs anyone it wishes whenever it wants?
Oh please.
> Why should Iran play nice when all it got in return is US aggression?
Iran playing nice? Are you serious? You know that it's possible to criticize America while not backing a government that has killed at least 40K of its own citizens _this year_. Acting like Iran and its government are somehow passive in global conflicts is insane.
I mean, between bombing fishermen, Iran during negotiations (twice), kidnapping president, threatening Greenland, supporting far right worldwide, supporting Putin, supporting genocide in Gaza a lot more then any other country, supporting far right where possible ...
The fact is, Iran was not attacking Hormuz. Iran was abiding international agreeemets which USA broken. Iran is not nice country, but they had policy of strategic restraint and did not even responded to first negotiation bombing.
The biggest threat to global stability right now is USA. Because the country is violent, crazy and still have a lot of power.
But if you want an answer to the same question but posed with legitimate curiosity, the answer is Oman is OK with this arrangement :)
The strait of Hormuz has multiple pathways going through Iranian and Omani waters. Iran is "free" to charge a toll, assuming they are okay throwing out centuries of international law relating to freedom of the seas.
Considering vessels can just transit through Omani waters, what good would charging a fee do? Everyone would just sail on the western and southern side of the strait and traverse freely.
So for the Iranian fees to ever be collected, either Oman would need to charge similar fees (so there is no way around a fee), or Iran would have to attack vessels in Omani territory.
For the record, Oman signed the No Fees/No Tolls pledge with the rest of the EU literally two days ago.
https://www.eeas.europa.eu/eeas/pledge-maintaining-integrity...
Ultimately, when international law devolves into “might is right”, expect your adversaries to apply the concept as well. Iran has always been the de facto operator of the strait (by fact of being the strongest regional power bordering the strait), and this will remain going forward. Nitpicking how and why Iran is doing this is not going to change the reality on the ground. It is better to spend energy on preventing wars of aggression of this nature from reoccurring :)
So long story short, is it legal for Iran to restrict access to the strait via Omani waters? Nope. Is there a realistic way to prevent it from doing this by force? Also no. Did Iran wake up and decide to arbitrarily take over control of the strait? Absolutely not. Would Iran be willing to revert to pre-war state if their demands are met? Perhaps. Welcome to realpolitik :)
Oh and as far as restricting access via Iranian waters, Iran is mostly adhering to IL because it hasn’t ratified UNCLOS.
> For the record, Oman signed the No Fees/No Tolls pledge with the rest of the EU literally two days ago.
Thanks for the link, but is this pledge binding in any way, or is it just a symbolic gesture? Because my impression so far has been that Oman is willing to play ball.
Did they sign an agreement to adhere to this "law"? And if they did, what were the cited consequences of breaking it?