U.S. Navy Commander: Iran will not be allowed to close Gulf oOil passageway

[IisJustMe]

ABU DHABI, United Arab Emirates — The U.S. Navy and its Gulf allies will not allow Iran to seal off the strategic Strait of Hormuz, the commander of U.S. naval forces in the Gulf said Wednesday.

The warning by Vice Adm. Kevin Cosgriff, commander of the 5th Fleet, came as he was holding talks with naval commanders of Gulf countries at a conference in the United Arab Emirates capital of Abu Dhabi. The one-day meeting was to focus on the region's maritime and trade routes security and the threat of terrorism.

Fox News: Iran will not be allowed to close oil route

We were tasked to keep the Strait open in 1987 when the Ayatollah wanted it closed. The Iranians had some amazing swift boats back then. Converted to submarines in 2.7 seconds. (Johnny Carson joke)

 

[DeathMagus]

ABU DHABI, United Arab Emirates — The U.S. Navy and its Gulf allies will not allow Iran to seal off the strategic Strait of Hormuz, the commander of U.S. naval forces in the Gulf said Wednesday.

Translation: Iran does not have sovereignty over its own territory, nor is it allowable for it to enforce trade embargoes against countries it doesn't like.

 

[Billnew]

Iran can not hold the world hostage.

The neighboring countrys said the same. The Strait will stay open.
Iran can talk the talk, but when it comes down to it, Iran doesn't have the navy to take on all countrys that use the Strait, and USA.
This isn't a small British boat facing Irans big Gun ships. This will be total destruction of all ships that enforce the blockade. A blockade without air superiority is a bunch of sitting ducks.

 

[DeathMagus]

Iran can not hold the world hostage.

The neighboring countrys said the same. The Strait will stay open.
Iran can talk the talk, but when it comes down to it, Iran doesn't have the navy to take on all countrys that use the Strait, and USA.
This isn't a small British boat facing Irans big Gun ships. This will be total destruction of all ships that enforce the blockade. A blockade without air superiority is a bunch of sitting ducks.

I find that this quote defends an interesting principle, to say the least. Its implications are huge. Essentially, it states:

"A country has no right to control the production, manufacture, distribution, or exportation of a product within its sphere of influence if it is determined that it is essential to survival by other nations."

I wonder what would occur if we applied such a principle unilaterally? What if Iran decided to simply refuse to continue drilling for oil? Would we invade and call it justified? What if China invaded the US, claiming that our refusal to drill in ANWR, mine shale from the Dakotas, and drill off the coastline constituted "holding the world hostage?" Would that be justified? It would also appear that this principle condemns US embargoes of other nations, since that effectively holds them hostage.

It's a very bold claim to make, certainly.

 

[Douger]

Well if there's a war, both the US and Iran are free to fight it out however they like. Whichever side has the most endurance and the best strategy is gonna end up attaining its goals.
I have a feeling that Iran won't close the straits. Iran has built up a lot of goodwill with its Arab neighbours and won't want to ruin it.

 

[Trogdor the Burninator]

Translation: Iran does not have sovereignty over its own territory, nor is it allowable for it to enforce trade embargoes against countries it doesn't like.

Iran doesn't own the straits - it is a narrow waterway which borders Iran (and other countries).

 

[ACougar]

It's a ridiculouse statement, if you want to stop trafic through the straights... all you need to do is sink a tanker passing through the straights and declare that you will sink any others that attempt it. Iran claims the islands in the straight, and therefor the sea lanes through the straights... not sure tankers can pass through the straits without entering Iranian or at least Iranian claimed waters.

As long as Iran has the ability to hit a tanker with a missile or even artillery, or even a fast boat... it can effectively block the straits.

Well if there's a war, both the US and Iran are free to fight it out however they like. Whichever side has the most endurance and the best strategy is gonna end up attaining its goals.
I have a feeling that Iran won't close the straits. Iran has built up a lot of goodwill with its Arab neighbours and won't want to ruin it.

I disagree what impact would preventing trafic through the straights for 30 days have on the the price of gas and the worlds economy? Then China or Russia negotaite a cease fire, what has Iran lost and what has the US lost? 40% of the worlds oil exports pass through those straights... 30 days of no tankers through those straights could mean oil over $500 a barrel and $15 a gallon gas. I have a hard time imagining the full impact of such a disaster.

 

[SpiritualAntiseptic]

By the logic in this topic, Spain or Morocco apparently has the right to block off the Med. Sea from the Atlantic.

No country has been legally recognized as having the right to close off such a large body of water, which connects countries to the oceans.

 

[IisJustMe]

Personally, I'd love it if Iran was stupid enough to try to close the Strait. It was stupid in 1987 and it's still stupid. Ahmedinejad doesn't really know how defenseless he is.

 

[ArnautDaniel]

Apparently by this argument every landlocked country has to right to access to the sea, and intervening countries lack sovereignty to prevent that.

Switzerland needs to exercise that right and build some Swiss ports France or Italy.

Oh, and of course that would mean Jordan should have a port somewhere on the Israeli coast.

 

[Foolish_Fool]

Everybody seems to be forgetting that Iran has said it would do this only if it were attacked. IE we openly engage in an act of war with them they would respond in kind. Cutting off the enemies supplies is a common tactic when you're at war.

So basically if you think we can just get away with bombing Iran with a few precision attacks, think again. They'll force us to open up the Strait which will lead to all out war on a third front when we barely have enough fresh boots to cover our two existing wars.

 

[SpiritualAntiseptic]

Apparently by this argument every landlocked country has to right to access to the sea, and intervening countries lack sovereignty to prevent that.

Switzerland needs to exercise that right and build some Swiss ports France or Italy.

Oh, and of course that would mean Jordan should have a port somewhere on the Israeli coast.

No, your logic doesn't follow at all. We are talking about large bodies of water between two or more countries. Iran doesn't even own the land on the other side of the strait.

 

[ArnautDaniel]

No, your logic doesn't follow at all. We are talking about large bodies of water between two or more countries. Iran doesn't even own the land on the other side of the strait.

I thought the argument went that national sovereignty didn't apply anymore when it got in the way of commerce of other nations.

 

[SpiritualAntiseptic]

I thought the argument went that national sovereignty didn't apply anymore when it got in the way of commerce of other nations.

No one is suggesting we go over Iran's borders, are they?

What Iran is doing is playing its typical game where it spouts a bunch of nonsense to drive up oil priices.

It has nothing to do with national sovereignty because they have no right to close down the strait. They do not own the strait. It is international waters and it exists between two different nations.

 

[ArnautDaniel]

No one is suggesting we go over Iran's borders, are they?

What Iran is doing is playing its typical game where it spouts a bunch of nonsense to drive up oil priices.

It has nothing to do with national sovereignty because they have no right to close down the strait. They do not own the strait. It is international waters and it exists between two different nations.

They certainly have the right to restrict access to that part of the strait that belongs to their territorial waters.

I'm suspecting that there is an issue that the ships should go down the middle of the strait rather than somewhere in one half of the strait.

Although, I recall there is some debate among nations whether territorial waters are a mere 3 miles from land, or go to 10 miles and so on. The strait appears to have a width of 21 miles so if Iran claimed the 10 on their side it would certainly cause problems.

In any case, Iran is only threatening to close the strait if attacked. Certainly a reasonable strategum.

Definitely more reasonable the Israel's threat to nuke a whole bunch of cities if attacked with nukes (regardless of who is doing the attacking).

 

[SpiritualAntiseptic]

They certainly have the right to restrict access to that part of the strait that belongs to their territorial waters.

They can only block waters which are their territory and are not internationally recognized seaways. In some instance, you may 'own' the rights to what is in the water, such as fish, oil, et cetera... but the water is also a passageway for international shipping.

 

[ACougar]

Iran claims and occupies several islands in the straights.. Abu Musa, Tunb af Kubra, Tunb as Sughra... which place the shipping lanes entirely within Iranian territorial waters. When Iran says they will shut down the straights they are saying they will exercises sovereignty over their territory and when we say they will not shut down those lanes we are telling them that we will deny them this right.

Iran: We will no longer allow trafic through out territory.
US: We will not allow you to halt traffic.


Look for Bandar-e Lengeh and then down to Abu Musa, the deep water to east is entirely within Iranian waters.

To traverse the Strait, ships pass through the territorial waters of Iran and Oman under the transit passage provisions of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea.[1] Although not all states have ratified the convention,[5] most states, including the U.S.,[6] accept these customary navigation rules as codified in the Convention.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strait_of_Hormuz

They certainly have the right to restrict access to that part of the strait that belongs to their territorial waters.

I'm suspecting that there is an issue that the ships should go down the middle of the strait rather than somewhere in one half of the strait.

Although, I recall there is some debate among nations whether territorial waters are a mere 3 miles from land, or go to 10 miles and so on. The strait appears to have a width of 21 miles so if Iran claimed the 10 on their side it would certainly cause problems.

In any case, Iran is only threatening to close the strait if attacked. Certainly a reasonable strategum.

Definitely more reasonable the Israel's threat to nuke a whole bunch of cities if attacked with nukes (regardless of who is doing the attacking).

 

[ulu]

Personally, I'd love it if Iran was stupid enough to try to close the Strait. It was stupid in 1987 and it's still stupid. Ahmedinejad doesn't really know how defenseless he is.

Why would you love this? Are you a fan of war?

 

[IisJustMe]

Iran claims and occupies several islands in the straights.. Abu Musa, Tunb af Kubra, Tunb as Sughra... which place the shipping lanes entirely within Iranian territorial waters. When Iran says they will shut down the straights they are saying they will exercises sovereignty over their territory and when we say they will not shut down those lanes we are telling them that we will deny them this right.

Iran: We will no longer allow trafic through out territory.
US: We will not allow you to halt traffic.

This was settled in 1986-87 when we kept the Strait open. The UN told Iran it would not be allowed to override international law regarding shipping lanes lying more than 12 miles/19 km offshore. The shipping lanes are aproximately 22 miles/35 km off the nearest Iranian island. Therefore, Iran already has it's precedent for being in the wrong for making this threat. Iran can claim it's territorial waters extend right up to the shores of Oman, if it wishes. Those claims are not honored, and never have been, by the international community.

 

[ACougar]

Sounds like you didn't take a good look at the map. If they simply prohibit trafic within 5 miles of Jezireh-ye Forur & Jezireh-ye Sirri, they will have blocked trafic. Those are Iranian islands that are not even contested.

Doesn't look like Iran has any reason need to override international law regarding shipping lanes lying more than 12 miles offshore.

This was settled in 1986-87 when we kept the Strait open. The UN told Iran it would not be allowed to override international law regarding shipping lanes lying more than 12 miles/19 km offshore. The shipping lanes are aproximately 22 miles/35 km off the nearest Iranian island. Therefore, Iran already has it's precedent for being in the wrong for making this threat. Iran can claim it's territorial waters extend right up to the shores of Oman, if it wishes. Those claims are not honored, and never have been, by the international community.