It’s kicking off in Dubai again FlightRadar24

[FUDJTFOTTFEOF]

I’m watching an Emirates flight from Seattle circling around trying to land. Sky News are reporting that the sirens have gone off.

F bloody Trump.

I was wondering if the AI they used was as accurate as Google AI that says the mothballed Chatter is Tesco building is still unused when it opened as Jack's in 2018 and changed to Tesco in 2020. Definitely there I was in it last night. Half the building is B&M and Screwfix as well.
I have a personal grudge against Google AI because it kept changing the opening hours of the bank I worked for to ridiculous like open 6pm to 8am or 24/7 (teeny branch in small town). My last job there was going into 443 individual branch Google accounts and switching off AI updates because it couldn't get done using our usual update software.

I see. I get your point, and agree.

This was in the news recently, might be of interest.

Hundreds of Google workers urge CEO to refuse classified AI work with Pentagon - CBS News

And Trump declaring the ceasefire is still intact

This then is the same sort of ceasefires that Israel has. Where they can keep breaking the ceasefire but it’s OK because
we say it’s in tact
honestly you couldn’t make up this madness

Yeah I don't understand still shooting yet it's a ceasefire! This feels like it's being made up as they go along.

And did they actually publish the terms of the ceasefire ?

I am honestly confused, because there was 14 point plans, 15 point plans, now a one page plan. I know they were peace plans, but I don't recall seeing an actual ceasefire agreement published. Or has it just been lost in the fog ?

I think lost in the fog and can’t recall either but wiki has this

Key Ceasefire Terms and Context (2026)
US–Iran Conflict (April 2026):
Immediate Halt: A pause in direct hostilities between the US/Israel and Iran.
Strait of Hormuz: Requirements for Iran to reopen the Strait of Hormuz to restore oil flow.
Negotiations: A 15–20 day negotiation period for a permanent settlement.
Nuclear/Missile Demands: The US has demanded an end to Iranian nuclear enrichment and a halt to its ballistic missile program.
Iranian Counter-Terms: Iran has proposed a 10-point plan including the lifting of all sanctions, US military withdrawal from the Middle East, and unfreezing assets.

there has been talk since of course

and then the US blocked the SOH
so 🤷‍♀️

Some more Truth Social posts from 'The Donald':

Don't know whether the graph of length of war days is something he's aspiring to top, or what. Who knows!

A whataboutism from Trump. No surprise there then.

I also notice he missed out the longest war the US had. The Indian wars. Well over 100 years, no matter how it is measured. Wait... did I just do a whataboutism ? Nah, I am going to call it a correction to his data.

‘Decapitated Navy’
‘Incinerated whilst in the air’
dropped beautifully down to the ocean like a butterfly to its grave’
‘led by LUNATICS’

then he goes on blah blah ‘sign the deal’ with more threats

This post is a sign he’s not getting what he wants but wants to appear to be winning

This on the CNN feed just now :

"US Secretary of State Marco Rubio said the US military action against Iran yesterday was “separate and distinct from Operation Epic Fury,” and that the United States would continue to respond “defensively.”
Operation Epic Fury, which Rubio said earlier this week is over, “was an offensive operation designed to destroy their missile launches, the navy, their air force,” he said in Rome today.
“What you saw yesterday was US destroyers moving through international waters being fired upon by the Iranians, and the US responded defensively to protect itself,” he said.
“Only stupid countries don’t shoot back when you’re shot at. And we’re not a stupid country,” the top US diplomat said at a press gaggle.
Asked if the US has conveyed any red lines to Iran, Rubio replied, “the red line is clear: if they threaten Americans, they’re going to get blown up.”"

I bolded 2 parts above. The first for obvious reasons. Because that is just a plain daft thing to say. I think so anyway.

The 2nd bolded part is important. Because if he is talking about the SoH it is just not true. In fact, it is not true for the entire gulf area. I don't have a EEZ map, but I reckon the closest international water will be out in the Arabian sea.

"International waters are defined as areas of the sea that are not included within the territorial sea or the exclusive economic zone (EEZ) of any country. According to UNCLOS, which is the cornerstone of maritime law, the territorial sea extends up to 12 nautical miles from a nation’s baseline, while the EEZ stretches up to 200 nautical miles. Beyond these boundaries, the high seas begin, free from the sovereignty of any state."

Source for the Intl waters quote:

Where Are International Waters? | Seaplify

Guessing most MAGA followers don’t get past what they say and do the research like you Redtag

Not research. Just something I know from something else I follow. I just had to find a link to quote from.

There is also this from Rubio, in that same clip I posted.

“Only stupid countries don’t shoot back when you’re shot at. And we’re not a stupid country,”

Followed by :

Asked if the US has conveyed any red lines to Iran, Rubio replied, “the red line is clear: if they threaten Americans, they’re going to get blown up.”"

So they are stupid if they don't fire back. America is not stupid, so they fire back, and if they just threaten back, they will get blown up.

To me it shows Rubio is speaking from some sort of superiority position. Because what he is saying here certainly does not appear to apply to the other side. Not the way he says it anyway.

And this is the USAs top diplomat saying this. Just after meeting The Pope.

Marco Rubio needing to be swift on his feet I see, inventing a whole new 'Not Epic Fury' operation! I thought that was 'AI waters' for a moment rather than International waters. 😅They might as well be, eh?

Indeed. This stuff with what international waters are baffles me. Rubio is a clever guy. He is the top diplomat. He has a whole department of advisors. But he still gets it wrong.

To me there is only one conclusion. That he came out from meeting the Pope, and he said something he knew not to be true.

Found an EEZ mapper

https://www.marineregions.org/eezmapper.php

Am not entirely sure what I am looking at here, might need to play around with the settings.

Hmm I can see the narrow blue 'Internal waters' areas, which are where Iran have been directing ships wanting to pass through, right near Bandar Abbas. Then if I zoom out you can see the dark blue 'High Seas' which are international waters.

Excellent thanks. That works for me. The map is real slow though. But it works :-)

Where I am these things are usually blocked. Because the guv has loads of.. ahem.. disputes. Stuff like this will not show up on search. Most maps are blocked.

Here is UNCLOS:

UNCLOS+ANNEXES+RES.+AGREEMENT

Glad you can use it! Thanks for the linked document. 🙂

@GentleSheep

That is an excellent resource map you found and posted. Thank you very much.

Screen shot attached.

Sea lanes are not shown. Because per UNCLOS that is something the territorial state are allowed to set up. It's up to the owner of the water where ships are directed, for safety and general management.

Dark green is territorial. No different than if it was land. Pale green is contiguous sea. Almost the same as territorial, but overflight by planes is allowed.

The red blob is contested. The South Pars gas field.

Solid black lines are the national boundaries that are agreed and set. There sure is a lot of contested boundaries. I also like how it shows the low water shore baselines. You can see how Iran cheats by doing straight lines between headlands. The PRC do the same.

It even shows the territorial and contiguous waters around Islands.

And yup. There is no international water anywhere.

UNCLOS is a fascinating treaty. To me anyway.

It's supposed to be the most successful international treaty of all time. Many parts of it are wide open to different interpretations, and many disputes are near impossible to resolve.

But it is because of the flaws that it is so successful. It is a masterclass really of compromise, that near every nation on earth were happy to sign and ratify.

It just so happens that the USA and Iran are 2 of the nations did not ratify it.

@GentleSheep

Browsing through UNCLOS, and see this bit re fees.

"Article 26 Charges which may be levied upon foreign ships 1. No charge may be levied upon foreign ships by reason only of their passage through the territorial sea. 2. Charges may be levied upon a foreign ship passing through the territorial sea as payment only for specific services rendered to the ship. These charges shall be levied without discrimination. "

So its clear that no charges should be made ideally.. But there is a compromise. A fee can be charged for services. We can assume that is normally for pilotage. But see how open it is. The state could, for example insist on a specific pollution insurance. They could really make up any fee they want.

And as I wrote the above, I wondered about the Bosphorus. Do Turkey charge ? And it turns out yes, they do.

Turkey raises the fee for the passage of ships through the Bosphorus and Dardanelles (gmk.center)

"Starting July 1, 2025, Turkey is bumping up the fee for ships going through the Bosphorus and Dardanelles straits by 15% to $5.83 per net ton. This was announced by the country’s Minister of Transport and Infrastructure, Abdulkadir Uraloglu, according to a statement from the ministry."

There is precedent for charging. And freedom of navigation does apply to the Bosphorus. But there does appear to be an earlier treaty. The Montreux Convention of 1936. But UNCLOS should have superseded that. Needs investigation.

I am just a layperson. But Rubio has expert advisors to tell him.

Yes, he'd need maritime lawyers or whoever it is with expertise in the area.

And then we have this, an oil slick possibly? Or perhaps the Iranians are now releasing excess oil directly into the SoH so they don't have to cap the wells (which would mean permanent shutdown).

https://www.reuters.com/world/middle-east/suspected-oil-spill-seen-satellite-images-near-irans-kharg-island-export-hub-2026-05-08/

Hit post too soon, wanted to include this image too:

Article 19
Is interesting

’the meaning of innocent passage’

its all quite clear that the US is in violation

Yes. I have mentioned this a few times on these threads, that for freedom of navigation to apply in territorial waters, ships need to be stood down and going somewhere. It is an act of war to send a warship through with guns blazing. UNCLOS does not apply to that. That goes onto the UN war rules.

We see that with Russian spy and warships ships in UK waters. We watch them and shadow them. And is they stop, as they appear to do over fibre optic data cables, then they are often challenged. " Move along now Please". sort of thing.

There was a case last year of PRC carriers doing combat exercises in Japanese waters. Japan complained. And the PRC said it launched planes because they were making innocent passage and Japanese planes "violated their airspace". That is BS because carriers do not get "airspace" in another countries waters. They are supposed to exercise in the high seas.

Here is art 19 for folk who don't like links.

"Meaning of innocent passage 1. Passage is innocent so long as it is not prejudicial to the peace, good order or security of the coastal State. Such passage shall take place in conformity with this Convention and with other rules of international law. 2. Passage of a foreign ship shall be considered to be prejudicial to the peace, good order or security of the coastal State if in the territorial sea it engages in any of the following activities: (a) any threat or use of force against the sovereignty, territorial integrity or political independence of the coastal State, or in any other manner in violation of the principles of international law embodied in the Charter of the United Nations; (b) any exercise or practice with weapons of any kind; (c) any act aimed at collecting information to the prejudice of the defence or security of the coastal State; (d) any act of propaganda aimed at affecting the defence or security of the coastal State; (e) the launching, landing or taking on board of any aircraft; (f) the launching, landing or taking on board of any military device; (g) the loading or unloading of any commodity, currency or person contrary to the customs, fiscal, immigration or sanitary laws and regulations of the coastal State; (h) any act of wilful and serious pollution contrary to this Convention; (i) any fishing activities; (j) the carrying out of research or survey activities; (k) any act aimed at interfering with any systems of communication or any other facilities or installations of the coastal State; (l) any other activity not having a direct bearing on passage"